Sunday, March 6, 2011

Mike Huckabee Has Failed Concerned Americans On the Obama Eligibility Issue

Mike Huckabee Has Failed Concerned Americans On the Obama Eligibility Issue

By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 6, 2011

I was listening to 770 AM radio this afternoon and heard former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee tell Aaron Klein on Klein’s WABC radio show that there is no need for state legislation to make sure future presidential candidates are born in the U.S. and therefore eligible for that office. He said that such laws could be viewed as an attack on Obama. When asked by Klein if any such laws are necessary, Huckabee said:

"For the most part, Aaron, I don't even think it's necessary. We pretty much have our biographies. The news media is going to delve into everything imaginable. I think sometimes that piece of legislation might look like a swipe at Obama.” He added:

"I don't believe Obama was born overseas, I believe he was born in Hawaii. I have no doubts about his Hawaiian birth."

Read more and listen to the radio audio clip at Huckabee: No need for birth-certificate legislation

I am really disappointed in Huckabee for giving such a weak answer. Is this the type of leadership that we can expect from him if he were to become President? A leader is supposed to have strength and moral conviction. Trying to be a friend to all is just not going to work in our world today simply because not everybody wants to be our friend.

How can Huckabee say that we can count on the media when we know that they have failed and continue to fail to properly vet Obama? The media to this day does not even have a copy of Obama's paper Certification of Live Birth that he posted on the internet. Does Huckabee really believe that the media is going to properly vet Obama now and create a situation in which they would be criticized for not doing their job in the 2008 election?

Does Huckabee expect the media to tell us what an Article II "natural born Citizen" is?

Why did Huckabee not mention Congress’s duty to investigate presidential eligibility before confirming any president-elect under the 20th Amendment?

How can Huckabee have no doubts as to where Obama was born if, given what the public knows, no one in the media or in any official capacity has seen a paper copy of Obama’s 2007 Certification of Live Birth that he posted on the internet in 2008, let alone a certified copy of his long form, hospital generated birth certificate that would corroborate Obama’s place of birth (which Obama says was Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii) by providing the name of the birth hospital and delivery doctor? Why did Huckabee not share with his listening audience what he knows that the rest of millions of concerned Americans do not know that proves Obama was born in Hawaii?

What is amazing about Huckabee’s statement is that he cares more about what people might think about states (not even him) taking “swipes” at Obama, which is done everyday anyway, than preserving, protecting, and defending not only our Constitution but our nation and its people. Maybe Huckabee does not know that the Constitution requires that the President be a “natural born Citizen.”

What is also amazing is that Huckabee showed no concern for the millions of Americans who want to see closure to the issue of Obama’s birth place.

What kind of a campaign is Huckabee going to run if he does not want third parties taking “swipes” at Obama, let alone doing it himself? Who has sent Huckabee to us? Is he really going to make a true effort to win the 2012 election?

Huckabee’s attitude is exactly what got Obama into office without being properly vetted. The states need to continue their efforts to bring integrity to the presidential election process. They surely should not follow the lead of Huckabee in getting that done.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 6, 2011

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved


MichaelN said...

Time to let the judiciary, the legal fraternity and the people who depended on their diligence to get it right, but got & get it wrong.

The Wong Kim Ark case is probably where things went astray when Chief Justice of SCOTUS failed to mention the following statement by Lord Coke in Calvin's case that held sanguinis as essential to natural born.

Coke – Calvin’s case

“that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject,”

The reason the father is not a subject is completely irrelevant, it is because the parent father is not a subject that the child is not a NBS.

Sanguinis is essential to being a NBS.

Spread the word.

Texoma said...

Having spoken to a number of Tea Partiers who backed Huckabee in the 2008 Republican Primary, I am confident that he will not get nearly as many of them to support him this time around. This position of his (regarding Obama's eligiblity) is yet one more reason for him to not get the support he had in 2008, and I will be sure to spread the word about this latest statement of his to Tea Party-minded people.

Doublee said...

As I recall, back in 2008(?) that champion of the Constitution, Representative Ron Paul of Texas said he would be laughed out of Congress if he pursued Obama's eligibilty.

