Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Two-Page Spread in Monday, 10 Aug 2009, Washington Times National Weekly Edition - Obama Born a British Subject and is Still a British Citizen

Two-Page Spread in Monday, 10 Aug 2009, pg 8 & 9
Washington Times National Weekly Edition
Obama Born a British Subject and is Still a British Citizen

Essay by: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.


For more about what Obama wants to hide about citizenship laws and his citizenship issues see:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/citizen-at-birth-cab-does-not-equal.html

####

61 comments:

jayjay said...

Let's hope the target audience can read!!!

Joseph from Maine said...

Any news on the case? You guys are the last hope, sadly.

sjc said...

Waiting on a Judge is worse than waiting on a jury. With a Jury there are 12 minds to reconcile.

The issue could not be any clearer-If doubt exists Obama must clarify.
By doing so in this one case, all others that question such would be moot.

Does the Judge need to witness blood in the streets before he will ask such of Obama?

PatriotX said...

Any word from the Court?

Puzo1 said...

To All our Friends and Supporters,

There still is no word from the Court.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

James said...

Mario,

Is there anyway to expadite court action or further stress the merits of your case? I know you told me before you can't submit anymore motions but may there is way to have the court move more quickly.

Of course, you have make sure not to piss the court off with further harping but instead simply reinterate the importance and the merits of your case.

roderick said...

According to the liberal mainstream media tonight on fox they are reporting "obama approval rating continues to drop it has dropped to 47%". This is good news one and all for it will be a great deal easier to make him answer for his crime of not upholding the oath of office that he took on Jan. 20 after being voted out in the upcoming 2012 election. His plans to become a dictator of our country are up in smoke and the mob is coming. You'll have a good nights sleep and I will return with more comforting news shortly.

jayjay said...

James et al"

Sadly there really is no way to "speed up" the court.

It's sort of like trying to put a huge iceberg into your ice tea glass.

In fact they may not even meet the Monday date the court themselves established. Let's assume that the judge is truly not biased and is trying to do his job ... can you imagine the pressure he is under?? That's why he makes to big bux of course.

We'll have to wait and see. Shouldn't be much longer. In the meantime, you might go back and re-read DOC 3 and DOC 34, 37, and 38 so you can get some idea of what the judge has to look at.

Let us move forward said...

Mario: Although the strongest argument concerning Mr. Obama's ineligibility is the British citizenship of his claimed father, you may be interested in jbjd's discovery of interesting omissions in the defense's motion to dismiss in Hollister v. Soetoro.

The defense requests that the court take judicial notice of online postings of the newspaper announcements of Mr Obama's birth and the online posted COLB but nothing else, like a hard copy of a COLB, birth certificate or Nancy's Pelosi's certification of him.

http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/rumors-lies-and-unsubstantiated-facts/

Here is jbjd's latest from Leo's blog:

jbjd Says:
August 13, 2009 at 11:08 pm

I just updated my previous post, “RUMORS, LIES, AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ‘FACTS’” with this note:

UPDATE 08.14.09: Based on his submission of this footnote to the federal court in January, I am surmising that the strongest evidence BO could have provided to NP to verify his Constitutional status before she Certified his eligibility for POTUS on August 27; was this same APFC characterization of authenticity. BUT THE STRONGEST EVIDENCE HE HAD TO PROVE TO THE COURT HE WAS A NBC; WAS THAT CERTIFICATION OF NOMINATION NP SIGNED AND FORWARDED TO STATE ELECTIONS OFFICIALS SO THAT HIS NAME COULD BE PRINTED ON THE STATE GENERAL ELECTION BALLOTS! This begs the question: why did lawyers from PERKINS COIE ask the court to take judicial notice their client was for real by referencing a web site run by the organization APFC, given that they could have cited his authentication as a natural born citizen in any one of the 50 Official DNC Certifications of Nomination sworn to by the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives?

http://jbjd.wordpress.com

[Ed.[Leo] I think the original point is more powerful in that they are pointing to an unsubstantiated newspaper article as Judicial Notice to support their position when they could just as easily have asked the court to take Judicial Notice of the real long form BC if they had it - even more interesting is that they didn't submit the short form BC and request Judicial Notice be taken. Now that there is interesting.]

roderick said...

Let me see how simple this is. I'm going to go join the democratic party and maybe even run for political office under the democratic party. That way I can hobnob with the phonies and do it at the taxpayers expense. And then when you want answers I am going to thimb my nose at you because I know what is best for you and the country.

jayjay said...

roderick:

By George, I think you've got it!!!

jayjay said...

cajapie:

You're making much too selective reading of the pleading.

It also, just prior to the part you reference, included the statement referring to Obama:

“… produce his true and complete “original” birth certificate. So long as this form proves the Barack Hussein Obama’s status as a “natural born” citizen …”

... this is also part of the stipulation and clearly that will never happen - that's what the primary issue in most of the legal actions whether he was born in HI or elsewhere.

Who are the other 6 African descendants in the presendency that you refer to??

Jackie Smith said...

They sure are taking a long time to come up with a reason to dismiss your case....what a bunch of cowards they are!!!!

Nickname unavailable said...

Not according to Perkins v. Elg and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. This is just wrong information.

Puzo1 said...

Nickname Unavailable,

Elg on dual allegiance:

"First. On her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27; Fourteenth Amendment, § 1; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649. In a comprehensive review of the principles and authorities governing the decision in that case -- that a child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States -- the Court adverted to the "inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship." United States v. Wong Kim Ark, supra, p. 169 U. S. 668. As municipal law determines how citizenship may be acquired, it follows that persons may have a dual nationality. [Footnote 1]"

****

Instructions of November 24, 1923, by the Department of State to the American Diplomatic and Consular Officers dealt with the questions arising under the citizenship act of March 2, 1907, and cases of dual nationality. Commenting on dual nationality, the instructions said:

"The term 'dual nationality' needs exact appreciation. It refers to the fact that two States make equal claim to the allegiance of an individual at the same time. Thus, one State may claim his allegiance because of his birth within its territory, and the other because, at the time of his birth in foreign territory, his parents were its nationals. The laws of the United States purport to clothe persons with American citizenship by virtue of both principles."

