Tuesday, May 4, 2010

Responses to an Obama Supporter’s Comments on Obama’s Eligibility to be President

A poster and commentator by the User ID name of Slartibartfast has recently left a comment to my recent essay entitled, "For Love of Party Obama Supporter Declares President George Washington a 'Natural Born Citizen' Instead of an 'Original Citizen' Covered by the Constitution's 'Founding Fathers Grandfather Clause.'" The poster describes himself/herself as follows: “While I just created the google account for 'Slartibartfast', I am an occasional poster (under that pseudonym) at Dr. Conspiracy's site and a regular poster at George Washington University Law professor Jonathan Turley's site (while I use the same pseudonym there, I have revealed my identity so it is not anonymous). I'm not on any 'team' and I'm not filled with hate.” The poster then made various comments on the issues raised in my essay. Below are the poster’s comments and my responses:

Slartibartfast: “I am a supporter of President Obama and believe that a certified copy of his COLB (assuming it confirms the information on the version posted online) is sufficient proof that he is a natural born citizen to any US court.”

Apuzzo response: An authentic and certified Certification of Live Birth (COLB), not to be confused with a Certificate of Live Birth (BC), is only prima facie evidence of a birth event. A certified copy paper version of the alleged COLB has not been presented to any controlling legal authority or even to any reporters in the major media. Only providing a 2008 computer image on the internet of an alleged 2007 COLB, Obama has yet to produce for the public even an authentic and certified COLB. All the major talking heads on TV have been waving before the cameras is a local laser printer printout of that same digital image off the internet. What kind of proof of anything is that in the age of digital image manipulation software such as PhotoShop? On the contrary, there is convincing evidence posted here, here, and here that the COLB images posted on the internet are fraudulent. But even if Obama produced an authentic COLB, it is not sufficient evidence of place of birth. As the COLB itself clearly states at its bottom, it is only prima facie evidence (evidence accepted on its face without challenge from other evidence). Given the great amount of existing evidence showing that Obama was born in Kenya, he has to produce his contemporaneous birth certificate from 1961 which would provide corroborating evidence such as the identity of the Honolulu hospital where he was allegedly born and the doctor who allegedly delivered him, along with other probative evidence. There exists too much contradictory evidence showing that he was born in Kenya to simply accept the short-form COLB as proof that he was born in Hawaii. Additionally, Obama causes his COLB to lose probative value given that he has refused to release to the public all his other contemporaneous life papers--medical, travel, work, and education documents--evidence which would corroborate the veracity of the COLB. But more important, even if the COLB and his 1961 contemporaneous birth certificate (BC) both show that he was born in Hawaii, Obama still does not and cannot satisfy the constitutional definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” because he was not born in the United States to a mother and father who were at the time of his birth United States citizens.

Slartibartfast: “I don't find your argument [regarding the meaning of the “natural born Citizen clause] persuasive since in other cases where the founders did not want their words to be interpreted in the context of English Common Law, they explicitly said so (such as the definition of the term 'treason').”

Apuzzo response: It is rather unreasonable to argue that with every word in the Constitution, the Framers defaulted to the English common law for its meaning unless they told us they were relying upon some other law for definition. We know from evidence from the Founding era that the Framers rejected English common law on the federal level and only tolerated its use by the States on local issues. The test for who would wield the executive and military power of the United States would surely not be anything that the Framers would have left to be defined by the outdated and no longer relevant feudalistic law of monarchial Great Britain or to be left in the hands of unpredictable State control. We also know from that same historical evidence that natural law and the law of nations, as confirmed and enlightened for the Founders and Framers by Biblical text and classical wisdom, inspired them in deciding to “dissolve” their feudal allegiance to the British Crown and in constituting the new Constitutional Republic of “Free and Independent States.” The Framers also made express and direct reference to the “the Law of Nations” in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10. No where in the Constitution did they refer to the English common law. It is only reasonable to conclude that the Founders and Framers would have looked to that same law, which they considered as coming from God and providing the basis of liberty for the civilized world, for the standard to be used to determine who would be the present and future President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

Slartibartfast: “In addition, I think that the the [sic] statement ‘The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.’" in the majority opinion of US vs. Wong Kim Ark clearly indicates that President Obama would have been a natural born citizen if BOTH of his parents were aliens (and he was born in Hawaii), but since he is the child of a US citizen born in the United States (and under its jurisdiction) I don't think that there is any doubt that he is a natural born citizen and eligible for the office he holds.”

