Oh, how we wear the mantle of self-righteousness and conceit.
Oh, how we spin our tales of professing to know that only one purity of knowledge that is Truth.
And, oh, how we all cling together in bondage to such wishful reality.
Why not give truth a chance to flourish?
Why suppress that which may be?
What do we gain?
Or is it more, what we may lose?
Are we not better off in knowing that which really is rather than knowing that which we wish it is?
Should we not be indebted to truth rather than to some unspoken loyalty to some unknown thing?
Copyright © 2009
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved
P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here]. ####
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Friday, May 29, 2009
Why Can't Obama Give a Simple and Truthful Answer to the Birth Certificate Question?
Below you will find a link to NPR. Listen to the audio "Listen Now." This is a January 21, 2009 All Things Considered interview by NPR Michael Siegel of NPR's Scott Horsley, who is a White House correspondent for NPR News. Horsley was at the White House as he spoke. Horsley recounts how Obama retook the oath of office. Siegel then mentions "that lawsuit" that was brought against Obama which alleged he was not born in Hawaii but rather in Indonesia (just shows how informed the mainstream media is). Horsley laughs as Seigel was referring to the law suit. Siegel then continues that it was a good idea for Obama to redo the oath to avoid "that kind of lawsuit" from being litigated. Go to 2:33 in the segment and then you will hear Horsely say the following:
"It it it [sic] reminded Press Secretary Robert Gibbs of that very thing too. He was joking about this this [sic] morning and said 'You know we have we [sic] have the birth certificate if you if you [sic] (Siegel laughs) want to see it . . . .'" Horsely then continues how Chief Justice Roberts re-administered the oath:
http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=99681708&m=99681694
On May 27, 2009, at a White House press briefing that was viewed on C-Span, World Net Daily’s White House correspondent, Les Kinsolving, reminded Obama’s White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, about Obama’s statement regarding transparency. The exchange went as follows (43:34 to 45:35):
Kinsolving: “Thank you, thank you, very much. Just one question concerning what the president said in his speech on Thursday, and I quote, ‘I ran for president promising transparency, and I meant what I said. This is why, whenever possible, we will make information available to the American people so they can make informed judgments and hold us accountable.’ Do you remember that statement?”
Gibbs: “I can confirm that he said that.”
Kinsolving: “Good. In consideration of this very good promise of transparency, why can’t the president respond to the petition to requests of 400,000 American citizens by releasing a certified copy of his long-form birth certificate listing hospital – (laughter) – 400,000. …”
Gibbs: “Are you looking for the President’s birth certificate?”
Kinsolving: “Yes.”
Gibbs: “It’s on the Internet, Lester.”
Kinsolving: “No, no, no — the long form listing his hospital and physician.” (Laughter.)
Gibbs: “Lester, this question in many ways continues to astound me. The state of Hawaii provided a copy with the seal of the President’s birth. I know there are apparently at least 400,000 people – (laughter) – that continue to doubt the existence of and the certification by the state of Hawaii of the president’s birth there, but it’s on the Internet because we put it on the Internet for each of those 400,000 to download. I certainly hope by the fourth year of our administration that we’ll have dealt with this burgeoning birth controversy.”
And with that, Gibbs ended the briefing.
Video and report on the briefing found here at WND.com:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99342
Video and blog comments about the briefing found here at TheFoxNation.com:
http://www.thefoxnation.com/politics/2009/05/27/gibbs-finally-fields-birth-certificate-question
Now, Gibbs did not say that “we have the birth certificate” and do you want to see it? Gibbs’ shallow, sarcastic, and factually false, different response adds absolutely nothing to resolving the controversy surrounding Obama’s place of birth. Let us examine the available evidence.
What Obama or some other unkown person posted on the internet is not a birth certificate (BC). Rather, he/she posted a questionable short, summary form "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.
According to Obama and Gibbs, this digital document image alone is supposed to allow Obama to qualify and be eligible under Article II of our Constitution 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 Natural Born Citizen of the U.S. 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 Certification of Live Birth, aka 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.
While not officially confirmed, the authenticity of the digital computer image of the proffered Obama COLB on the internet, and the underlying paper document used to make the images, has been questioned by at least two digital image experts who have concluded that the COLB digital image has been altered and changed and that the COLB document itself shown in that digital image is a forgery. Here is a link to the scientific analysis and report by one expert, Dr. Ron Polarik: http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/
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.
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 Kenya by an adult or parent falsely claiming to the director of health that he was born in Hawaii when in fact he was born in Kenya. Hence, because of the contradictory evidence that exists 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.
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.
Not even the Hawaii Department of Home Lands accepts a short, summary form, 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."
Despite the numerous and more-to-come law suits that have been and will be 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 brew regarding his constitutional eligibility in regards to his place of birth.
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 has it.
Obama and his half-sister 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 Aug. 4, 1961, at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu. But Obama has said he was born at Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children. 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.
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.
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 Kapiolani 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?
Nor has the American public heard from any other person who could confirm Obama's birth in Hawaii.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
No public official in Hawaii has publicly confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii. Director of Hawaiian Department of Heath, Fukino, said she has “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," but she failed to say that the certificate shows that Obama was born in Hawaii. Given that so many people (some intentionally to mislead and some unintentionally due to misspeaking or lack of knowledge) call the Certification of Live Birth a birth certificate, we do not know whether she was referring to the same document posted on the internet (the COLB) or an actual original certificate of live birth (BC). 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.” It is also telling that after the probative value of her statement was publicly attacked by those in the public demanding that Obama produce his original birth certificate, neither Fukino nor any one else in her office has come forward with any other clarifying information.