And, after referring to the Fourteenth Amendment and the Act of February 10, 1855, R.S. § 1993, the instructions continued:

"It thus becomes important to note how far these differing claims of American nationality are fairly operative with respect to persons living abroad, whether they were born abroad or were born in the United States of alien parents and taken during minority to reside in the territory of States to which the parents owed allegiance. It is logical that, while the child remains or resides in territory of the foreign State claiming him as a national, the United States should respect its claim to allegiance. The important point to observe is that the doctrine of dual allegiance ceases, in American contemplation, to be fully applicable after the child has reached adult years. Thereafter, two States may in fact claim him as a national. Those claims are not, however, regarded as of equal merit, because one of the States may then justly assert that his relationship to itself as a national is, by reason of circumstances that have arisen, inconsistent with, and reasonably superior to, any claim of allegiance asserted by any other State. Ordinarily the State in which the individual retains his residence after attaining his majority has the superior claim. The statutory law of the United States affords some guidance, but not all that could be desired, because it fails to announce the circumstances when the child who resides abroad within the territory of a State reasonably claiming his allegiance forfeits completely the right to perfect his inchoate right to retain American citizenship. The department must therefore be reluctant to declare that particular conduct on the part of a person after reaching adult years in foreign territory produces a forfeiture or something equivalent to expatriation."

An Article II "natural born Citizen" simply does not have all these dual allegiance and election problems.

Elg was born a "natural born Citizen." Her dual allegiance problems arose AFTER she was born by her naturalized parents going back to Sweden and resuming their Swedish citizenship there.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Puzo1 said...

To Nickname unavailable,

Wong Kim Ark does not make an Article II "natural born Citizen." The Court had to simply decide whether Wong was a "citizen" under the 14th Amendment and not an Article II "natural born Citizen." Wong was not running for President and the Court would not have had to concern itself with the latter. The decision also did not address the dual nationality problem.

You have not shown how you contend that Elg and Wong Kim Ark prove that I am wrong.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

jayjay said...

While awaiting the next court action, I'd sure everyone who can to contribute whatever they can to the "www.protectourliberty.org" site for the advertorials.

They ARE attracting notice and having an impact. No bailout funds, please!!!

cfkerchner said...

Thanks for the mention and reminder JayJay about the need for continued funding for the advertorials. I think they have been very effective in getting the message out into the print media and educating the public and publicizing the merits of the case. Here is the link as a hot link:

http://www.protectourliberty.org

Synergy at work! If we all contribute and do a little together we will accomplish a lot. Donate what you can. Every little bit helps. Thank you.

Charles

Puzo1 said...

The Candid Blogger has left a new comment on your post "Two-Page Spread in Monday, 10 Aug 2009, Washington...":

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution stipulates that the president must be a “natural born citizen” (or, in an obsolete provision, a citizen in 1788), but it does not define the term. The original interpretation relied on British common law, under which, as Justice Horace Gray noted in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), “every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”

The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, established this principle as a constitutional right: “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.” Aside from the children of foreign diplomats and (theoretically) military occupiers, the only U.S. natives not to be natural-born citizens were Indians born on reservations--and this exception was abolished by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

Other statutes have extended natural-born citizenship to some children born overseas to U.S. citizens. There is a theory that these statutes are unconstitutional--that the Constitution, in granting natural-born citizenship to those born on U.S. soil, thereby denies it to everyone else. Although this view is eccentric, it is an open legal question. According to the State Department’s Consular Affairs Manual (at page 9 of PDF), “the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.” Since Obama was born in the U.S., he is in any case a natural-born citizen by constitutional right. By contrast, John McCain, born in Panama, is a statutory natural-born citizen.

Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning. As Chief Justice Morrison Waite noted in Minor v. Happersett (1874):

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

Let us move forward said...

Mario,

If this last comment is yours, I find it to be confusing.

If you are quoting parts of a previous post, is there a way that you can set them off so that we can see what you wrote?

Thank you.

Puzo1 said...

To Candid Blogger:

Part I of II

You state that "citizen" as used in the Article II grandfather clause is an obsolete provision. It is not obsolete. Rather, the Founder’s purpose for the clause was not only to grandfather to be eligible to be President those “citizen” who were born “natural born subjects” of England by being native born in the colonies before July 4, 1776 or in some other foreign country or those “citizens” who were native born in the United States or in some other foreign country after that date and before the adoption of the Constitution, but also to inform the world that after the adoption of the Constitution (which was 1789) one had to be a "natural born Citizen," and not just a "citizen" to be eligible to be President.

The Framers did not define the term "natural born Citizen" because they did not see a reason to. It was part of the law of nations. Given that citizenship affects "the behavior of nation states with each other" (Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), all civilized nations knew what the definition of citizenship was. Upon independence from Great Britain, the United States "were bound to receive the law of nations, in its modern state of purity and refinement. Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199. 199, 281 (1796). There are other numerous authorities that state that the law of nations became the national law of the United States. Even Blackstone recognized the importance of the law of nations which he considered "universal law" and the life blood of a nation wanting to be part of the "civilized world." 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 67 (1769). Hence, the law of nations, when not codified into any Act of Congress, became the common law in the United States.

The Founders believed that the common law was discoverable by reason and was forever present. Indeed, the Founders believed that the common law was "discoverable reflection of universal reason." Sosa. So since as you say that the Constitution does not define "citizen" or "natural born Citizen," "resort must be had to the customs and usages of civilized nations" found in the law of nations, as defined by scholars, jurists, and commentators of the time who devoted “years of labor, research and experience” to the subject. The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677, 700 (1900).
We know from the historical record and from the way the Constitution is framed that the Founders relied heavily upon E. Vattel and The Law of Nations, as a crucial and fundamental guide in knowing what the law of nations was. The Founders knew that the law of nations as per Vattel defined a "citizen" simply as any member of society. They also knew that a "natural born Citizen" had a different standard from just “citizen,” for he or she was a child born in the country to two citizen parents. That is the definition of your "natural born Citizen," as recognized by numerous U.S. Supreme Court decisions (The Venus, Shanks v. Dupont, Minor, Ex parte Reynolds, Dred Scott, Wong Kim Ark, and more) and the framers the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the 14th Amendment, the Naturalization Act of 1795, 1798, 1802, 1885, and our modern 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401.

continued at II of II

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Puzo1 said...