Apuzzo response: This quote from Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), shows that Justice Gray understood that a “natural-born citizen” can only be produced by being born in the country to two citizen parents. While Justice Gray equated a child born in the United States to “an” alien parent (this is Obama if he was born in Hawaii and is what Justice Gray called a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment) to a child born in the United States to two citizen parents (this is not Obama and is what Justice Gray called a “natural-born citizen”), he only did so in terms of their rights. Justice Gray distinguished the former from the latter by the sole fact of being born to “an” alien parent which means just one alien parent.  At no time did he say that such a child born in the United States of “an” alien parent is a “natural born Citizen.” To better understand this point, we know that the Fourteenth Amendment considers born citizens and naturalized citizens "citizens of the United States" and deems both classes of citizens to be equal.  But even though they are equal in rights, we know that under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen is not eligible to be President.

In Wong Kim Ark, the Court was faced with interpreting the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as written in the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause. While Justice Gray cited and quoted favorably Minor v. Happersett’s (88 U.S. 162 (1875)) Vattelian definition of an Article II “natural-born citizen,” he also said that he did not read the Minor decision to mean that the Court was “committed” to excluding children born in the United States to alien parents from being considered “citizens of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court knew that Wong, being born in the country to alien parents, did not satisfy the law of nations definition of a “natural born Citizen.” It also was not necessary for Wong to be a “natural born Citizen,” for he only needed to be a “citizen of the United States” to enter and remain in the United States. So what the Court did was use the old English common law that prevailed in the colonies to make Wong a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. Hence, the Court was willing to give Wong the status of a “citizen of the United States,” but only under the Fourteenth Amendment, and not under the natural law and law of nations which previous United States Supreme Court cases and other authorities had advised provided the standard for one to be a “natural born Citizen.” So what Wong did was create a class of persons who are born in the United States and even though they are born to one or two alien parents are still considered to be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” under a rather liberal interpretation of that clause which at most makes them Fourteenth Amendment “citizens of the United States” but not Article II “natural born Citizens.”

Justice Gray said that a child born in the United States to alien parents “is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen.” But we know that the Constitution says that only a “natural born Citizen” can be President. Being able to be President is not a “right” but rather a privilege that is granted by the People to someone among them who meets the minimal constitutional eligibility requirements of Article II and is legally voted into that office. The People included this requirement so that they could make sure that there would be a minimal way to assure them that after that person won the required vote and assumed office, they could still trust him to protect their lives, liberty, and property, and promote their happiness. Hence, Justice Gray’s statement is subject to the command of “the People,” as expressed by them in the Constitution. That command can only be changed indirectly by way of interpretation by the United States Supreme Court or directly by a constitutional amendment.

Slartibartfast: “[I]f any court rules on the definition of 'natural born citizen' that they will come to the same conclusion as the (non-binding) precedent set by the Indiana court in the Ankeny decision.”

Apuzzo response: As you correctly point out, the Indiana State court decision of Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 679 (2009), is not binding on a federal court. But more important is that the decision is wanting in legal analysis and historical and legal support. It basically took Wong Kim Ark’s definition of a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” and used it to also define an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Hence, the court conflated the two terms into the former. In so doing, the court obliterated the presidential eligibility clause “natural born Citizen” from the Constitution. Such doing has no support in logic, history, historical sources, and United States Supreme Court case law. In fact, it is contrary to sound constitutional interpretation as taught by Chief Justice John Marshall. It is of critical importance that the Framers included in the Constitution the status of “natural born Citizen” and “Citizen of the United States.” There must be a reason for their including these two separate and distinct classes of citizenship. “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 175 (1803). Use of different language in different parts of a statute suggests that the words used have a different meaning. E.g. Bates v. United States, 522 U.S. 23, 29-30 (1997). Hence, every clause in the Constitution must be given its own independent meaning. The Framers were very specific in including both these terms into the Constitution. The unambiguous text and structure of the Constitution show that the terms each describe a different type of citizen and each are ascribed to different political offices. Hence, conflating “natural born Citizen” and “Citizen of the United States” is therefore simply not allowed and “inadmissible.” Moreover, apart from a strict textual interpretation of the meaning of the two terms, there is no United States Supreme Court decision holding or even suggesting in dicta that the two terms mean the same thing. On the contrary, the historical record, Supreme Court cases, and Congressional Acts all show that the two terms are separate and distinct with their own meaning.

Slartibartfast: “I expect that the effect of any eligibility law or lawsuit will be to demonstrate that President Obama is a natural born citizen in a very high profile way and totally marginalize the eligibility movement.”

Apuzzo response: We welcome the challenge to have a court of competent jurisdiction decide the question of Obama’s Article II eligibility to be President. We believe that if a court will give Commander Kerchner and the other plaintiffs standing, we will prevail. Once such a court decides the merits of the eligibility question (not just the standing question), I do not believe there will continue to be an “eligibility movement” and so there will not be any need to “marginalize” it.