We have not heard from one international, federal, state, or local police or security agency that Obama's birth place has been officially confirmed.
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, O8-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 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.
The investigator then personally went to the hospital in Mombassa, 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."
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.
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.
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.
Fightthesmears.com and Factcheck.org have since maintained silence on the birth place issue after the questionable COLB was posted on the internet.
Obama has personally remained silent and has not declared publicly anything about his birth records after his COLB and place of birth were questioned that he was born in Hawaii.
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.
This Himalayan Mountain of contradictory evidence is sufficient to cause the prima facie presumption of the COLB to fall. Obama therefore now has the burden to come forward with competent evidence to conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii. To date, he has failed to come forward with 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 long-form original birth certificate) showing that he was born in Hawaii?
We cannot place any trust in what Mr. Gibbs said. He and Mr. Obama have to do a much better job than Mr. Gibbs’ feeble and floundering effort at answering Mr. Kinsolving’s simple question. Obama should just do the right and simple thing for everyone's sake and produce the real evidence of where he was born rather than have his political cronies dodge the question for him.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####
"It it it [sic] reminded Press Secretary Robert Gibbs of that very thing too. He was joking about this this [sic] morning and said 'You know we have we [sic] have the birth certificate if you if you [sic] (Siegel laughs) want to see it . . . .'" Horsely then continues how Chief Justice Roberts re-administered the oath:
http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=99681708&m=99681694
On May 27, 2009, at a White House press briefing that was viewed on C-Span, World Net Daily’s White House correspondent, Les Kinsolving, reminded Obama’s White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, about Obama’s statement regarding transparency. The exchange went as follows (43:34 to 45:35):
Kinsolving: “Thank you, thank you, very much. Just one question concerning what the president said in his speech on Thursday, and I quote, ‘I ran for president promising transparency, and I meant what I said. This is why, whenever possible, we will make information available to the American people so they can make informed judgments and hold us accountable.’ Do you remember that statement?”
Gibbs: “I can confirm that he said that.”
Kinsolving: “Good. In consideration of this very good promise of transparency, why can’t the president respond to the petition to requests of 400,000 American citizens by releasing a certified copy of his long-form birth certificate listing hospital – (laughter) – 400,000. …”
Gibbs: “Are you looking for the President’s birth certificate?”
Kinsolving: “Yes.”
Gibbs: “It’s on the Internet, Lester.”
Kinsolving: “No, no, no — the long form listing his hospital and physician.” (Laughter.)
Gibbs: “Lester, this question in many ways continues to astound me. The state of Hawaii provided a copy with the seal of the President’s birth. I know there are apparently at least 400,000 people – (laughter) – that continue to doubt the existence of and the certification by the state of Hawaii of the president’s birth there, but it’s on the Internet because we put it on the Internet for each of those 400,000 to download. I certainly hope by the fourth year of our administration that we’ll have dealt with this burgeoning birth controversy.”
And with that, Gibbs ended the briefing.
Video and report on the briefing found here at WND.com:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99342
Video and blog comments about the briefing found here at TheFoxNation.com:
http://www.thefoxnation.com/politics/2009/05/27/gibbs-finally-fields-birth-certificate-question
Now, Gibbs did not say that “we have the birth certificate” and do you want to see it? Gibbs’ shallow, sarcastic, and factually false, different response adds absolutely nothing to resolving the controversy surrounding Obama’s place of birth. Let us examine the available evidence.
What Obama or some other unkown person posted on the internet is not a birth certificate (BC). Rather, he/she posted a questionable short, summary form "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.
According to Obama and Gibbs, this digital document image alone is supposed to allow Obama to qualify and be eligible under Article II of our Constitution 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 Natural Born Citizen of the U.S. 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 Certification of Live Birth, aka 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.
While not officially confirmed, the authenticity of the digital computer image of the proffered Obama COLB on the internet, and the underlying paper document used to make the images, has been questioned by at least two digital image experts who have concluded that the COLB digital image has been altered and changed and that the COLB document itself shown in that digital image is a forgery. Here is a link to the scientific analysis and report by one expert, Dr. Ron Polarik: http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/
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.
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 Kenya by an adult or parent falsely claiming to the director of health that he was born in Hawaii when in fact he was born in Kenya. Hence, because of the contradictory evidence that exists 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.
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.
Not even the Hawaii Department of Home Lands accepts a short, summary form, 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."
Despite the numerous and more-to-come law suits that have been and will be 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 brew regarding his constitutional eligibility in regards to his place of birth.
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 has it.
Obama and his half-sister 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 Aug. 4, 1961, at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu. But Obama has said he was born at Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children. 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.
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.
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 Kapiolani 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?
Nor has the American public heard from any other person who could confirm Obama's birth in Hawaii.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
No public official in Hawaii has publicly confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii. Director of Hawaiian Department of Heath, Fukino, said she has “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," but she failed to say that the certificate shows that Obama was born in Hawaii. Given that so many people (some intentionally to mislead and some unintentionally due to misspeaking or lack of knowledge) call the Certification of Live Birth a birth certificate, we do not know whether she was referring to the same document posted on the internet (the COLB) or an actual original certificate of live birth (BC). 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.” It is also telling that after the probative value of her statement was publicly attacked by those in the public demanding that Obama produce his original birth certificate, neither Fukino nor any one else in her office has come forward with any other clarifying information.
We have not heard from one international, federal, state, or local police or security agency that Obama's birth place has been officially confirmed.
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, O8-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 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.
The investigator then personally went to the hospital in Mombassa, 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."
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.
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.