His assessment of what Congress would do is probably correct, but that is no excuse to refrain from action.

jayjay said...

Hauckabee's not the only one to screw up.

Today the Supreme Court denied a rehearing in Hollister (10-678) without comment. No surprise as we know they don't wish to even give the pretense of upholding the Constitution.

They even ignored the recusal motion for the two O-pointees ... don't wanna' make waves!!

Birdy said...

I voted for Huckabee in 2008 and I was strongly leaning toward him for 2012. Not anymore.

I always had a nagging feeling that Huckabee did not have strong convictions. When the opposition mounts, I feared he would go-along-to-get-along. My fear has been confirmed in spades.

I, for one, will not vote for Huckabee. There is no compromise on the issue of uncovering the lies and the truth about Obama.

atticus finch said...

MichaelN wrote:

Coke – Calvin’s case
“that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject,”

The reason the father is not a subject is completely irrelevant, it is because the parent father is not a subject that the child is not a NBS

Below is the whole quote from
Coke in the Calvin's Case:

for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town nr fort, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the king of England, though he be born upon his soil, aud under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject, nor under the protection of the king.

As such, since the father was an enemy of the king and had his issue
in the occupied realm, the issue was not a subject of the King since he was not under the King's protection.

MichaelN said...

@ atticus finch

The point is that the father was not a subject and as such his child was not a NBS.

The status of the father matters.

juniper55 said...

Frustrated! I guess the ladies didn't recuse themselves AGAIN!

OK folks, I am beginning to lose hope here. Is the only remedy left to us to wait until the 2012 election to try to vote BHO out?

Are there any DEMOCRATS who are beginning to worry about their own re-election chances who are willing to turn on Obama? (how bad will the economy/wars have to get?)

Puzo1 said...

No one has yet proven the Lucas Smith Kenyan birth certificate to be a forgery and no one has yet proven Obama's 2007 Certification of Live Birth (COLB) that he posted on the internet in 2008 to be authentic. Now isn't that just grand.

Puzo1 said...

Please read the article entitled,
Presidential eligibility: Why it matters, by Attorney Monte Kuligowski,

Mr. Kuligowski maintains:

"The status of undivided allegiance from birth onward requires U.S. citizen parents at the time of the candidate's birth. Hence, we see the distinction between native born and natural born. Natural born citizen status is a higher standard than native born citizen status. A natural born citizen is one who has never been encumbered by foreign allegiance.

At least that's what the founders who inserted the requirement into the Constitution expected. The "natural law" view of the phrase "natural born Citizen" at the time of America's founding – going back to Emmerich de Vattel's 1758 classic, "Law of Nations" – requires citizen parents at the time of the individual's native birth. The historic view is not in doubt; but interpretation of the 14th Amendment and the U.S. Code's variations for "citizenship" have clouded the "natural born" definition for some."

Read more: Presidential eligibility: Why it matters

Mr. Kuligowski has correctly stated what an Article II "natural born Citizen" is and has also correctly observed how the legal and political battles by some under the 14th Amendment and Congressional Acts to be recognized as members of American society or what we call "citizens of the United States" have confused the meaning of a "natural born Citizen" but not changed it.

Jo said...

Either a laugh out in Congres, a cover up promoter when the US Constitution is sack righ in front of their face, neither 1 has iota of initiative to cradle for it. Both instead insist on their denial. Bee will never raise the concern even when becomes the next President. He's not worthy a new leader just still 1 of 'em.

Bob said...

The problems with the Lucas Smith Kenyan birth certificate are three:

The paper is US 8.5 x 11, and not european size --

The type-face is clearly a US manual typewriter (probably a Royal typewriter) --

And the name of the Obstetrician has never been found in any Directory, although the name of the attending physician is probably correct because he was practicing in the area at the time. He was a well-known member of the Kenyan Seventh Day Adventists, and his daughter is a well-known Kenyan Jurist, who has worked with the United Nations.

If Lucas Smith has a good explanation for each of these 3 major problems, then he may have something --

Doublee said...

Isn't reference to the "grandfather" clause the easiest way to get at the intent of the Founding Fathers regarding who is eligible for the office of president?

