Monday, April 4, 2011

Ad: Obama Not Born in Hawaii per Kenyan Assy Mbrs James Orengo and Bonny Khalwale and Hawaii 2008 Elections Office Official Tim Adams - 04Apr2011

Obama Not Born in Hawaii per Kenyan Assemblymen James Orengo and Bonny Khalwale and Hawaii 2008 Elections Office Official Tim Adams - 04 April 2011 issue Washington Times National Weekly edition - page 5.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/52263419/Obama-Not-Born-in-Hawaii-Per-Orengo-Khalwale-and-Tim-Adams-Wash-Times-Natl-Wkly-20110404-pg-5

Obama may be a Citizen, but he is NOT a "natural born Citizen" of the United States to constitutional standards.

Obama is not Article II constitutionally eligible to be the President and Commander of our military. Obama is NOT a "natural born Citizen" to constitutional standards. Obama's father was NOT a U.S. Citizen. Obama's father was not an immigrant to the United States. Obama's father was a foreign national, a British Subject. Obama is the child of an alien father who was sojourning in the U.S. attending college. Obama was born a British Subject via his father and is still such to this day. Obama has never conclusively proved he was born in Hawaii. Obama's paternal family in Kenya, Kenyan government officials, and newspapers in Kenya say he was born in Kenya. Obama's maternal grandmother likely falsely and illegally registered him as born in Hawaii to get him, her new foreign-born grandson, U.S. Citizenship.

History shows us that a popularly elected, but ineligible, chief executive in the executive branch of a government can be legally and constitutionally removed from office, e.g., Governor Thomas H. Moodie of North Dakota was a prime example. After he was sworn in and serving as Governor, the North Dakota State Supreme Court ordered Governor Moodie removed from office, after it was determined that he was constitutionally and legally ineligible to serve in the office to which he was popularly elected. http://history.nd.gov/exhibits/governors/governors19.html

Also, two U.S. Senators although popularly elected and sworn in to the U.S. Senate were subsequently removed from office after it was learned that they were NOT constitutionally eligible when they were elected.
Albert Gallatin [U.S. Senator seating unconstitutional and annulled]:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Gallatin
James Shields [U.S. Senator seating unconstitutional and annulled]:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Shields

Thus it is very clear that winning a popular election does not trump or nullify the constitution of a state or the U.S. federal constitution. Obama is not constitutionally eligible to be the President and Commander in Chief of the military and should be removed from office and his election, confirmation, and swearing in annulled.

Posted by:
Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
CDR USNR (Retired)
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

65 comments:

googlex said...

Obama is planning to run for US President again. As your ad shows, the congress, courts and media have enshrined him. What practical steps can prevent the Teflon Usurper from making a travesty of the 2012 Presidential election?

Lucas said...

Very effective advertisement. Well done, gentlemen.

Jo said...

The trio's are stonewalling the justice of We the people. The International Court of Justice is one option to hand in this serious case of our subjugated nation.

Mick said...

Hello Mario,
Do you know about this statute in Fla. Election Code that allows Quo Warranto to "any taxpayer"? Would you be so kind as to offer an opinion of it's usefulness?

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0100-0199/0102/Sections/0102.168.html

James said...

Mario,

I got an important message. You may want expadite a post on this matter:

HB 2177 goes before the Committee of the Whole at 1:30 PM TODAY. Final vote coming soon (later this week or early next week per Judy's note below). Todays proceeding can be watched live on the web at http://www.azhouse.gov/LiveProceedings.asp Click on the "Floor Session".

James said...

Mario,
In my opinion, these are 3 top birther goals that everyone who concerned with Obama's eligiblity should be doing:
1. Supporting Donald Trump - We need to do what we can to support Trump and have him carry the momentum of Obama's eligiblity. People need to email, phone, fax, and blog in support of Trump.
2. Promoting Dr. Corsi's book - "Where's The Birth Certificate?" - People need to blog on every forum and post everywhere on the internet to advance Corsi's book. We have to have millions and millions of copies sold.
3. Enacting Birther Bills - People need to contact their state lawmakers and begin crafting eligiblity bills in states that will demand that all candidates including Obama prove their eligiblity to get on the ballot.

These are the top 3 goals that every person should be doing every day - Making phone calls, faxing, emailing, and blogging about the 3 primary things of the Obama eligiblity issue - Donald Trump, Corsi's book, and State Birther Laws.

James said...

Mario,

Will you consider making a post to Promote Dr. Corsi's book "Where's The Birth Certificate?"? I am sure Dr. Corsi would thank you. The book is due to be released on May 17, 2011. We need millions and millions of copies sold and need every person in the country to read the book. If you place a posting on your blog about the book, it will attract more attention.

James said...

Mario,

Have you and Charles had any luck with seeking audience with Donald Trump? If you and Charles just had an hour with Trump, it could be the most useful hour you have ever utilized. Keep trying. There must some way of getting to Trump. You will have network and see how you can get to Trump's people and ultimately Trump himself.

Puzo1 said...

Mick,

Thanks for sharing that Florida statute with us.

That Florida statute is a very powerful tool. A "taxpayer" can contest the certification of election or even the nomination of any person to office (except election to the State Legislature).

The election contest complaint has to be filed in court within 10 days after midnight of the date the last board responsible for certifying the election results officially certifies those results.