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.
Fightthesmears.com and Factcheck.org have since maintained silence on the birth place issue after the questionable COLB was posted on the internet.
Obama has personally remained silent and has not declared publicly anything about his birth records after his COLB and place of birth were questioned that he was born in Hawaii.
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.
This Himalayan Mountain of contradictory evidence is sufficient to cause the prima facie presumption of the COLB to fall. Obama therefore now has the burden to come forward with competent evidence to conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii. To date, he has failed to come forward with 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 long-form original birth certificate) showing that he was born in Hawaii?
We cannot place any trust in what Mr. Gibbs said. He and Mr. Obama have to do a much better job than Mr. Gibbs’ feeble and floundering effort at answering Mr. Kinsolving’s simple question. Obama should just do the right and simple thing for everyone's sake and produce the real evidence of where he was born rather than have his political cronies dodge the question for him.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Natural Born Citizen Through the Eyes of Early Congresses
Not much information exists on why the Third Congress deleted "natural born" from the Naturalization Act of 1790 when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1795. There is virtually no information on the subject because they probably realized that the First Congress committed errors when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 and did not want to create a record of the errors.
It can be reasonably argued that Congress realized that under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is given the power to make uniform laws on naturalization and that this power did not include the power to decide who is included or excluded from being a presidential Article II "natural born Citizen." While Congress has passed throughout United States history many statutes declaring who shall be considered nationals and citizens of the United States at birth and thereby exempting such persons from having to be naturalized under naturalization laws, at no time except by way of the short-lived “natural born” phrase in Naturalization Act of 1790 did it ever declare these persons to be “natural born Citizens.” The uniform definition of "natural born Citizen" was already provided by the law of nations and was already settled. The Framers therefore saw no need nor did they give Congress the power to tinker with that definition. Believing that Congress was highly vulnerable to foreign influence and intrigue, the Framers, who wanted to keep such influence out of the presidency, did not trust Congress when it came to who would be President, and would not have given Congress the power to decide who shall be President by allowing it to define what an Article II "natural born Citizen” is.
Additionally, the 1790 act was a naturalization act. How could a naturalization act make anyone an Article II "natural born Citizen?" After all, a "natural born Citizen" was made by nature at the time of birth and could not be so made by any law of man.
Finally, allowing a child born on foreign soil to be President would have invited conflict with the foreign nation on whose soil the child was born. For example, Great Britain adhered to the concept of perpetual natural allegiance. Just imagine the Framers allowing a child born in Great Britain to two U.S. citizen parents (a perpetual natural born subject under English common law) after the adoption of the Constitution (post Article II grandfather time period) to be President and Commander in Chief of the United States. Also, “natural born Citizen” status, having a uniform definition under the laws of nations, could not be made to depend on the laws of the foreign country in which the child would be born to U.S. citizen parents. Congress realized their errors in passing the 1790 Act and corrected it in 1795.
What is important about these two naturalization acts which were passed in the early part of the founding of the Republic and which is also reflected in the Constitution itself, is that they show that the Framers of the Constitution clearly saw a distinction between a “Citizen” and a “natural born Citizen.” They show that the Framers rejected English common law which in addition to how it granted “natural born subjectship” through jus solis also made a child a “natural born subject” if born out of the King’s dominion to parents who were “natural born subjects” (jus sanguinis). Under the law of nations which the Framers adopted for the new United States, a “natural born Citizen” was a child born in the United States to a mother and father who were at the time of the child’s birth both United States citizens and a “Citizen” was any person who became a citizen by naturalization. A “Citizen” had the same civil and political rights as a “natural born Citizen” except he was not eligible to be President if born after the adoption of the Constitution. Only by becoming a citizen could a father and derivatively from him the mother give to their child the inherited right to be a “natural born Citizen.” Not including the American Indians because they belonged to a different nation and blacks because they were or their parents had been slaves, the United States was a new nation and only after its new citizens gave birth to a new generation of Americans could that new generation be called indigenous, natives or “natural born Citizens” of the United States. All those who were born British subjects before the adoption of the Constitution (which included the Founding Fathers themselves), actually became naturalized United States citizens by electing to become a United States citizen by adhering to the revolutionary cause rather than chosing to become British subjects by remaining loyal to Great Britain. They could not elect to become “natural born Citizens” because they were born British subjects.
From these early naturalization statutes, we can see that it is not sufficient to be a born “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment to qualify as a Presidential Article II “natural born Citizen.” While this amendment constitutionally makes those who qualify under its terms to be “citizens,” it does not nor was it ever intended to make these individuals Article II “natural born Citizens.” The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment were well aware that Article II refers to “natural born Citizen” and that Article I and Article IV refer to “Citizen.” By chosing the word “citizen,” they left intact the original meaning of “natural born Citizen” as it existed under the law of nations which the Founders adopted as the national law of the new United States.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####
It can be reasonably argued that Congress realized that under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is given the power to make uniform laws on naturalization and that this power did not include the power to decide who is included or excluded from being a presidential Article II "natural born Citizen." While Congress has passed throughout United States history many statutes declaring who shall be considered nationals and citizens of the United States at birth and thereby exempting such persons from having to be naturalized under naturalization laws, at no time except by way of the short-lived “natural born” phrase in Naturalization Act of 1790 did it ever declare these persons to be “natural born Citizens.” The uniform definition of "natural born Citizen" was already provided by the law of nations and was already settled. The Framers therefore saw no need nor did they give Congress the power to tinker with that definition. Believing that Congress was highly vulnerable to foreign influence and intrigue, the Framers, who wanted to keep such influence out of the presidency, did not trust Congress when it came to who would be President, and would not have given Congress the power to decide who shall be President by allowing it to define what an Article II "natural born Citizen” is.