Slartibartfast: “So I wish you and Mr. Apuzzo the best of luck in attempting what I expect will greatly benefit the effort to re-elect President Obama.”

Apuzzo response: Commander Kerchner, the other plaintiffs, and I are not interested in hurting or helping anyone’s chances of getting elected or re-elected. What we are interested in is that the Constitution be respected and applied as the law of the land in our Constitutional Republic. We are also interested in making it publicly known that in our Constitutional Republic the President and other elected officials are the servants of “the People” and that under no rational and common-sense-driven system of self-representative republican government should the servant hide his or her identity from the People that he or she serves.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
May 4, 2010
http://puzo1.blogs.com/
####

24 comments:

Incredulous said...

Startibart doesn't get it.
Hawaii has never certified Obama's COLB, so there goes his dumb argument right there.

Hawaii registrar first FILES then later ACCEPTS and CERTIFIES an application for a COLB.

Fukino only said she saw Obama's FILED COLB, and that "it" says he was born in Hawaii, because that's what he wrote on the darn thing himself!

She never said that his COLB was certified or accepted by registrar COLB says he was born in Hawaii.

Hawaii has NO certified COLB and DOH refuses to verify the factcheck or fightthesmears document. The Hawaii Attorney General refuses to corroborate any assertion that Obama was born in Hawaii, and Janice Fukino will not vouch that Obama was born in Hawaii either.

Hawaii never certified Obama being born in-state.

cfkerchner said...

Is Hawaii Cover Up Birth Registration Fraud in the Case of Obama in 1961!? Concerned Americans Have Good Reason to Doubt that Putative President Obama Was Born in Hawaii!

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/concerned-americans-have-good-reason-to.html

CDR Kerchner

medical said...

There is no lie the Obots will not tell and no fairy tale that they will not fabricate and attempt to foist upon the public. What a weak minded, frightened, and desperate group of losers. Are the Obots not aware that almost everyone can now see right through their silly fables? They're just like many of the shiftless people I grew up around, who, over fifty years later, are still jealous and mad because they feel that I led a very pampered "unfair" childhood and everything I now own was just handed to me. They claim they've been "unfairly disadvantaged" all their lives - strange, same neighborhood, totally different outcomes. My so called "pampered" behind was tough enough to whip those neighborhood "thugs" and they used to become so frustrated that they would resort to wielding baseball bats to try and whip a little 5'9" 175 pound guy like me - one guy was 6'4" and about 250 pounds - the bats didn't work out very well for them either, I'd quickly move in so close that they couldn't swing the bats, then pummel their noses and chins. They were literally so jealous that they would come to my home in groups looking for a fight, so I learned to keep a bucket full of good size defensive "throwing rocks" just inside the back door to repel and chase them with. My dad said "son, that's the same way Marxists and Communists operate, they gang up on hard working people and bully them into giving up what they've worked so hard for - don't put up with it, make them run when they see you". They've never yet realized that I set goals, worked hard, and spent many sleepless nights making something of myself while they were partying, acting the fool, and getting in trouble. From an early age, I was determined to "T.C.B." on my own. I earned my first dollar from my father's best friend by adding water to the radiator of good old Lt. Gen. Bolling's automobile long before I was old enough to attend school. The stinking, lazy, lying Marxist Obots (like crazy Dr. Conspiracy), are just like those jealous "thugs" from my old neighborhood, they're too lazy to climb the mountain of life, so they're useless failures. Now they're all waiting for a free helicopter ride straight to the summit of the mountain of life courtesy of "the Usurper". After all, they're "entitled to a better life". Boys, it's not ever going to happen, you've been suckered!

medical said...

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams.

Incredulous said...

In many parts of Africa the idea of private property ownership is not fully embraced. If someone has something another covets, they just club them and take it, society goes nowhere, every effort becomes pointless. Only the thugs survive and there is no advancement for humanity.


Mr. Apuzzo, you've written that McCain being the son of an active duty "soldier" would still have qualified as being a natural born citizen even if he was born on Panamanian soil...
Combined with news that Republicans felt their hands were tied because their candidate was ineligible too, and mutual-assured-destruction or quid pro quo could not complain about Obama's ineligibility "either"...
Doesn't this mean that Obama's goons had NO M.A.D. with McCain afterall? They had a plastic squirt gun and not a Beretta to the Republicans' proverbial heads, but the victim, the Republicans, believed that plastic squirt gun was the real thing?