To Candid Blogger:

Part II of II

Simply stated, the definition of “natural born subject” as found in the English common law simply did not work for the Founders. England was a monarchy and the new nation was a Constitutional Republic. England did not have a President to be democratically elected by the people but the new nation did. England was not have been concered with foreign influence making its way into the hereditary monarchy but the Founders were concerned about the Office of President being attacked from within and without with foreign influence infecting not only the voters but also the political leaders themselves. The Founders understood that citizenship and allegiance went together. The born-in-country-to-two-U.S.-citizen- parents formula was the best way for them to assure that only a person with undivided allegiance and loyalty to the United States would be eligible to be President.

Furthermore, everything that the Founders established about citizenship in the United States is not consistent with British common law that treats the subject. That is another lengthy explanation which I will not go into her for space reasons. This inconsistency is further proof that the Founders did not look to English common law in defining "natural born Citizen."

That Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark was willing to disregard the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction" and make Wong a U.S. citizen does not prove in any way that the Founders used English common law to define "natural born Citizen." Also, as I have stated numerous times, Wong Kim Ark did not address what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is. Rather, it only declared Wong a “citizen” under the 14th Amendment (a member of American society), I might add given the unique facts of that case but also by disregarding well-established case law and the 14th Amendment’s and Civil Rights Act of 1866’s framers’ intent and clear instructions on the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction.”

With one exception, you are also mistaken in stating that statutes may extend "natural born citizen" status to anyone. The only statute that did that was the Naturalization Act of 1790. The "natural born" language was repealed in 1795. The 1790 statute has been misread and misapplied by many, including the constitutional law scholars that made Senator McCain a “natural born Citizen.” I will be writing another article on this statute soon (I have already written one.).

It is convenient for you to label as “eccentric” legal standards that are not to your liking. I guess you would label our whole immigration structure in the U.S. "eccentric," including the rule that a naturalized citizen cannot be President.

We Birthers do not "imagine" that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. That is the law that has been well established among civilized nations including the United States since time immemorial.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

jayjay said...

Re: Your post to Candid Blogger:

Well said, Mr. A.

There is purposeful obfuscation on these point that the Obama forces intentionally promote as it serves their ends.

But quite a few people are awakening thanks to the efforts of you and Charles Kerchner.

Please keep up the good work. The advertorials when put together almost constitute a textbook on the matter.

Puzo1 said...

Let us not lose sight of common sense in all this.

Obama was born with multiple allegiances (at birth both U.S., if born in the U.S., and British, and also acquired Kenyan citizenship at age 2). In other words, Obama has been a life-long British citizen to the present and a Kenyan citizen from age 2 to 21. It should also be noted that Obama did not lose his Kenyan citizenship because he renounced it but only because the Kenyan Constitution caused him to lose it. This is important given that with citizenship and allegiance, affirmative acts and results should count more than those to which we default. Also, Obama's political acts in Kenya as a U.S. Senator and the title and picture on the cover of his book, Dreams from My Father, show something about where his heart is.

The Founders allowed one to be President at age 35. Not only has Obama had multiple citizenships and allegiance for his whole life, but has had them during his formative years (British from birth to 21 and which continues to date and Kenyan from 2 to 21). Additionally, using 35 as a benchmark, that would make Obama a British citizen for his whole life as he is still today (35 out of 35) and a Kenyan citizen for 54 percent of a 35-year life (19 out of 35).

In the eyes of our Founders, can their "natural born Citizen" clause include someone of Obama's citizenship and allegiance background? The Founders would not have allowed such a person who was not born with sole allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the United States and who has had multiple citizenships and allegiances for most of his life to be President and most importantly, Commander in Chief of the Military.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

James said...

You absolutely correct Mario. Because Obama was born with dual citizenship and allegience he cannot possibly be a "Natural Born" citizen. Andrea Shea King, a guest you interviewed with before, had guest on a week ago to discuss "Natura Born" citizenship. The guest explained the dangers of a person being born with dual citizenship and allegiances. The guest explained that he knew of a man named Ted who was born in the US to a US Citizen and to a German Citizen (His mother). When Ted was 18, he entered the US Army and was stationed in Germany. Germany became aware of this and tried to draft him because they considered him a citizen since he inherited from his mother. Ted had to go Germany and renounce his German citizenship to prevent from being drafted.

Since Obama was citizen of Kenya by decent through his father, suppose Obama went into the army and was stationed in Kenya. And suppose Kenya wanted to draft Obama. In theory, they could because Obama was also citizen of Kenya. This would mean Obama would have had to directly renounce his citizenship.

A person who is truly a "Natural Born" citizen would not have this problem because he was born on US soil to 2 US citizens. No other nation in the world could make a legal claim on him or her.

James said...

To test my last post, consider this.

It is possible for a "Natural Born" citizen of the US (assuming on only being born on US Soil for sake of argument) that has been born with dual citizenship to be drafted in the military in the country in which his citizenship resides other than the US?

Further, was it the intention of founding fathers allow the possibility for foreign military drafting of it's "Natural Born" citizens of those born with dual citizenship?

James said...

Key Point from Wonk Kim Ark SCOTUS decision:

Dissenting Fuller:

"Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that "natural-born citizen" applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not."

We know that Wong Kim Ark was not the POTUS or attempting to qualify for the POTUS.

However, Fuller makes references to critical key point:

"...were eligible to the Presidency..."

This is only citizenship case that I have seen where a judge made the connection between "Natural Born" citizenship and the eligiblity to be the POTUS.

And according to him, it is doubtful that a person born to foreigners in the US would be eligible to be the POTUS.

cajapie said...

Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Warren Harding, and Calvin Coolidge all had African ancestry, and of course Bill Clinton was the real "first black president", so that makes Obama the seventh...however Obama is only a usurper so really, he's a nobody.