Additionally, the 1790 act was a naturalization act. How could a naturalization act make anyone an Article II "natural born Citizen?" After all, a "natural born Citizen" was made by nature at the time of birth and could not be so made by any law of man.
Finally, allowing a child born on foreign soil to be President would have invited conflict with the foreign nation on whose soil the child was born. For example, Great Britain adhered to the concept of perpetual natural allegiance. Just imagine the Framers allowing a child born in Great Britain to two U.S. citizen parents (a perpetual natural born subject under English common law) after the adoption of the Constitution (post Article II grandfather time period) to be President and Commander in Chief of the United States. Also, “natural born Citizen” status, having a uniform definition under the laws of nations, could not be made to depend on the laws of the foreign country in which the child would be born to U.S. citizen parents. Congress realized their errors in passing the 1790 Act and corrected it in 1795.
What is important about these two naturalization acts which were passed in the early part of the founding of the Republic and which is also reflected in the Constitution itself, is that they show that the Framers of the Constitution clearly saw a distinction between a “Citizen” and a “natural born Citizen.” They show that the Framers rejected English common law which in addition to how it granted “natural born subjectship” through jus solis also made a child a “natural born subject” if born out of the King’s dominion to parents who were “natural born subjects” (jus sanguinis). Under the law of nations which the Framers adopted for the new United States, a “natural born Citizen” was a child born in the United States to a mother and father who were at the time of the child’s birth both United States citizens and a “Citizen” was any person who became a citizen by naturalization. A “Citizen” had the same civil and political rights as a “natural born Citizen” except he was not eligible to be President if born after the adoption of the Constitution. Only by becoming a citizen could a father and derivatively from him the mother give to their child the inherited right to be a “natural born Citizen.” Not including the American Indians because they belonged to a different nation and blacks because they were or their parents had been slaves, the United States was a new nation and only after its new citizens gave birth to a new generation of Americans could that new generation be called indigenous, natives or “natural born Citizens” of the United States. All those who were born British subjects before the adoption of the Constitution (which included the Founding Fathers themselves), actually became naturalized United States citizens by electing to become a United States citizen by adhering to the revolutionary cause rather than chosing to become British subjects by remaining loyal to Great Britain. They could not elect to become “natural born Citizens” because they were born British subjects.
From these early naturalization statutes, we can see that it is not sufficient to be a born “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment to qualify as a Presidential Article II “natural born Citizen.” While this amendment constitutionally makes those who qualify under its terms to be “citizens,” it does not nor was it ever intended to make these individuals Article II “natural born Citizens.” The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment were well aware that Article II refers to “natural born Citizen” and that Article I and Article IV refer to “Citizen.” By chosing the word “citizen,” they left intact the original meaning of “natural born Citizen” as it existed under the law of nations which the Founders adopted as the national law of the new United States.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
The Mark S McGrew Show - Sentinel Radio on BlogTalkRadio Network - 9:00 EDT Thurs 21 May 2009 - Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al - Update & Q&A
Listen to the latest status of the case as of 21 May 2009.
I am pleased to announce that the lead plaintiff, Mr. Charles Kerchner, in the 'Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al' case, and I will be on the The Mark S. McGrew talk radio show Thursday evening, 21 May 2009, from 9:00 to 11:00 p.m. EDT. The show is on Sentinel Radio on the BlogTalkRadio.com network which is broadcast via the internet. I will be providing an update for the case. Mr. Kerchner and I will then take Q&A from the host Mark S. McGrew and via phone calls from the listening audience. Feel free to spread this announcement to people interested in this case. I hope to hear from you on the radio show.
To listen to this BlogTalkRadio.com show live on the air or via the archives in the On Demand section after the show is broadcast, use the below link which will take you straight to the show:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Sentinel_Radio/2009/05/22/The-Mark-S-McGrew-Show-Mario-Apuzzo-and-Charles-Kerchner
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
P.S. Please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####
I am pleased to announce that the lead plaintiff, Mr. Charles Kerchner, in the 'Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al' case, and I will be on the The Mark S. McGrew talk radio show Thursday evening, 21 May 2009, from 9:00 to 11:00 p.m. EDT. The show is on Sentinel Radio on the BlogTalkRadio.com network which is broadcast via the internet. I will be providing an update for the case. Mr. Kerchner and I will then take Q&A from the host Mark S. McGrew and via phone calls from the listening audience. Feel free to spread this announcement to people interested in this case. I hope to hear from you on the radio show.
To listen to this BlogTalkRadio.com show live on the air or via the archives in the On Demand section after the show is broadcast, use the below link which will take you straight to the show:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Sentinel_Radio/2009/05/22/The-Mark-S-McGrew-Show-Mario-Apuzzo-and-Charles-Kerchner
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
P.S. Please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Declaration Opposing Defendants' Motion to Extend Time to Answer or Otherwise Move as to the Amended Complaint Returnable June 1, 2009
Activity in Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Lawsuit - On 18 May 2009 I filed a Declaration Opposing Defendants' Motion to Extend Time to Answer or Otherwise Move as to the Amended Complaint Returnable June 1, 2009. The defendants have already had almost three months to answer, move, or otherwise respond. Regular citizen defendants get 20 days. The government normally gets 60 days. They have already had almost 90 days. What they are asking for would get them to over 120 days before having to answer or otherwise move. In our opinion, they have had an adequate amount of time to answer or move or other wise respond. Thus I have filed our opposition to any further extensions of time to answer or otherwise move on this case. More on that in a subsequent post.