This is critical, because per Vattle and Natural Law you're saying McCain is a natural born citizen, that the claims against him were falsely made and used to manipulate him and the Republican party, depriving Americans of their protections, then and now. Then, during the campaign, they did not say anything about Obama's ineligibility, and even now they fear their own culpability and that they would have to repay Federal campaign funds, or be held financially or legally liable in other ways.

Isn't it critically important to remove any stigma from McCain's eligibility so that the Republican party is free to come to the assistance of our country again?
I believe so!

I think you should amply emphasize McCain's eligibility and I bet you'll see the botroaches come out of their hiding to trounce his, yet still defend Obama's (pathetic!). They need to still convince us that the plastic squirt gun is a real weapon, otherwise "the cheese stands alone" and there they are, the Democrats, as the ONLY guilty party!

I think this is critical, to assuage the Republican's sense of guilt causing their paralysis. I won't say I admire their courage in light of all of this, but with this emphasis maybe they would be able to start moving. The timing is critical, as November is coming, and your voice is always the stable sane highly well-referenced beacon that none of the bots can dispute.

If SCOTUS weren't actively "evading" this issue and hadn't been acting completely in dereliction of their own duties, the NBC argument would not have to be coming forth at all at this point.

In listening to McCain it's evident even HE believes he was breaking rules by being a candidate, and many had criticized him for his personal ambitions to become president knowing this. But what you've written makes sense, there is no more noble a citizen than one born to citizen parents engaged overseas in the defense of country!
SR511 affirmed that McCaskill, Clinton and Obama himself even believe this---but maybe they set McCain up to believe that "they" had the say-so on this determination, as if they could also pull the rug later? Almost as if saying "they" give and can take away, something which was his birthright all along, but which he himself, and the Republicans and public in general, were mis-informed about?

I think this piece of information is very important: McCain was always a natural born citizen because he was born while his father was in military service (active) and his mom a US citizen. This was his birthright, and had nothing to do with 511's proclamation, and the Republicans have nothing to fear insofar as mutual culpability...it is ONLY the Democrats who are guilty of treason!

United Natural Born Citizens said...

'For the victory of battle standeth not in the multitude of an host;

but strength cometh from heaven." I Mach. 3

Three Books
On the Law of \War And on the Duties Connected with \War
And on Military Discipline
BY
BALTHAZAR AYALA

Douay, from the business-house of John Bogardus, licensed printer,
at the Sign of the Golden Books, in the year 1582

Quote:

Jurisconsult And Judge Advocate General of the Royal Army in the Loio Countries

Balthazar Ayala, jurisconsult, greeting:

Publicists maintain, Most Serene Prince, that the habit of referring our actions and laws and legislation to the standards of our forefathers and of their institutions conduces very materially to the welfare and preservation of the State;

for it is with the State as it is with some celebrated picture which is fading with age, if we omit to renew its original coloring it will keep neither beauty nor outline ;

and just as in the human body so, too, in the State, every day there is something developed which calls for treatment;

and outworn laws breed vices such as the State can not tolerate for any length of time.

Hence Ennius1 line :

Moribus antiquis res statRomana, virisque.

(On old custom the fortunes of Rome are based and on her manhood.)

a line which in its terseness and truth Cicero thought worthy of the oracle. For (says he) had not the State been stayed as it was by customary rules, its men would not have availed to round or perpetuate so vast and beneficent an empire, nor would these
customary rules have sufficed had not men of such a type been at the head of the State.

Ancestral observance of custom, then, begat fine men and they in their turn were tenacious of the customs and customary institutions which had descended to them from their fathers.

This is the reason why the Roman State grew and endured. For (as Sallust says) empire is easily preserved by the same means by which it was at the outset gained, but, if sloth usurp the place of industry, if lust and pride usurp the place of self-restraint and fair-dealing, then a change of fortune at once accompanies this change of character.

[end quote]

BALTHAZAR AYALA was another of the long line of students of 'natural law' whose insights were founded on the observations of those that preceded him reaching back to the temporal founder of the 'natural law philosophy', Aristotle.

OUR Republic and Representative Democracy was indeed founded on the accumulated wisdom of the great thinkers of the Western Civilization and to paraphrase a great American thinker;....We can not add to or subtract from the wisdom they have laid at OUR feet, but rather it is for us to carry forward the lamp passed for OUR posterity or return to the darkness of histories failures.

Dixhistory said...

Standing is the bear put in place to stop all who want it settled on its merits.

Charles and Mario in hearing your broadcast I recall something you all said and my memory is not that good... the courts say you lack standing because all was harmed and not just a set group. Startibart and that huge followings of obama claim they were not hurt when he was elected.