Puzo1 said...

I wanted to share with everyone the following exchange that I am having with Dr. Conspiracy.

From me to Dr. Conspiracy:

"Your position is that there are only born citizens and naturalized citizens: Then answer me this question:

Why did the Founders not say in Article II:

No Person except a born Citizen, or a naturalized Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq."

Dr. Conspiracy's response:

"They did this because “natural born citizen” was a well understood term of common law (in the form of “natural born subject”) that was in current use in the constitutions, charters and laws of the individual states and in the common law of Great Britain (all of which at the time afforded that status to anyone born in the state or colony).

Given the fact that British common law naturalization made one a citizen from birth, the widespread usage of “natural born” may well have been done to distinguished those who were natural born as citizens (i.e. came out of the womb citizens) and those who were artifically made citizens from birth by act of Parliament or Congress.

Rawle’s View of the Constitution (1825) keeps popping up in state and federal court opinions. Do you think he was wrong, and if so, why were the courts citing him anyway?

Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen within the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity….

Under the Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however that capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of the president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.

That quote was cited by the Supreme Court of Connecticut in The Town of New Hartford v Town of Canaan. It was cited by Congressman Wilson during the debate on the 14th Amendment. It was cited by the Supreme Court of New York in Lynch v Clarke. Rawle’s work was cited by the Supreme Court of the US in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL., as recently as June of 2008 and other Supreme Court cases. It looks like William Rawle was quite an authority. But do you say he was all wet, writing so soon after the nation’s start, about citizenship?

Very unlikely."

My Response to Dr. Conspiracy:

"But once the Founders wrote “born” citizen and “naturalized” citizen in the same sentence, it was clear to the reader that the former was created from the time of birth and the latter was created after birth by law. By the two terms appearing together in the same sentence, there was no confusion as to what a “born” citizen meant. Hence, “born” citizen would have been sufficient to express the intent that it not include “naturalized” citizen, given that “born” citizen was juxtaposed with “naturalized” citizen right in the same sentence. I therefore do not accept your theory. There must be another reason why the Framers used the term “natural born Citizen” on the one hand and “citizen” on the other.

As far as Rawle (1825), The Town of New Hartford (1886), and Lynch (1844) are concerned, the U.S. Supreme Court case of Minor v. Happersett (1874) trumps them all."

Maybe someone would like to add your thoughts to this debate.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Puzo1 said...

Article II provides, among other things, that a person must be a resident of the United States for only 14 years to be eligible to be President. Imagine a person who is a dual citizen, a product of being born on U.S soil to a father who was a citizen of another country. He at age 60 decides to run for President. He only lived 14 years in the United States and the other 46 years in his other country. During those 46 years, he owed his paramount allegiance to that other country.

Should this person be declared a "natural born Citizen" and eligible under Article II to be President and Commander in Chief?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

William said...

Part II of IV – (cont…)
The 14th Amendment citizenship clause states:

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.

The 14th Amendment was enacted at a time when citizenship was, to some extent, managed and controlled by individual states. Each state had its own citizenship laws. Anyone who became a citizen of a state immediately and automatically became a citizen of the United States.

The 14th Amendment defined a certain class of people, which we call the "14th Amendment Citizen" (14AC) class. This 14AC class consists of every person who is both (a) born or naturalized in the United States, and (b) subject to U.S. jurisdiction at the time of his or her birth or naturalization.

Sole U.S. jurisdiction was a core requirement for 14th Amendment citizenship. The 14th Amendment granted citizenship to emancipated slaves and their descendants, because they were, and have always been, under sole U.S. jurisdiction.

Native Americans were subject to tribal jurisdiction and thus were not under sole U.S. jurisdiction. That's why the 14th Amendment did not grant citizenship to American Indians, even though virtually all American Indians were born in the United States.

The 14th Amendment required every State to accept, as a citizen, anyone belonging to the 14AC class. Each state could grant or “deny citizenship” to non-14AC people. But the 14th Amendment prohibited any State from denying citizenship to 14AC-class members. The "14th Amendment natural born citizen" argument depends heavily on the meaning of "jurisdiction".

On March 9, 1866, Representative John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the 14th Amendment, said the following in a speech before House of Representatives:

[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the “Constitution”, that every human being born within the “jurisdiction” of the United States of “parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty” is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a “natural born citizen”. (John Bingham, 1866, as quoted in Defining Natural Born Citizen)

During the debates over the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, both of its primary framers, Sen. Jacob Howard and Sen. Lyman Trumbull, made it clear that the word "jurisdiction", as used in the 14th Amendment, means sole, complete, absolute, exclusive U.S. jurisdiction and the absence of any other jurisdiction or allegiance.

Sen. Lyman Trumbull: The provision is, that "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." That means "subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof." What do we mean by "complete jurisdiction thereof?" Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Sen. Jacob Howard: [I] concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.

William said...

Part III of IV – (cont…)

For sake of argument, if the 14th Amendment had redefined "natural born citizen" to mean anyone "born in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (where "jurisdiction" is understood to mean sole U.S. jurisdiction), Obama would “still” fail to meet the natural born citizen requirement. Here's why...

On his web site, Obama claims that his father was a British subject and that, in 1961, the citizenship status of children of British subjects was "governed" (that's Obama's word) by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Thus Obama's citizenship status, at birth, was "governed" by British law, in addition to U.S. law.

If Obama's citizenship status at birth was "governed" by the laws of a foreign country, how could he, at birth, be subject to sole U.S. jurisdiction, which is an essential requirement for 14th Amendment citizenship?

The Obama Apoligists claim, well (cough) he gave up his foreign citizenships (Kenya, British, possibly Indonesian) after he turn 21 and became an Adult (albeit there is not proof of this and is currently under his legal seal without review). What did the Supreme Court say about such issue whether or not you can yield your birthright citizenship and what does that make your citizenship, at best?