Link to a copy of the Declaration Opposing Defendants' Motion:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/15610545/
Link to view Advertorial on page 11 in 18 May 2009 edition of Washington Times National Weekly:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/15611836/
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####
Link to a copy of the Declaration Opposing Defendants' Motion:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/15610545/
Link to view Advertorial on page 11 in 18 May 2009 edition of Washington Times National Weekly:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/15611836/
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####
Monday, May 18, 2009
Article II "Natural Born Citizen" Means Unity of Citizenship and Allegiance at Birth
Article II of our Constitution has a lot to say about how a would-be President is born. "Natural born Citizen" status requires not only birth on U.S. soil but also birth to parents who are both U.S. citizens by birth or naturalization. This unity of jus soli (soil) and jus sanguinis (descent) in the child at the time of birth assures that the child is born with sole allegiance (obligation of fidelity and obedience to government in consideration for protection that government gives (U.S. v. Kuhn, 49 F.Supp.407, 414 (D.C.N.Y)) and loyalty to the United States and that no other nation can lay any claim to the child's (later an adult) allegiance and loyalty. Indeed, under such birth circumstances, no other nation can legally or morally demand any military or political obligations from that person. The child, as he/she grows, will also have a better chance of not psychologically struggling with conflicted allegiance and loyalty to any other nation.Unity of citizenship and allegiance is based on the teachings of the law of nature (natural law) and the law of nations, as confirmed by ancient Greek and Roman law; American, European, and English constitutions, common and civil law, and statutes; and Vattel's, The Law of Nations, all of which the Founding Fathers read and understood. These sources have taught civilizations from time immemorial that a person gains allegiance and loyalty and therefore attachment for a nation from either being born on the soil of the community defining that nation or from being born to parents who were also born on that same soil or who naturalized as though they were born on that soil. It is only by combining at birth in the child both means to inherit these two sources of citizenship that the child by nature and therefore also by law is born with only one allegiance and loyalty to and consequently attachment for only the United States.
Our Constitution requires unity of U.S. citizenship and allegiance from birth only for the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military, given the unique nature of the position, a position that empowers one person to decide whether our national survival requires the destruction of or a nuclear attack on or some less military measure against another nation or group. It is required of the President because such a status gives the American people the best Constitutional chance that a would-be President will not have any foreign influences which because of conflict of conscience can most certainly taint his/her critical decisions made when leading the nation. Hence, the special status is a Constitutional eligibility requirement to be President and thereby to be vested with the sole power to decide the fate and survival of the American people. Of course, the status, being a minimum Constitutional requirement, does not guarantee that a would-be President will have love and fealty only for the United States. Therefore, the final informed and intelligent decision on who the President will be is left to the voters, the Electors, and Congress at the Joint Session, to whom hopefully responsible media and political institutions will have provided all the necessary vetting information concerning the candidate's character and qualifications to be President.
Through historical development, unity of citizenship and sole allegiance at birth is not required for U.S. born citizen Senators, Representatives, and regular citizens under the 14th Amendment and Congressional enactments. In contradiction and which confirms the Founding Fathers' meaning of what a "natural born Citizen" is, naturalized citizens, since 1795, before becoming such must swear an oath that they renounce all other allegiances to other nations. During the Washington Administration, the First Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 in which it provided that new citizens take a solemn oath to support the Constitution and “renounce” all “allegiance” to their former political regimes. This is during the time that most of the Framers were alive and still actively involved in guiding and forming the new national government and Constitutional Republic. Today, we still require that an alien upon being naturalized must give an oath that he/she renounces all former allegiances and that he/she will “support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Hence, allegiance is not simply a thing of the past but very much with us today. It is important to also understand that naturalization takes an alien back to the moment of birth and by law changes that alien’s birth status. In other words, naturalization, which by legal definition requires sole allegiance to the United States, re-creates the individual as though he were a born Citizen but only does it by law and not by nature. This is the reason that the 14th Amendment considers a naturalized person to be a “citizen” of the United States and not a “natural born Citizen” of the United States. This recreation of birth status through naturalization which also existed under English common law also probably explains why John Jay underlined the word “born” when he recommended to General Washington that only a “natural born Citizen” (as to say born in fact, by nature, and not by law) be allowed to be President. Consequently, naturalized citizens stand on an equal footing with born Citizens (who are so recognized and confirmed by the 14th Amendment or by an Act of Congress and who can be but not necessarily are also “natural born Citizens”) except that they cannot be President or Vice President, for they were born with an allegiance not owing to the United States and acquire their allegiance for the United States only after birth. Surely, if a naturalized citizen, even though having sole allegiance to the United States, is not Constitutionally eligible to be President, we cannot expect any less of someone who we are willing to declare so Constitutionally eligible.
The Founding Fathers emphasized that, for the sake of the survival of the Constitutional Republic, the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military be free of foreign influence and intrigue. It is the "natural born Citizen" clause that gives the American people the best fighting chance to keep it that way for generations to come. American people do not have the Constitutional right to have any certain person be President. But for the reasons stated above, minimally they do have a Constitutional right to protect their liberty by knowing and assuring that their President is Constitutionally eligible and qualified to hold the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####
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
####
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Andrea Shea King Radio Show - BlogTalkRadio Network - 9:00 EDT Wed 13 May 2009 - Kerchner et al v. Obama & Congress et al - Update & Q&A
Listen to the latest status of the case as of 13 May 2009.