So I really do think their are at least two groups of people. Those that think they were hurt and those that think they were not hurt. It seems those that think they were not hurt is a much larger group than those that think they were harmed. This likely doesn't make any legal sense but neither does the courts use of standing in this legal matter.

http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~texdick/

Squeeky said...

All this legal stuff is confusing. Isn't it just better to make him quit for being from Kenya? That seems real easy as opposed to waiting for the Supreme Court to do it, which will probably take forever.

Plus, if the Usurper is finally removed, what happens to all the laws he has signed? I have read both ways--one that they are good and --two that they are null and void.

Squeeky
Girl Reporter

Greg Goss said...

medical said...

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams.


The lack of process for a candidate to "prove" he is eligible is simply a sign of the times when it was written. It was by honorable men for honorable men. An ineligible man would simply not run, back in the day...

Incredulous said...

Squeeky: You have way too much common sense for the American political arena, where corruption, quid pro quo, criminality, obfuscation, entrapment, etc. are the mainstay of the process.
Welcome!

United Natural Born Citizens said...

Dixhistory said...
Standing is the bear put in place to stop all who want it settled on its merits.


This USURPATION was not entered into willy-nilly IMO, but rather was 'VETTED' up one-side of the Constitution and down the other looking at all obstacles of both pulling it off in the 1st instant and making it stick in the 2nd.

The Doctrine of 'Separation of Powers' is the protection the '0' is relying on now that he has USURPED the Office of POTUS.

The Courts have been put in a box over the 'eligibility question' because there is NO 'administrative process' codified other than the counting of the electorial votes by the Congress.

In that the Congress 'deemed and certified' satisfaction with the count there would need be a 'obvious and blantant' abuse of the process for the courts entertain reviewing the correctness of THAT process. In that NO Member has come forward saying they had 'objections' when/if called there is nothing to hang a hat on.

Which always brings me back to the fact that there is NO 'Singular Legal Constitutional definition' ACKNOWLEDGED of the 'idiom' of 'natural born citizen'.

That puts the courts in a position of having to 'MAKE a DEFINITION that AFFIRMS ineligibility' in order to answer the 'POLITICAL QUESTION'.

That is like asking them to change a front tire while driving down the highway at 100 mph.

WE know what the specific circumstances are that are required in order to be a Constitutional NBC as intended by the Framers of the Constitution; history, reason and intellectual honesty bares witness.

But at the moment, as far as the United States Government is concerned, there are NO DISTINCTIVE CIRCUMSTANCES that are acknowledged that distinguishes a 'native born' person, regardless of parentage, from any other CIRCUMSTANCES of 'born into citizenship'.

That makes 'standing' on 'eligibility' a 'political question' meant to be answered at the 'ballot box', insofar as the courts are concerned and lacking a 'smoking gun'.

It gives me NO PLEASURE to acknowledge the obstacles erected in obtaining the 'smoking gun' with the use of our own system of Government being used against us but before you can solve a problem you have to identify it.

At the heart of the issue is the Constitutional definition, meaning and intent of the 'idiom' of natural born citizen and having that question answered, aside from and outside of its 'political context' is, IMO, the sword to cut and unravel this Gordian Knot.

jayjay said...

I see sodme postings urging that McCain's eligibility be brought into the Kerchner et al action.

To do so would be quite pointless in that it has nothing whatsoever to do with Obama's eligibility but would merely confuse and dilute the issue which, of course, woudld be the preferred outcojme for some.

Once SCOTUS rules and the nbC definitionh becomes formally known THEN those who appear concerned about the McCain eligibility would certainly be open to initiating their own litigation on the matter.

As it is, the matter is completely outside the action at hand and should be left untouched as it contributes nothing helpful.

cfkerchner said...

Joe, I agree.

John McCain subordinated the U.S. Constitution and the best interests of the nation for his own political gain and power. I told him that in a P.S. in a letter I wrote to him about this which he never answered. McCain made a Faustian Pact with the devil ... Obama and the Progressive Caucus to not discuss his issue. He was covering up that there were lies in the Senate Resolution 511. See essay below. So his choice was to not get proper legal advice but play the backroom politics game and take the game playing easy way those in Washington DC are so used to doing. He once was a hero to me. He betrayed the country he once fought and served valiantly for. No longer. He let Washington DC corrupt him. And I want no part of him or his friends in the Senate or elsewhere. I hope he loses in his AZ re-election bid. Vote them all out ... hard core progressives and the progressive-lites.