In 1884, the Supreme Court said:
The persons declared to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other.
Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being “naturalized”... (Page 112 U. S. 101-102, Elk v. Wilkins, 1884)

Candid Blogger Said:
[Other statutes have extended natural-born citizenship to some children born overseas to U.S. citizens. There is a theory that these statutes are unconstitutional--that the Constitution, in granting natural-born citizenship to those born on U.S. soil, thereby denies it to everyone else. Although this view is eccentric, it is an open legal question. According to the State Department’s Consular Affairs Manual (at page 9 of PDF), “the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.”]

Hold the Horses here…. You are kicking your own argument in the arse! If a Citizen is a Citizen is a Citizen, and therefore means a NBC as well, then why in the world would the U.S. State dept. “WARN” against “confusing” the Two (2) very different meanings? Would it somehow correlate to the meaning when filling out your child’s school forms, whereby they ask if you are the child’s “Natural Parent” or the child’s “Adopted Parents”, or a State “Foster Parents”? After all, a Parent is a Parent is a Parent, and no different, right? Additionally, you mentioned a very key word, “Statutory”, in this sentence. Let’s examine the meaning of Statutory and Constitutional definitions.

Statutory natural born citizen" also known as Citizen at birth is the meaning of "natural born citizen or Citizen at birth" when such meaning depends on a Federal or State law. As Federal and State laws change, the meaning of "statutory natural born citizen/CAB" changes accordingly. Amazingly, Obama falls under this definition as he relies on a Statutory law to be a Citizen. Natural Born Citizens do not rely upon any Statutory law for Citizenship.

Constitutional natural born citizen" is the meaning of "natural born citizen" as used in the Constitution. In order to change this, the Constitution must be Amended. This is not a Theory, it is a fact.

William said...

Mario, I don't think part I went through, I will repost it here.

Mario, I would like to throw in my input, if I may.
To: Candid Blogger, Nickname Unavailable,

Part I of IV

Candid Blogger Said:
[Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution “stipulates” that the president must be a “natural born citizen” (or, in an obsolete provision, a citizen in 1788), but it does not define the term.]

In response to this first comment, the U.S. Constitution does not “stipulate” criteria’s to meet eligibilities clauses for a U.S. President, it is in fact highly specific as to all orders. To Stipulate: “without requiring that it be established by proof” (legal definition of Stipulate): Not only is the Constitution highly specific regarding the eligibility requirements of any person wishing to run for U.S. President, it outlines those that are exempt. One must be at least 35 years of age, this is not a stipulation, and it is a fact, one must be a natural born Citizen, this is not a stipulation, and it is a fact. If a Stipulation, then one under the age of 35 could possibly run, since it only “Stipulates” the minimum age. This is ludicrous to assume such nonsense.

Candid Blogger Said:
[The original interpretation relied on British common law, under which, as Justice Horace Gray noted in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), “every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”]

First and foremost, you are attempting to construe over 2 Centuries of history and law in the same sentence. A primary example of your comment or rather “insinuation” is that Wong Kim Ark “proves” that British common law was the “original interpretation” used to describe what a “Constitutional Natural Born Citizen” is, after the 13 colonies gained their independence from Britain and became the United States of America (I will reply to Justice Horace Gray later). This is not likely and highly implausible, here is why:

First, if the British Common Law principle of jus soli (citizenship by birthplace alone) had been adopted at the national level, what would have been the point of granting each state the right to enact its own birthright citizenship laws?

After the Constitution was adopted, every State had the right to enact laws that “deny” citizenship at birth to some children born in that State, such as children of African or Native-American descent, and children whose parents were not U.S. citizens. How could the States have acquired or exercised such a right if the nation, as a whole, had embraced the doctrine that "everyone born in the U.S. is a U.S. Natural born citizen"? [emphasis added]

Second, all States were unanimous in granting citizenship at birth to children who met both the jus soli criterion (they were born in the United States) and the jus sanguinis criterion (their parents were U.S. citizens). Some states routinely denied citizenship at birth to children who met only one of these criteria but never both. How did this happen if the newly born U.S. used the British National Definition? It could not, nor did it.

Candid Blogger Said:
[The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, established this principle as a constitutional right: “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.”

Let’s talk about the 14th Amendment for a moment, as Obama Apologists attempt to use this quite often as a “Catch all” definition….. A Citizen is A Citizen is A Citizen and all is one in the same. Therefore, Obama meets these criteria simply as the 14th Amendment Citizen Clause according to them. Let’s review “exactly” what the 14th Amendment founders said about it, the important parts you are leaving out.

William said...

Part IV of IV – (cont…)

Candid Blogger Said:
[Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning. As Chief Justice Morrison Waite noted in Minor v. Happersett (1874):]

Let’s put your birther (Constitutionalist believers) “imagination” (to pretend it does not exist) to the test. According to your sentence, there is No difference between a Citizen by birth, a Native citizen, or a Natural Born Citizen. In order to believe this theory, one must submit to the conclusion (delusion would be a more proper word), that the founding fathers and past SCOTUS cases, did not understand that there were in fact a difference between citizenships, otherwise,(they themselves were delusional).

...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. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. (Minor v. Happersett, 1874)

Every U.S. President who was born after 1787 -- except President Barack Obama and President Chester Arthur -- was born in the United States, to parents who were both U.S. citizens. The general public did not learn until recently that, when Chester Arthur was born, his father was not a U.S. citizen. The 2008 election is the first time in American history that America knowingly elected a post-1787-born President whose parents were not both U.S. citizens.

When Chester Arthur ran for Vice President and later President, he told outright lies and burned historical records, to conceal the fact that, although he was born in the United States, his father was a British Subject and not a U.S. citizen at the time of his (President Arthur's) birth.

If "natural born citizen" means anyone born in the United States, regardless of parental citizenship, why did Chester Arthur go through so much trouble to convince the public that his parents were U.S. citizens when he was born? It is inconceivable that Chester Arthur would have taken such extraordinary measures, unless he believed that his birth to non-citizen parents made him ineligible to serve as VP or President (Historical Breakthrough -- Chester Arthur)

In Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, the plaintiff (Cort Wrotnowski) argued that the Wong Kim Ark decision was not based on an impartial objective reading of history and the law, but was designed to grant U.S. citizenship retroactively to Chester Arthur, so as to legitimize Chester Arthur's presidency and thereby legitimize Horace Gray's own appointment to the Supreme Court (Wrotnowski supplemental brief regarding Chester Arthur).