By knowing the citizenship status of those persons who were made eligible by the grandfather clause, and who would otherwise be ineligible, we know the class of citizens that the Founding Fathers intended to exclude after the ratification of the Constitution.

The persons made eligible were born subject to Britain, so by strict logic, anyone born subject to Britain would be ineligble today, and by extension anyone born subject to a foregn country would be ineligble.

I am looking for a simple agrument I can use when engaged with friends in debate. Is the above adequate, or is it also fraught with difficulties?

One difficulty with this argument is that it does not give us the reason for the exclusion of those born subject to a foreign government.

Puzo1 said...


Apart from all the historical evidence and U.S. Supreme Court case law supporting this argument, the structure of the Constitution at Article I and II and the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795 show that a "natural born Citizen" includes all those who were born without any foreign allegiance, loyalty, influence, and attachment and excludes all those who were so born.

The simple reason for wanting to exclude foreign influence to a great degree from government in general and even to a greater degree from the Office of President and Commander in Chief specifically is to make sure that the government and the President and Commander are acting consciously and subconsciously in the best interest of our nation and American people and not consciously and subconsciously, whether overtly or covertly, in the interest of some other foreign power or entity.

DrJim77 said...

I wonder if Huckabee is more concerned with losing his Fox News Show than he is about the Constitution ?? Either that or especially because of that, his candidacy is a BIG JOKE...

DrJim77 said...

I wonder if Huckabee is more concerned with losing his Fox News Show than he is about the Constitution ?? Either that or especially because of that, his candidacy is a BIG JOKE...

MichaelN said...

It must be remembered in the framing period that those who were suspected of being Torys or not pro-republic were made to swear an oath of allegiance to be sure of their loyalties.

Lucas said...

Dear Bob, (reply 1 of 2)

The paper size: Are you telling me that in present day (or 2009) Kenya you can’t find 8.5 x 11 paper size being used? If you are then you, Sir, are also a liar. Furthermore, we have no idea what the exact size of the 1961 birth certificate is because what we are looking at now is a 2009 copy machine version and maybe it even be a 'fax' (sort of looks like it). Moreover it should be noted that most of us have no idea, categorically no idea, of any policy (especially 'paper size') in the Protectorate of Kenya in 1961 (which was not the same entity as the Colony of Kenya). I recommend that you site an official source from 1961 or pre-1961 before you again say the first thing that comes to mind. And remember that I obtained 2009 copy of the original 1961 hospital birth record. Please provide me with evidence that Coast Province General Hospital in Kenya never used 8” x 11.5” paper in the year 2009. I’ve had people also tell me that ounces and pounds and inches (all measurements on the 1961 CPGH birth certificate) are not correct because they are not metric. I proved the skeptics (and those individuals that are paid to spread disinformation) wrong with an official government report from the Colony and Protectorate of Kenya 1938-1939. Furthermore, I recently transferred a deed of property and along with that I had to fill out a “DOV” (declaration of value) form. The forum was 8” x 14”. I printed it off on my printer (which I and insert paper of different widths and lengths). Would you Sir also claim that the DOV form that filled out is a forgery because I am in America and that Americans don’t use 8” x 14” size paper, and certainly not for official government documents?

Type-face: If it is 'clearly' as US manual typewriter then please 'clearly' site some sort of empirical evidence. Furthermore, even if it was what would this prove? Are you an expert in what brand of typewriter was used in 1961 in the Protectorate of Kenya. Also please don't mislead the readers into believing that Britain and the Unites States do not use many of the same type faces.

Name of the Obstetrician has never been found in any Directory: And why does it need be found in a ONLINE directory? Are you one of those guys that wants me to believe that you have connection overseas and/or that you've sent one of your 'connection's to scour libraries in Kenya and Britain? What you are doing, Sir, it recycling junk that I have answered hundreds of times already. Furthermore, do you know that I cannot find anywhere online a conclusive reference to the name of the doctor that attended my birth in 1980 in the state of Iowa in the USA? That being said, would you say that the doctor that delivered me doesn't exist?