Below is an essay that explains the issue with McCain and the lies in Senate Resolution 511. Sure maybe he could have got himself declared NBC using Vattel if he would have hired competent constitutional lawyers who were not in on the political power play game. But he didn't. He made a backroom deal with Patrick Leahy and Obama, you give me this, and I'll keep quiet about Obama, and for that he and all the RNC leadership is dirty and was in on the FIX of the 2008 election and the "cone of silence" by McCain and the RNC leadership and their backers in the media was in ... about Obama's very clear citizenship issues as not being a natural born Citizen of the USA, not even close, which ultimately allowed Obama to win and now we're under "alien rule".

John McCain, Hero to Zero at Mach 6.66 !
http://www.thebirthers.org/misc/DevilDetails.html

And my essay on the FIX of the 2008 election which was posted in this blog earlier this year:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/01/i-believe-fix-was-in-for-2008-election.html

Other than that McCain got mentioned in my lawsuit because he got a Congressional hearing into his citizenship status upon request of the People and the Congress did nothing with a similar request to investigate Obama in a Congressional hearing as to his citizenship status (unequal protection count in my suit), McCain is not part of my lawsuit and we won't let it become any more a part of my lawsuit than on that point.

We the People are awakening to the corruption in both political parties and are going to throw a lot of them out over the next two election cycles. And many more will bail out before that or later. And good riddance to them.

CDR Kerchner
www.protectourliberty.org

cfkerchner said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
cfkerchner said...

JJ

I agree.

John McCain subordinated the U.S. Constitution and the best interests of the nation for his own political gain and power. I told him that in a P.S. in a letter I wrote to him about this which he never answered. McCain made a Faustian Pact with the devil ... Obama and the Progressive Caucus to not discuss any more in the campaign his or Obama's citizenship issues. The made a deal for their own political fortunes and screwed the Constitution and We the People by not putting candidates with no question as to their "natural born Citizenship" eligibility. McCain was also covering up that there were lies in the Senate Resolution 511. See essay below. So his choice was to not get proper legal advice but play the backroom politics game and take the game playing easy way those in Washington DC are so used to doing. He once was a hero to me. He betrayed the country he once fought and served valiantly for. No longer. He let Washington DC corrupt him. And I want no part of him or his friends in the Senate or elsewhere. I hope he loses in his AZ re-election bid. Vote them all out ... hard core progressives and the progressive-lites.

Below is an essay that explains the issue with McCain and the lies in Senate Resolution 511. Sure maybe he could have got himself declared NBC using Vattel if he would have hired competent constitutional lawyers who were not in on the political power play game. But he didn't. He made a backroom deal with Patrick Leahy and Obama, you give me this, and I'll keep quiet about Obama, and for that he and all the RNC leadership is dirty and was in on the FIX of the 2008 election and the "cone of silence" by McCain and the RNC leadership and their backers in the media was in ... about Obama's very clear citizenship issues as not being a natural born Citizen of the USA, not even close, which ultimately allowed Obama to win and now we're under "alien rule".

John McCain, Hero to Zero at Mach 6.66!
http://www.thebirthers.org/misc/DevilDetails.html

And my essay on the FIX of the 2008 election which was posted in this blog earlier this year:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/01/i-believe-fix-was-in-for-2008-election.html

Other than that McCain got mentioned in my lawsuit because he got a Congressional hearing into his citizenship status upon request of the People and the Congress did nothing with a similar request to investigate Obama in a Congressional hearing as to his citizenship status (unequal protection count in my suit), McCain is not part of my lawsuit beyond the point I mentioned and his being a member of the corrupt Congress now in power and we won't let it become any more a part of my lawsuit than on that point. My lawsuit will deal with the named defendants. The People in further legal actions will take care of the rest of the election fraud and those involved once the Usurper Obama is removed.

We the People are awakening to the corruption in both political parties and are going to throw a lot of them out over the next two election cycles. And many more will bail out before that or later. And good riddance to them.

CDR Kerchner
www.protectourliberty.org

jayjay said...

United Natural Born Citizen:

What a bunch of hooey you post. You seem to think you are on one of the Flying Monkety blogs where everyone will swoon and repeatedly praise you for you "legal" opinions.

NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE RrUTH. All you've done is post a bunch of pro-Obama tripe that is complete nonsense.

It ais repidly becoming more and more clear that the man in the Oval Office - who has never shown himseof to be legaly eligile to hold the office he now occupies - is grossly ineligible for that office under the laws of our country.

Even his wife has said he was born in Kenya or, most recently, "a Kenyan" and - whether that is true or not - his father was clearly an alien and the man himself very well may be an illegal alien; the first (and hopefully last) in our history!!