George Mason, called the "Father of the Bill of Rights" and considered one of the "Founding Fathers" of the United States, is widely quoted as saying: The common law of England is not the common law of these states. ( Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention, 19 June 1788)

In a recent speech to the Federalist Society, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia confirmed that British Common Law had little, if any, "control" in the USA after the USA gained its independence from Great Britain: The common law is gone. The federal courts never applied the common law and even in the state courts it's codified now. (Audio/Video: Justice Scalia speech, Nov 22, 2008).

Citations are from the works of: Mario Apuzzo, Leo Donofrio and Stephen Tonchen

jayjay said...

Mario:

Dr. Conspiracy seems to be one of those posters who reads very selectively and prefers to confuse the terms "natural botn subjects" with "natural born citizens" pretending that the terms have identical meanings when they do not.

Your point about the putative President who spent a large percentage of his life under jurisdication of another country is a very good observation also.

I'd say that "born citizen" and "natural born citizen" are clearly different in this context and "natural born subject" (even if it applied) was yet another differing meaning.

equadar said...

Dearest Mr. Apuzo,

Please bear with me, 'natural borne' is 'natural borne', just like 'We the People'. just like of 'The United States'.

What is there to debat. More importantly where am I wrong.

Jenny

James said...

Mario,

It has been days and no decision by the court. Do you any idea when they might rule? Is it possible they might rule on August 21 because I believe one the motions submitted referenced this date? Do you have any idea if the court is going to rule in your favor?

sjc said...

British Common Law was the very system the rebellion of the 1770's was against.

Never, not once, have I ever heard of a US citizen referred to as a "subject". An obvious pre-Revolutionary War term, prior to our Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776.

This same Obamaist inspired smoke screen has drifted across the blogosphere, spewing half truths and disinformation. A mismatching and selective amnesiatic mixing of terms, the sum of which does not even qualify as Drivel. Just spray this wayward flight of mindless locust with DDT and let's focus on actual Constitutional truths. And of holding Barack Obama accountable for his usurpation.

cajapie said...

Why do people like Michael Medved, a supposed conservative, outright lie...he said all 14th amendment citizens are natural born citizens!
What would you succinctly say to him to cut him down to size on this lie of his?

Teo Bear said...

Michael Medved is neither a conservative nor not legally trained, he dropped out of law school after his first year. If one looks closely at his career he is the token conservative on liberal talk shows. His first job was as a congressional aid to none other than socialist Ron Dellum. He and knows nothing about the law or the constitution, but he does know Saul Alinsky’s strategy and his sole function was to ingratiate himself to the right. His classmates were Clinton and Kerry. Once in place he turns on them. Ask Joe Farah and Rush Limbaugh who gave him a break starting his career as a conservative writer and talk show host, REDved turned on them. Medved evaded the draft so that really speaks for his conservative creds.

I think I can speak more on the 14th amendment then Medved can, at least I have written on the subject, you can see my work on this bolg, the Logic of a Natural Born Citizen. The 14th amendment only makes someone a born or naturalized in the US a citizen. Ask Medved to find the words natural born in the 14th Amendment, ask him to show you in the Wong Kim Ark decision where they said Wong is a natural born citizen, he can’t because there is nothing there to back him up.

Don’t worry what this jackass in elephant pj’s says. He is a liar, and a fraud. When you call yourself a conservative and Ophrah regualry books you as a guest, need I say more?

Jackie Smith said...

Check it out.......


Looks like the fight is on!

http://riseupforamerica.com/crimeofthecentury.html

Sturgis said...

I started following this issue last year. At first I was amazed by the media blackout. Then my curiosity was stoked by Obama's stonewalling in the courts, to cover up his past. I set up several Google news alerts on the issue to track it. I have seen the good and the bad from both sides. The recent ridicule and anger coming from the Obama supporters in my opinion is a mask for their fears. I find it interesting that no one will mention your case while they ridicule Berg and Taitz. My opinion is they want to keep you guys out of the media because they can not call you kooks and still appear to be credible. Behind all the anger and annoyance is a person’s vain reaction to the fear they experience when they try to convince themselves that their illusion is a reality.

I am talking about pure anger and not indignation, they are different. They are connected but look them up in a Thesaurus to get the flavor.

I hope to see this “Hot Potato” in a legitimate court for fair discovery and a verdict. The kangaroo court of the internet is getting old.

Best wishes in regards to your lawsuit.

Ken form VA Beach.

William said...

Just maybe:

Wouldn’t it be great if the Judge granted Standing to Mario’s case today and was allowed to move forward on this date? I found the following excerpt at the Rightsideoflife this morning.

August 19th is an important date in American history it is the day we fought the final battle of the Revolutionary War, the Battle of Blue Licks, and it is the day that the grande dame of our Navy, the USS Constitution (how much more fitting can that be for those of us that swore allegiance to her namesake) scored our first victory of the second war of independence, the War of 1812, against the British ship the HMS Guerriere and earned her immortal nickname “old ironsides” as the British cannon balls bounced off her hull.

cfkerchner said...

Hi William,

That is a quote from the original article, "The Unseen Hand", by Teo Bear at The Birthers website.

http://www.thebirthers.org/misc/unseenhand.html

http://www.thebirthers.org

Charles

Benaiah said...

Obamacare: United States Physician Services
http://www.usps.com/

hokiedokie24 said...

First of all I just wanted to say what a great job Charles, Mario and others have done on this case. If anyone has not visited the birther's website I urge you to do so. Teo has written several good articles on natural born citizens that I use quite often when I need something to back my claims up.

Benaiah said...

United States Physician Services
http://www.usps.com

“America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009’’

A BILL


To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes [Socialism].

Division A - Affordable Health Care Choices
Title I - Protections and Standards for Qualified Health Benefit Plans
Subtitle C - Standards Guaranteeing Access to Essential Benefits

SEC. 121. COVERAGE OF ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE.