Lucas said...

cont…Dear Bob,(reply 2 of 2)

Attending doctor James Angawa: Yes, thank you for telling all this imperative information which I have already disclosed to the world long ago. I've spent almost two years tracking down references of James Ang'awa. By the way, people like you in the past would post comments all over the internet, day and night, stating that the birth doctor never worked in Mombasa and that he never delivered babies and that he never worked anywhere but a hospital in Nairobi. World Net Daily, Jerome Corsi and the rest of them. Thank you for finally giving up on that.

Why are people like you so negative? If you spent as much time being positive we probably could have had this wrapped up by now. Why do you not cite evidence to back your claims and when you do why is it that you only cite 'online' evidence? Why is that I am faced with 'keyboard detectives' that never conduct any field work? Furthermore, why is that some people change their screen names and post under new names after I have already answered their questions that they posted under other screen names? Lastly, please don't recycle disinformation and misinformation that you find online. If you have a sincere question fine, ask away. But I don't want to hear that your next question is why Coast Province is listed when it wasn't created until after 1964.

If people like you know so much about 1961 Kenya (and the Protectorate of Kenya) and if you have so many connections and if everything can be found ‘online’ than why has it been two years now and still no person can find a comparison signature for attending doctor James Ang’awa?

Thank you.

Lucas Daniel Smith

puzo1moderator said...

I say let's see Obama's paper version of the alleged Hawaiian Certification of Live birth and let's measure that and do some forensic analysis on it and submit it to Hawaii for certification of authenticity, which Hawaii has never done yet as to the online images on the internet.

What size paper is Obama's alleged short form Certification of Live Birth printed on. No one really knows because no one of any consequence outside of the Obama campaign and site completely allied with the Obama campaign such as have ever been allowed to see the claimed paper certification form pictured online. All anyone has ever seen is an internet image and local print outs on laser printers of that image being waved on TV. No investigative reporter for any news agency has been given access to the alleged paper version of the internet image. Remember the picture came second. The image was put on line first. So which came first the image or the paper printout. Only the Wizard of Oz behind the screen at and the Obama campaign machine in Chicago know. I believe the image was created first then a print out made and folded and seal affixed for the follow on picture after the June 2008 internet images were proven to be forged due to various reasons including the absence of any indication of a raised seal and fold marks in those digital images. So imo the images were made out of cyberspace bits using PhotoShop and the subsequent and later pictures of a folded paper where printouts made from the PhotoShop digital image. Dr. Ron Polland explains how it was all done and forged in his video and webpage at:

No hospital names or names of delivery doctor or midwife in anything that Obama has put out to date. Nothing, zip to independently confirm that Obama was ever physically born in Hawaii and not just falsely registered as born there after the fact by Grandma Dunham.

CDR Kerchner (Ret)

Robert said...

The real irony is that Obama wouldn't hesitate for a second if he could cause the disqualification of an opponent by illuminating any variation from a legal requirement or procedure for political office.

Dixhistory said...

It kills my soul and makes my heart sick to see my Republic die.

Because men who swore an oath lack the honor to uphold their oath of office.

They all lied and still do!

atticus finch said...

Bob wrote: "The problems with the Lucas Smith Kenyan birth certificate are three:"


The so-called Lucas Smith's alleged Obama's Kenya birth certificate will never be introduced as evidence in any trial because the manner of the way Lucas Smith obtained the birth certificate would not comply with the Federal Rules of Evidence, particularly regarding foreign public documents as set forth in Rule 902 (3) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, as provided:

(3) Foreign public documents.--A document purporting to be executed or attested in an official capacity by a person authorized by the laws of a foreign country to make the execution or attestation, and accompanied by a final certification as to the genuineness of the signature and official position (A) of the executing or attesting person, or (B) of any foreign official whose certificate of genuineness of signature and official position relates to the execution or attestation or is in a chain of certificates of genuineness of signature and official position relating to the execution or attestation. A final certification may be made by a secretary of an embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent of the United States, or a diplomatic or consular official of the foreign country assigned or accredited to the United States. If reasonable opportunity has been given to all parties to investigate the authenticity and accuracy of official documents, the court may, for good cause shown, order that they be treated as presumptively authentic without final certification or permit them to be evidenced by an attested summary with or without final certification.