I am pleased to announce that the lead plaintiff, Mr. Charles Kerchner, in the 'Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al' case, and I will be on the Andrea Shea King talk radio show Wednesday evening, 13 May 2009, from 9:00 to 10:00 p.m. EDT. The show is on the BlogTalkRadio.com network which is broadcast via the internet. I will be providing an update for the case. Mr. Kerchner and I will then take Q&A from the host Andrea Shea King and via phone calls from the listening audience. Feel free to spread this announcement to people interested in this case. I hope to hear from you on the radio show.
To listen to this BlogTalkRadio.com show live on the air or via the archives in the On Demand section after the show is broadcast, use the below link which will take you straight to the show. Listen to the lead in intro music for a few minutes after which the show starts:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/stations/HeadingRight/ASKShow/2009/05/14/The-Andrea-Shea-King-Show
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
P.S. Please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####
I am pleased to announce that the lead plaintiff, Mr. Charles Kerchner, in the 'Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al' case, and I will be on the Andrea Shea King talk radio show Wednesday evening, 13 May 2009, from 9:00 to 10:00 p.m. EDT. The show is on the BlogTalkRadio.com network which is broadcast via the internet. I will be providing an update for the case. Mr. Kerchner and I will then take Q&A from the host Andrea Shea King and via phone calls from the listening audience. Feel free to spread this announcement to people interested in this case. I hope to hear from you on the radio show.
To listen to this BlogTalkRadio.com show live on the air or via the archives in the On Demand section after the show is broadcast, use the below link which will take you straight to the show. Listen to the lead in intro music for a few minutes after which the show starts:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/stations/HeadingRight/ASKShow/2009/05/14/The-Andrea-Shea-King-Show
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
P.S. Please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
The President’s Sole Allegiance at Birth Serves the Best Interest of the United States
The Constitution itself does not define what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is. Since the founding of the United States to the present, no court of any state or of the United States has decided whether a candidate for or sitting President has satisfied the Article II “natural born Citizen” requirement. The Constitution itself can be looked to for clues as to what the Framers meant by the “natural born Citizen” clause. There also exists ancient Greek and Roman law; civil law; American common law; John Jay’s letter to General Washington; records of constitutional debates on the Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment, and Congressional Acts; natural law and Vattel’s legal treatise, The Law of Nations (a natural born citizen was one born in the country to parents who were both citizens; English common law allowed for the single circumstance of being born in the country to naturalize the children of a foreigner which meant they were not natural born; a child born in the country to a permanent resident became himself a permanent resident and not a citizen); Supreme Court case law; federal and state statutes; and historical precedent showing who has been President before and after 1779, which all tell us what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is. The political environment in which the Framers lived (transitioning from a monarchy to a Constitutional Republic) also provides further clues to the meaning of the term. Additionally, classical international law universally condemned dual nationality. From these sources, we learn that an Article II “natural born Citizen” is one that is born in the United States to a mother and father who are both United States citizens by birth or naturalization.
How we interpret the meaning of “natural born Citizen” in Article II should be driven by what the Framers intended the term to mean, as informed by what is in the best interest of the United States and the American people. In analyzing the citizenship requirements of Article II as it pertains to being eligible to be President, we are only looking to the citizenship requirement to be President and not to the requirement to be a born citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment, Congressional Acts, or any other law. The Article II citizenship standard to be President is higher than that to be a born citizen of the United States under these latter provisions and laws. It is for this reason that the Founding Fathers did not use the definition of a “natural born subject” as it existed in English common law as the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Any reasonable interpretation of Article II’s Presidential eligibility clause should provide the maximum benefit to the United States and the American people whom the President will represent. The American people deserve and under the Constitution are entitled, for their safety and survival and that of the United States, to the maximum degree of protection that they can possibly have from their President.
Requiring that a would-be President is born with no allegiances other than to the United States is in the best interest of the United States and the American people. The Founding Fathers (Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison), along with Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Louis Brandeis, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Felix Frankfurter, among others, have all confirmed that undivided political loyalty to the United States should be an absolute condition of citizenship. John Fonte, Dual Allegiance: A Challenge to Immigration Reform and Patriotic Assimilation, November 2005, Center for Immigration Studies. http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/back1205.html.
Being born with sole allegiance to the United States requires that the child be born on United States soil to parents who are both United States citizens at the time of birth. Under such birth circumstances, the child inherits his/her citizenship from the soil of the United States and from both of his/her parents. In another post, I have referred to this joining of citizenships as “unity of citizenship.” If both parents at the time of the child’s birth are also United States citizens by birth or by naturalization, it will not be possible under any law of any other nation (e.g. laws of other nations that through jus sanguinis grant citizenship to the children born abroad to their citizens and that allow those foreign-born children to possess dual citizenship) that the child will inherit by descent from his or her parents any other nationality. Parents who are naturalized United States citizens, through the naturalization process and the oath of allegiance, have manifested their consent to be subject only to the jurisdiction of the United States and thereby cannot pass on to their child any nationality or allegiance other than that of the United States. Such a Constitutional rule assures that the child will have immediate attachment to the United States not only by being born on United States soil but also through his or her United States citizen parents. Such a rule also guarantees that no other nation has any claim to the child’s allegiance. It is that immediate and absolute attachment from birth which is the seed for future affinity and fidelity for the United States alone. That seed will also flourish and instill in the child love for and loyalty to the United States alone and impart in the child the Constitutional values handed down by the Founding Fathers to past, present, and future generations of Americans. These are qualities and values which the American people rightfully expect their President to have. This birth status in a would-be President becomes even more critical given that Article II only requires that he/she be a resident of the United States for only 14 years.