(a) IN GENERAL. - A qualified health benefits plan shall provide coverage that at least meets the benefit standards adopted under section 124 for the essential benefits package described in section 122 for the plan year involved.

SEC. 122. ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE DEFINED.

(b) MINIMUM SERVICES TO BE COVERED. - The items and services described in this subsection are the following:

(3) Professional services of physicians and other health professionals.

DIVISION C—PUBLIC HEALTH AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
TITLE II—WORKFORCE
Subtitle C—Public Health Workforce

SEC. 2231. PUBLIC HEALTH WORKFORCE CORPS.

Part D of title III (42 U.S.C. 254b et seq.), as amended by section 2211, is amended by adding at the end the following:

Subpart XII—Public Health Workforce

SEC. 340L. PUBLIC HEALTH WORKFORCE CORPS.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established, within the Service, the Public Health Workforce Corps (in this subpart referred to as the ‘Corps’), for the purpose of ensuring an adequate supply of public health professionals throughout the Nation. The Corps shall consist of—

(1) such officers of the Regular and Reserve Corps of the Service as the Secretary may designate;

and

(2) such civilian employees of the United States as the Secretary may appoint.

Benaiah said...

United States Physician Services
http://www.ofbyfor.us.com/page36/page36.html

Priority Flat Rate: A Simpler Way to Provide Healthcare and Ship Packages

William said...

Charles,

Thank you for the links, it was the first time I have visited the birther.org site and reviewed Teo Bears writings. They are without doubt, intriguing and insightful. Although I have followed many legal suits filed through various attorney’s since last August, I rarely post any comments and rather study the legal aspects, cross reference both the Plaintiffs and Defendants claims as well as their references for arguments and research deeper for enhanced understanding of our Constitution and current legal system.

Benaiah said...

Witchcraft in the White House
Posted by Kristen Atkinson on Saturday, August 15, 2009
http://atkinsonsadvice.blogtownhall.com/2009/08/15/witchcraft_in_the_white_house.thtml

The Obama White House is abuzz with talk of witchcraft by first grandmother, 72-year-old Marian Robinson, who lives in the White House residence. A close friend of Michelle Obama says the president is furious at his mother-in-law after learning that she was practicing Santeria, an African spirit cult, in the White House.

“The president is quite upset about this… he is worried about the political fallout if his enemies get wind of this. Rev. Wright was bad enough, but this would be political suicide,” a close friend of Michelle’s confided.

Religion took center stage during the campaign last year when videos showed the Rev. Jeremiah Wright shouting “God damn America.” Obama was forced to distance himself from the since-retired pastor at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, where he worshiped for 20 years. Many people were shocked by the videos and questioned Obama’s fitness to be president. Since taking office, Obama has avoided worshiping in public and now prefers the chapel at the presidential retreat at Camp David.

This is how it happened. Marian Robinson became increasingly frustrated as her husband, Fraser Robinson, was hobbled by multiple sclerosis in the late 1980s. The family pastor prayed with her and counseled her, but “she turned to Santeria in a desperate hope,” Michelle’s friend said. “Michelle put her foot down when she heard that her mother took her dad to ceremonies where they did spells and trances, and sacrificed animals, chickens and goats I think. But Marian was desperate and kept going anyway, even when her husband was to sick to go with her. I don’t think the president knew anything about this earlier because it was before they met. Michelle and Craig (her brother) wanted to close the book on this and never talked about it again after their father died in 1991.”

The first grandma appears to be worried about her health now, even though doctors pronounce her in good shape. “Marian invited an old friend from Chicago to visit her at the White House, and she performed a Santeria ceremony in the residence. When Michelle saw this woman, a voodoo priestess she recognized her from when her father was sick, she had a fit. When she told the president about it, he blew up and said, ‘No voodoo in the White House. Absolutely. I don’t care what you call it.’ As far as I know, it only happened once,” the friend said.

The president was “totally in favor” when his mother-in-law moved into the White House as a live-in babysitter for 11-year-old Malia and 8-year-old Sasha. Obama reportedly told Michelle that her mother will have to go back to Chicago if she does not “stop this witchcraft mumbo-jumbo immediately” and ordered the Secret Service to not allow Marian’s friend to return to the White House.

Benaiah said...

Is a "voodoo priestess" considered an "other health professional" under Obamacare?

Are "spells, trances, and sacrificing chickens and goats" considered "essential benefits" for "we the people" under Obamacare?

Witchcraft in the White House

http://atkinsonsadvice.blogtownhall.com/2009/08/15/witchcraft_in_the_white_house.thtml

America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009

A BILL

To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes [Socialism].

Division A – Affordable Health Care Choices
Title I – Protections and Standards for Qualified Health Benefit Plans
Subtitle C – Standards Guaranteeing Access to Essential Benefits

SEC. 121. COVERAGE OF ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE.

(a) IN GENERAL. – A qualified health benefits plan shall provide coverage that at least meets the benefit standards adopted under section 124 for the essential benefits package described in section 122 for the plan year involved.

SEC. 122. ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE DEFINED.

(b) MINIMUM SERVICES TO BE COVERED. – The items and services described in this subsection are the following:

(3) Professional services of physicians and other health professionals [Voodoo Priests and Priestesses].

cajapie said...

Thank you Teo Bear...I loathe Medved in particular for being a fake infiltrator
He has children...how dare he ruin their futures along with our children!

AnAmerican said...

Lack of standing given to voting citizenry has forced the military to step up to the plate. They are merely living up to their oath and it would not destroy the military to have patriots purged, because few would be left. Most of the Obama supporters are not military types. It would be a sad day, if military are told they have no standing in a courtroom to have their commander-in-chief verified, when there is obvious reason to question. This is hardly frivolous and to not give the military standing would have the reverse impact that Teo Bear claims. What would be more demoralizing than to see that military have no standing in a courtroom. What would one be fighting for or willing to die for, if in the military. Are they protecting tyranny by the few, rather than democracy for the many. I pray that standing be given the military, and I think Judge Carter feels the same. The regular citizenry have standing and have been grievously violated. If the military are also violated, then a revolution is coming down the pike.