Perhaps you don't mind calling Michelle Obama a liar ... but then again not much you say makes any real sense either.

Incredulous said...

I believe McCain believed he was ineligible, so he was COMPLICIT in censoring information about Obama's ineligibility. BUT I believe Mr. Apuzzo's assessment based on Vattel even above McCain's...and that being the case would that release of guilt not free up Republicans to "do the right thing" now? We need them to step up now.
As it stands, they are paralyzed and do not look likely to help remove the usurper for their own selfish fears.
Mr. Apuzzo? Can you correct me if I'm wrong about having read this assessment of McCain's eligibility? If so I humbly apologize but that is what I thought you wrote.

cfkerchner said...

Incredulous,

You are arguing for after the fact of the lies, fraud, and cover up by McCain for political action by a political party. While what you argue would be appropriate to argue to the RNC, to get them to own up for what they did and now try to "make their side right", it is not a part of my legal case to do that. And I won't do that. My case is a legal case and presents questions and counts to the court about the specific facts presented in my case. Getting the RNC and McCain to now stand up and do the right thing by the Constitution and the country is not part of my case. Don't confuse political action with legal actions. That is the quickest way to get a case dismissed. I suggest you go write to the RNC chairman and McCain and make your plea to them.

CDR Kerchner

Incredulous said...

CDR I agree this should not be part of your case. I see your suit as a piece of the puzzle to set things right. The Republicans' inaction has stifled things being set right, ever since Cheney did not ask for objections and on to the present time where they evade the eligibility issue.

Did Republicans Purposely Run An Ineligible Candidate?
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/05/02/why-congressional-republicans-avoid-the-obama-eligibility-issue/

James said...

American Patriot Foundation, Inc.
1101 Thirtieth Street, N.W., Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20007
www.safeguardourconstitution.com



PRESS RELEASE

LTC LAKIN TO APPEAR TOMORROW ON CNN’S ANDERSON COOPER 360 PROGRAM

___________________________________________

DECORATED ARMY PHYSICIAN BEING COURT-MARTIALLED FORREFUSING TO OBEY ALL ORDERS TO BE QUESTIONED ON TOP-RATED SHOW



Washington, D.C., May 5, 2010. Army Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who is being court-martialled by the Army for refusing to obey orders to deploy to Afghanistan because the President refuses --even in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary-- to prove his eligibility under the Constitution to hold office, will appear with his attorney tomorrow night in a live interview on CNN’s top-rated “Anderson Cooper 360” program.

The court martial process, which begins with the military’s equivalent of a preliminary hearing in a civilian court, known as an “Article 32 Investigation” (referring to the provision found in that section in the Uniform Code of Military Justice) was just commenced when on May 3, 2010, LTC Lakin was notified that the hearing would take place May 6, 2010. “My immediate request for a continuance was granted within hours. A new date will be set soon, most likely in the first two weeks in June”, said Paul Rolf Jensen, LTC Lakin’s civilian counsel. Assisting Jensen in his defense of Lakin is a very experienced senior member of the Army’s Judge Advocate General’s corps.

The interview will be broadcast live and unedited from CNN’s New York City studios on May 6, 2010 at 10:00 p.m. eastern time, 7:00 pm pacific.

The American Patriot Foundation, a non-profit group incorporated in 2003 to foster appreciation and respect for the U.S. Constitution, in the one month since establishing a fund to provide a legal defense to LTC Lakin, has received generous donations from more than 1,200 separate individuals. Details are available on the Foundation’s website, www.safeguardourconstitution.com.



-----end----

for further information, contact:
Margaret Hemenway at (202) 448-5032

cfkerchner said...

Incredulous,

Why do you think McCain's lawyers left any mention of that part of Vattel out of their presentation. Because to introduce Section 212 as to what a "natural born Citizen" is and then introduce and argue the exception in Section 217, they would have exposed Obama as not being a "natural born Citizen" under the lead section of 212. Obama was not born to a father who was a U.S. Citizen and likely in an investigation of Obama it will reveal birth registration fraud took place in Hawaii and he wasn't born there either. And since McCain and the RNC and made a deal with Obama, Leahy, and the DNC to get him that resolution on the condition he not in any way draw attention to Obama's citizenship issues, they could not bring up Vattel Sections 212 thru 217 to defend McCain without exposing Obama. Thus with their Faustian Pact with the devil the both parties put down a "cone of silence" along with the powerful friends of both parties in the media, and they instead took an approach which got McCain and the RNC what he wanted, the Senate Resolution 511, and Obama the the DNC got what he wanted, McCain's and the RNC's silence during the campaign about Obama's father not being a citizen and thus Obama not being a "natural born Citizen".