Federal courts have ruled that unless the foreign birth certificate complies with FRE 902 then the it is inadmissible .US v. Medrano, __F. 3rd ___ (10th cir. 2009) (“birth certificate was executed by a person authorized by Mexican laws to execute birth certificates, and it was accompanied by a certification from a United States Vice-Consul that the person who executed it was authorized to do so.”) . “Although the trial court was correct in finding that neither Rule 901 nor 902(3) was complied with, the court did abuse its discretion in holding the evidence authentic and admissible. This circuit requires strict compliance with the authenticity rules. United States v. Perlmuter, 693 F. 2d 1290, 1292 (9th Cir. 1982 (internal citations omitted)

As such, the purported Lucas Smith's birth certificate doesn't even come close in complying with Rule 902(3) by the following:

1. There is no proof by Kenyan laws that a Chief ministrator "Dr. Heltan Maganga" of a private hospital is authorized to attest as to the genuineness of the birth certificate
2. There is no proof that signature of the Chief Administrator "Dr. Heltan Maganga" is genuine in absence of a certification
3. There is no final certification by any personnel in the United States embassy in Kenya.

That is why Lucas Smith's purported birth certificate is worthless

atticus finch said...

Monte Kuligowski wrote in his article entitled "Presidential eligibility: Why it matters":
"The status of undivided allegiance from birth onward requires U.S. citizen parents at the time of the candidate's birth. Hence, we see the distinction between native born and natural born. Natural born citizen status is a higher standard than native born citizen status. A natural born citizen is one who has never been encumbered by foreign allegiance.

Response: Mr. Kuligowski believes that there is UBER CITIZEN or a super citizen who is a child born in the United States to United States citizen parents. In fact he distinguishes this UBER CITZEN from ordinary native citizens by claiming that this UBER CITIZEN has more allegiance to the United States then mere native citizens who are born in the United States to parents other than United States citizens.

The probem with Kuligowski's UBER CITIZEN thesis that it is not grounded in common law or case law.

The Supreme Court has held in numerous cases that a native born citizen is a person who is born in the United States and is eligible to be President and is therefore a natural born citizen.

"A naturalized citizen is indeed made a citizen under an act of Congress, but the act does not proceed to give, to regulate, or to prescribe his capacities. He becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native."
Osborn v. Bank of United States, 22 US 738,827 (1830)

"The Constitution of the United States provides as a qualification for the offices of President and Vice-President that the person elected must be a native-born citizen." ex parte Garland, 71 US 333, 395 (1866)

"Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Luria v. United States, 231 US 9, 22 (1913)(internal citations omitted)

Similarly, the court in United States v. Schwimmer, 279 US 644, 649 (1929) observed “Except for eligibility to the Presidency, naturalized citizens stand on the same footing as do native born citizens.”

"We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the "natural born" citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II,§ 1. Schneider v. Rusk, 377 US 163, 165 (1964)

In another Supreme Court case, Baumgartner v. United States, 322 US 665 (1944) Justice Frankfurter equated native citizen with natural born citizen when he wrote:

"Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency" Id. at 673

Citizenship obtained through naturalization is not a second-class citizenship. It has been said that citizenship carries with it all of the rights and prerogatives of citizenship obtained by birth in this country "save that of eligibility to the Presidency." Knauer v. United States, 328 US 654, 658 (1946)

As such, the Supreme Court has recognized that native citizens are eligible to be President and therefore native citizens are natural born citizens.

Puzo1 said...

atticus finch,

I do not understand your point about an "UBER CITIZEN." You admit in your post that a naturalized citizen cannot be President while a natural born citizen can. Mr. Kuligowski makes no different claim. So what is your point?

Mr. Kuligowski agrees with you you that a naturalized citizen has the same rights as a "natural born Citizen," except the privilege of being eligible to be President. So what is your point?

I also note that in none of the cases that you cite do you provide the Court's definition of a "native citizen" or "native born citizen" or "natural born citizen" in the context of being eligible to be President under Article II. That is, after all, the issue here.

Hence, you have not provided any argument that contradicts Mr. Kuligowski's thesis.