James said...

There's a new case on Obama's eligiblity just filed in Washington DC. Check it out!

http://www.phnmedia.com/storage/PatriotsHeartvSoetoro-PetitionforGJfinal2.pdf

cfkerchner said...

Hi all,

Teo Bear let me know that a new article is now up on the home page in TheBirthers.org website. It is challenging two well known "conservative" talkers and commentators who do not believe for whatever reasons in the original intent, and the historical and U.S. common-law meaning of the Natural Born Citizenship clause of Article II of the Constitution, i.e., that to be a natural born citizen you must be born in the country to two citizens of the country. See the new TheBirthers.org article at:

http://www.thebirthers.org/misc/M+M.html

http://www.thebirthers.org

Previously and separately via emails to them, I had challenged them both on behalf of Attorney Apuzzo to a public debate on their publicly and adamantly stated position that anyone simply born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen under Article II, and to challenge them about their continued, blatant, demeaning, and Alinsky style ridiculing and name calling of anyone who thinks otherwise ... and their complete refusal to listen and educate themselves as to the arguments against their position. They won't listen. They just continual attack and ridicule for whatever their personal reasons are. Thus far they have not responded to Atty Apuzzo about the debate challenge.

Charles

jayjay said...

James:

Do you have a different link? Can't seem to get that one to work.

cfkerchner said...

Hi JayJay and others:

Here is a working link for the new legal action brought in the District of Columbia by the Patriot Hearts Network et al against Soetoro et al:

http://www.phnmedia.com/storage/captured-data/FINAL%20Patriots%20Heart%20v%20Soetoro-PetitionforGJ.pdf

Chalice of the Patriot Hearts Network let me know that she would love to see this link posted in as many blogs and websites as possible to educate the general public and the news media about this new legal action against the Usurper and his cronies and the calling out of their enablers.

Charles

P.S. Teo Bear's Logical Analysis of Natural Born Citizenship article and Euler diagrams are one of the exhibits in this new legal action.

jayjay said...

cfkerchner:

It was great to see all of that material gathered in one place.

And the birthers Vann Diagram material especially so.

jayjay said...

cfkerchner:

Oops - Venn Diagrams!!

Benaiah said...

The Death Book for Veterans
By JIM TOWEY

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204683204574358590107981718.html

If President Obama wants to better understand why America's discomfort with end-of-life discussions threatens to derail his health-care reform, he might begin with his own Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). He will quickly discover how government bureaucrats are greasing the slippery slope that can start with cost containment but quickly become a systematic denial of care.

Last year, bureaucrats at the VA's National Center for Ethics in Health Care advocated a 52-page end-of-life planning document, "Your Life, Your Choices." It was first published in 1997 and later promoted as the VA's preferred living will throughout its vast network of hospitals and nursing homes. After the Bush White House took a look at how this document was treating complex health and moral issues, the VA suspended its use. Unfortunately, under President Obama, the VA has now resuscitated "Your Life, Your Choices."

Who is the primary author of this workbook? Dr. Robert Pearlman, chief of ethics evaluation for the center, a man who in 1996 advocated for physician-assisted suicide in Vacco v. Quill before the U.S. Supreme Court and is known for his support of health-care rationing.

"Your Life, Your Choices" presents end-of-life choices in a way aimed at steering users toward predetermined conclusions, much like a political "push poll." For example, a worksheet on page 21 lists various scenarios and asks users to then decide whether their own life would be "not worth living."


The circumstances listed include ones common among the elderly and disabled: living in a nursing home, being in a wheelchair and not being able to "shake the blues." There is a section which provocatively asks, "Have you ever heard anyone say, 'If I'm a vegetable, pull the plug'?" There also are guilt-inducing scenarios such as "I can no longer contribute to my family's well being," "I am a severe financial burden on my family" and that the vet's situation "causes severe emotional burden for my family."

When the government can steer vulnerable individuals to conclude for themselves that life is not worth living, who needs a death panel?

One can only imagine a soldier surviving the war in Iraq and returning without all of his limbs only to encounter a veteran's health-care system that seems intent on his surrender.

I was not surprised to learn that the VA panel of experts that sought to update "Your Life, Your Choices" between 2007-2008 did not include any representatives of faith groups or disability rights advocates. And as you might guess, only one organization was listed in the new version as a resource on advance directives: the Hemlock Society (now euphemistically known as "Compassion and Choices").

This hurry-up-and-die message is clear and unconscionable. Worse, a July 2009 VA directive instructs its primary care physicians to raise advance care planning with all VA patients and to refer them to "Your Life, Your Choices." Not just those of advanced age and debilitated condition—all patients. America's 24 million veterans deserve better.

Many years ago I created an advance care planning document called "Five Wishes" that is today the most widely used living will in America, with 13 million copies in national circulation. Unlike the VA's document, this one does not contain the standard bias to withdraw or withhold medical care. It meets the legal requirements of at least 43 states, and it runs exactly 12 pages.

After a decade of observing end-of-life discussions, I can attest to the great fear that many patients have, particularly those with few family members and financial resources...

If President Obama is sincere in stating that he is not trying to cut costs by pressuring the disabled to forgo critical care, one good way to show that commitment is to walk two blocks from the Oval Office and pull the plug on "Your Life, Your Choices."...

cfkerchner said...

Hi all,

Just thought I'd let you know I am getting nasty emails from the Obot readers of our advertorials in the Washington Times National Weekly edition. I don't answer them. But the more I get, and the nastier they get, the more I know that the advertorials are effective and ... getting to them. :-)

If you all want to help them continue, I need your contributions. We need time, talent, and a bit of the Treasure too to win this and remove the Usurper from the Oval Office. So if you can, visit the ProtectOurLiberty.org fund raising page and make a donation, large or small. Here is the URL:

http://www.protectourliberty.org/

Example advertorials:

Obama is a Brit:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18352802/

NBC Clause is Important:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18989150/

And feel free to pass along the above fund raising web page address and the other links to other blogs and sites. Thanks.

Charles