There simply is no benefit to the United States and its people in having a requirement that demands of a President anything less than absolute and sole allegiance to the United States from birth. The Executive, represented by the Office of President, is one of the three branches of Constitutional power under our Constitution. Chief Justice Marshall in the case of, The Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. 7 Cranch 116 116 (1812), said:
“The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it, deriving validity from an external source, would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction, and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction. All exceptions, therefore, to the full and complete power of a nation within its own territories must be traced up to the consent of the nation itself. They can flow from no other legitimate source. This consent may be either express or implied. In the latter case, it is less determinate, exposed more to the uncertainties of construction; but, if understood, not less obligatory.”
Allowing a person with dual citizenship and allegiance from birth to occupy that powerful position does nothing but weaken American constitutional and national sovereignty which in the words of Justice Marshall is absolute. With a child being born with dual nationalities and therefore dual allegiances (“nationals” include citizens and others who “owe permanent allegiance to the United States.” 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1101(a)(22)) , the United States would not have exclusive and absolute jurisdiction over that child upon his/her birth, the time that the Framers in Article II set to be critical to presidential eligibility. Another nation through jus sanguinis and dual citizenship provisions would also have jurisdiction over that child which would conflict with the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the United States. It is not reasonable to conclude that the United States would consent not to have full and complete jurisdiction over a child who could potentially grow and some day be vested with the executive power over the nation and its military.
The Founding Fathers expected the President and Commander in Chief of the Military to have the maximum attachment to the United States and to be free to the greatest degree possible of foreign influence. There is no reasonable justification for having a Constitutional eligibility requirement to be President that would allow a President from birth to dilute his/her attachment, allegiance, and fidelity to the United States. Given what we know since 1795 about the Founding Fathers’ demanding absolute and sole allegiance and loyalty to the United States from naturalized citizens, it simply is not reasonable to conclude that the Founding Fathers would have written a Presidential eligibility clause that would allow an individual, born with diminished and eroded American national loyalty, to occupy the Office of President.
Dual citizenship and allegiance in a President present a host of problems for him and the nation such as potential conflicts on how a President would conduct foreign affairs, perceive what are the national security interests of the United States, exercise his political loyalty to the United States, and satisfy his military service obligations to his other nation. A sitting President could conceivably have been or be required to satisfy a military obligation to a foreign nation in threatened or actual armed conflict with the United States. Stephen H. Legomsky, Dual Nationality and Military Service: Strategy Number Two, in David A. Martin & Kay Hailbronner (eds.) (2000). There is also the significant question of whether such a President should be given a top level security clearance which the Commander in Chief of the Military must have and which is required for military officers. These conflicts may potentially exist not only in the mind of the office holder himself but also in the minds of other nations and the American public itself, who would not have full confidence in his or her allegiance and loyalty to the United States. With the phenomenon of dual nationality growing rapidly in the United States, it becomes ever more important that Courts established now and not later that our Founding Fathers in Article II established that a Presidential contender cannot be born with dual nationalities and allegiances.
How is America to credibly stress to naturalizing immigrants who since 1795 are supposed to assimilate American Constitutional and political values and transfer their full allegiance, fidelity, and political loyalty solely to the United States if our nation allows a person to be President who was born with, and boasts of his citizenship of the world and dual allegiances and citizenship, i.e., Barack Obama,?
Finally, sole allegiance to the United States at birth in order to be President is not a very discriminatory requirement and it actually allows the most populous group of Americans to be President. Natural Born Citizens having sole allegiance to the USA make up the overwhelming majority of American citizens. On the other hand, dual citizens are actually a much smaller group and special category of citizens. The founders and framers wanted future Presidents and Commander-in-Chiefs to have sole allegiance to the USA and thus specified in Article II of our Constitution that future Presidents and Commander-in-Chiefs be selected only from the ranks of Natural Born Citizens of the USA, not from the ranks of dual citizens of two or more countries.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####
How we interpret the meaning of “natural born Citizen” in Article II should be driven by what the Framers intended the term to mean, as informed by what is in the best interest of the United States and the American people. In analyzing the citizenship requirements of Article II as it pertains to being eligible to be President, we are only looking to the citizenship requirement to be President and not to the requirement to be a born citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment, Congressional Acts, or any other law. The Article II citizenship standard to be President is higher than that to be a born citizen of the United States under these latter provisions and laws. It is for this reason that the Founding Fathers did not use the definition of a “natural born subject” as it existed in English common law as the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Any reasonable interpretation of Article II’s Presidential eligibility clause should provide the maximum benefit to the United States and the American people whom the President will represent. The American people deserve and under the Constitution are entitled, for their safety and survival and that of the United States, to the maximum degree of protection that they can possibly have from their President.
Requiring that a would-be President is born with no allegiances other than to the United States is in the best interest of the United States and the American people. The Founding Fathers (Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison), along with Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Louis Brandeis, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Felix Frankfurter, among others, have all confirmed that undivided political loyalty to the United States should be an absolute condition of citizenship. John Fonte, Dual Allegiance: A Challenge to Immigration Reform and Patriotic Assimilation, November 2005, Center for Immigration Studies. http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/back1205.html.