McCain subordinated the Constitution of the United States to his word to his Senate club rules to his fellow Senators to keep his mouth shut, screwing the Constitution which they all took an oath to defend and support, and not ask questions about whether Obama is constitutionally eligible to run under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. In short Obama, Leahy, and McCain and everyone else in that Senate Resolution effort is guilty of election fraud and a cover up.

Now if the RNC party gets new leadership and kicks out all the Progressive-lite folks like McCain and his buddy Graham and others, and gets new leadership at the top in the Chairmanship who just don't give lip service to the Constitution, then possibly the RNC can turn over a new leaf and come clean with the people of what happened in the 2008 election, blame it on bad legal advice, hire some lawyers to clear McCain using Vattel, and save their skins and as you mentioned not have to give back all the Federal Matching Funds. But personally I hope they all go to jail and I cut in half my RNC membership card and sent it back to them at the end of 2008.

Do you think the RNC leadership and McCain will do what is right now for the good of the country and the Constitution seeing clearly now we are under Alien Rule. I'm not holding my breath. No I doubt they will. But if they want to save their skins after we win my case and the scandal of the fraudulent 2008 elections explodes, McCain can then hire Mario to save his butt from going to jail. But until then the first move to save themselves and do the right thing finally by the Constitution is up to them. Like I said, I'm not holding my breath that they'll do anything until they absolutely have to.

My suit is a legal lawsuit and I'm suing both Dems and Repubs, Obama & Pelosi and Dick Cheney for violating the fundamental law of the land, our Constitution, and for violating other U.S. Codes. It is not a political issue. It's on constitutional and statutory legal issues. Read the whole lawsuit for details. But here are the Cliff Notes and it has a link to the whole case.
http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/twelvecounts.pdf

CDR Kerchner

Bill Cutting said...

Apparently Mario you have hurt poor startibarts feelings.

@Mario
"I think that the implication that only you and those that agree with you are interested in upholding the Constitution is one of the most un-American sentiments I’ve ever heard"

This person is mentally disturbed. They always start out calm and rational then the OBOT chip turns on.

The Commander said it here awhile back. It's pointless to debate these people.

They are losers and Left wing radicals.

Incredulous said...

Thank you very much for that explanation. Apparently I've got some catch-up to do. They (McCain et al) sold out the Constitution, but why? If McCain had thought himself eligible, why help Obama? What was the QPQ or blackmail or reason?
LAST CHANCE FOR REPUBLICANS
http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2010/05/03/last-chance-for-republicans/
This article points out all the lost opportunities Republicans have had to mitigate damages, probably based on their own fears of culpability.
My question is then, how did McCain's Faustian pact originally feed in with the current RNC paralysis? And was his pact based on false pretenses? I shall ask no more on this, but I think the RNC has to get off its butt, whatever that takes.

cfkerchner said...

Natural Law was the guiding legal work of that era for the founders of our nation to unify the newly freed sovereign states.

The 13 original colonies were free and independent sovereign states. The only set of guidance which could unite free and independent sovereign states were the Laws of Nature which are universal truths and as codified in the legal treatise by Emer de Vattel in his legal book, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law. The founders looked to Natural Law and the Law of Nations to unify the 13 free and independent states, not to English Common Law which they just threw off. It's silly that people think our U.S. Constitution was based on English Common Law. How could the common law of one nation, a nation the colonies just rejected, be used to unite 13 newly freed and independent states, each with their own constitutions and laws of citizenship. No to accomplish that, the founders and framers looked to universal law to unite the colony states and form a new more perfect union in the U.S. Constitution. The framers and founders where quite well versed in the Law of Nations and that is what they used to write the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the USA.

Here are just a few examples of some key founders and framers who depended on Vattel's "The Law of Nations of Principles of Natural Law" to guide them in setting up a new form of federal government the likes of which the world had never seen before, and which became a beacon to the rest of the world for centuries.

Benjamin Franklin used Vattel's Law of Nations:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/benjamin-franklin-in-1775-thanks.html

George Washington used Vattel's Law of Nations:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/george-washington-consulted-legal.html

And of course, Thomas Jefferson used Vattel's Law of Nations:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/thomas-jefferson-founder-of-our-nation.html

The truth and real facts and the universal truth of our U.S. Constitution will win the day in the end. Obama is not an Article II "natural born Citizen" to constitutional standards because his father was not a U.S. Citizen and thus Obama was born with dual citizenship. That is not what the framers intended and what Vattel wrote about who is a "natural born Citizen". Obama will be removed as being a Usurper.

CDR Kerchner
http://www.protectourliberty.org