Being born with sole allegiance to the United States requires that the child be born on United States soil to parents who are both United States citizens at the time of birth. Under such birth circumstances, the child inherits his/her citizenship from the soil of the United States and from both of his/her parents. In another post, I have referred to this joining of citizenships as “unity of citizenship.” If both parents at the time of the child’s birth are also United States citizens by birth or by naturalization, it will not be possible under any law of any other nation (e.g. laws of other nations that through jus sanguinis grant citizenship to the children born abroad to their citizens and that allow those foreign-born children to possess dual citizenship) that the child will inherit by descent from his or her parents any other nationality. Parents who are naturalized United States citizens, through the naturalization process and the oath of allegiance, have manifested their consent to be subject only to the jurisdiction of the United States and thereby cannot pass on to their child any nationality or allegiance other than that of the United States. Such a Constitutional rule assures that the child will have immediate attachment to the United States not only by being born on United States soil but also through his or her United States citizen parents. Such a rule also guarantees that no other nation has any claim to the child’s allegiance. It is that immediate and absolute attachment from birth which is the seed for future affinity and fidelity for the United States alone. That seed will also flourish and instill in the child love for and loyalty to the United States alone and impart in the child the Constitutional values handed down by the Founding Fathers to past, present, and future generations of Americans. These are qualities and values which the American people rightfully expect their President to have. This birth status in a would-be President becomes even more critical given that Article II only requires that he/she be a resident of the United States for only 14 years.
There simply is no benefit to the United States and its people in having a requirement that demands of a President anything less than absolute and sole allegiance to the United States from birth. The Executive, represented by the Office of President, is one of the three branches of Constitutional power under our Constitution. Chief Justice Marshall in the case of, The Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. 7 Cranch 116 116 (1812), said:
“The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it, deriving validity from an external source, would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction, and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction. All exceptions, therefore, to the full and complete power of a nation within its own territories must be traced up to the consent of the nation itself. They can flow from no other legitimate source. This consent may be either express or implied. In the latter case, it is less determinate, exposed more to the uncertainties of construction; but, if understood, not less obligatory.”
Allowing a person with dual citizenship and allegiance from birth to occupy that powerful position does nothing but weaken American constitutional and national sovereignty which in the words of Justice Marshall is absolute. With a child being born with dual nationalities and therefore dual allegiances (“nationals” include citizens and others who “owe permanent allegiance to the United States.” 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1101(a)(22)) , the United States would not have exclusive and absolute jurisdiction over that child upon his/her birth, the time that the Framers in Article II set to be critical to presidential eligibility. Another nation through jus sanguinis and dual citizenship provisions would also have jurisdiction over that child which would conflict with the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the United States. It is not reasonable to conclude that the United States would consent not to have full and complete jurisdiction over a child who could potentially grow and some day be vested with the executive power over the nation and its military.
The Founding Fathers expected the President and Commander in Chief of the Military to have the maximum attachment to the United States and to be free to the greatest degree possible of foreign influence. There is no reasonable justification for having a Constitutional eligibility requirement to be President that would allow a President from birth to dilute his/her attachment, allegiance, and fidelity to the United States. Given what we know since 1795 about the Founding Fathers’ demanding absolute and sole allegiance and loyalty to the United States from naturalized citizens, it simply is not reasonable to conclude that the Founding Fathers would have written a Presidential eligibility clause that would allow an individual, born with diminished and eroded American national loyalty, to occupy the Office of President.
Dual citizenship and allegiance in a President present a host of problems for him and the nation such as potential conflicts on how a President would conduct foreign affairs, perceive what are the national security interests of the United States, exercise his political loyalty to the United States, and satisfy his military service obligations to his other nation. A sitting President could conceivably have been or be required to satisfy a military obligation to a foreign nation in threatened or actual armed conflict with the United States. Stephen H. Legomsky, Dual Nationality and Military Service: Strategy Number Two, in David A. Martin & Kay Hailbronner (eds.) (2000). There is also the significant question of whether such a President should be given a top level security clearance which the Commander in Chief of the Military must have and which is required for military officers. These conflicts may potentially exist not only in the mind of the office holder himself but also in the minds of other nations and the American public itself, who would not have full confidence in his or her allegiance and loyalty to the United States. With the phenomenon of dual nationality growing rapidly in the United States, it becomes ever more important that Courts established now and not later that our Founding Fathers in Article II established that a Presidential contender cannot be born with dual nationalities and allegiances.
How is America to credibly stress to naturalizing immigrants who since 1795 are supposed to assimilate American Constitutional and political values and transfer their full allegiance, fidelity, and political loyalty solely to the United States if our nation allows a person to be President who was born with, and boasts of his citizenship of the world and dual allegiances and citizenship, i.e., Barack Obama,?
Finally, sole allegiance to the United States at birth in order to be President is not a very discriminatory requirement and it actually allows the most populous group of Americans to be President. Natural Born Citizens having sole allegiance to the USA make up the overwhelming majority of American citizens. On the other hand, dual citizens are actually a much smaller group and special category of citizens. The founders and framers wanted future Presidents and Commander-in-Chiefs to have sole allegiance to the USA and thus specified in Article II of our Constitution that future Presidents and Commander-in-Chiefs be selected only from the ranks of Natural Born Citizens of the USA, not from the ranks of dual citizens of two or more countries.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####
Sunday, May 3, 2009
The Wisdom King
While the future now is that which be our destiny,
Things of the past continue to last.
How one is born will shape one’s years,
For where and how one goes in great degree
Doth make its path whence one did spring.
I do implore the vision yet for all to see.
May the Wisdom King give the living now for all the living come
That simple but great truth.
Whence did Obama first the shining light did see?
And finally please do speak of how the future course shall Biden be.
Copyright © Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Things of the past continue to last.
How one is born will shape one’s years,
For where and how one goes in great degree
Doth make its path whence one did spring.
I do implore the vision yet for all to see.
May the Wisdom King give the living now for all the living come
That simple but great truth.
Whence did Obama first the shining light did see?
And finally please do speak of how the future course shall Biden be.
Copyright © Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