One of the grounds for the election contest is "[i]neligibility of the successful candidate for the nomination or office in dispute."

Please note that the "successful candidate" is an indispensable party to any action. That means that you have to also sue the candidate in addition to anyone one else that needs to be named as a party defendant.

Finally, upon filing the complaint, the taxpayer is also entitled to an immediate hearing.

I encourage anyone living in Florida who is concerned about a candidate's eligibility to occupy any political office to take full advantage of this statute.

Election laws of other states should also be reviewed to see what other states have similar laws.

Maybe someone would want to do a public service and compile a list of all the states and any such statutes. It would make for a great post and could be shared with the public. The time deadline within which to file the contest complaint should be included in the chart.

Chief Skunk said...

Here we go again? Is Arizona another Georgia? The committee vote did not happen and has not been rescheduled.

Linda said...

Harvard Law (HeinOnline - 66 Harv. L. Rev. 1952-1953)

When a person is a citizen by jus sanguinis, is he natural born or naturalized? The answer to this question will determine the applicability of certain expatriation provisions and the citizen's qualification for the presidency. Some courts, relying on dicta in United States v. Wong Kim Ark equating natural born with native born, have indicated that those who claim citizenship solely by parentage are naturalized citizens. But this conclusion seems opposed to the common law concept -which may be assumed to be written into the constitutional requirements for the presidency -that jus sanguinis confers naturalborn citizenship.

Act for persons born in the United States of Indian or Eskimo tribes; and citizenship is provided for any person of unknown parentage found in the United States under the age of 5 unless it is shown, prior to his attaining 21, that he was not born in the United States. §§ 3oi(a)(2), (6), 66 STAT. 235, 236 (1952), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1401(a)(2), (6) (Supp. 1953), formerly 54 STAT. 1138 (1940), 8 U.S.C. §§ 6oi(b), (f) (1946)

See 5o MIcH. L. REV. 926 (1952)

Linda said...

The key to determining the definition is not soil or jus sanguinis, it is expatriation. for that we must go to Ops. ATT'Y GEN. 356 (1859) which was the Official Admin position that was the foundation of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, but more importantly the 1868 Expatriation Act which is still the law of the land which states:

"They are both of them American citizens, and their exclusive allegiance is due to the Government of the United States. One of them never did owe fealty elsewhere, and the other, at the time of his naturalization…threw off, renounced and abjured forever all allegiance to every foreign prince, potentate, State and sovereignty whatever, and especially to that sovereign whose subject he had previously been. “

(HeinOnline - 50 Mich. L. Rev. 1951-1952)

Born owing exclusive allegiance to the United States of America. Period. Any good researcher knows you don't limit your search to such narrow confines. One must encompass all aspects of how citizenship is acquired to definitively ascertain the proper definition. So, those that have been relying wholly on jus soli & jus sanguinis, utterly fail to conclusively back their argument. The definitive answer lies in expatriation and the oath that naturalized citizens must take, just as those born to parents with conflicting allegiances. At some point, that person whether born or naturalized must make a choice as to which country they will give their allegiance too. On the other hand, there is no question as to the nationality/citizenship of a child born to citizen parents. The owed no fealty to a foreign nation at birth, therefore they are natural born. Which IS the original common law of England according to Harvard Law before the socialist marxists took it over

Linda said...

IOW, the definition of "natural born" citizen is what gives the US Govt the authority, to this day, to legally require immigrants to swear an oath that they renounce and abjure forever all allegiance to every foreign prince, potentate, State and sovereignty whatever, and especially to that sovereign whose subject they had previously been. Born or naturalized owing exclusive allegiance, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", to the United States and the United States Constitution.

Linda aka constitutionallyspeaking

http://www.constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com

for some reason the openID isn't working

Puzo1 said...

Linda,

Very good finds. They confirm our definition of a "natural born citizen," i.e., born in the country to citizen parents and that under such birth circumstances, the "natural born citizen" is born with no foreign allegiance.

MichaelN said...

I suggest gathering together thousands of patriots and launching a class action against ALL federal congress members for their failure to properly represent and protect the rights of the Citizens & their failure to uphold their oaths of office.

MichaelN said...

Linda.

Have you noticed these statements by Lord Coke in his report of Calvin's case?

"There is found in the law four kinds of ligeances: the first is, ligeantia naturalis, absoluta, pura, et indefinita,42 and this originally is due by nature and birthright,"

"Calvin the Plaintiff naturalized by procreation and birth right"

"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"

Linda said...

The absolute final article in a long road of research connecting S.Res 511 & the usurpation of our citizenship laws by certain progressive revisionists such as Obama & Prof Lawrence Tribe:

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/natural-birthright-citizenship-birthright-of-blood-according-to-english-common-law/

bdwilcox said...

Anyway, five poison pills in the Wong Kim Ark ruling for those who are curious:

Poison Pill #1: From the WKA ruling itself: “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.” This sentence, directly from the WKA ruling, clearly differentiates between children born on the soil of the United States: child of an alien = citizen, child of a citizen = natural born citizen (at the time of the ruling, the wife automatically assumed the citizenship of her husband).

Poison Pill #2: The WKA ruling was predicated on the 14th Amendment. The father of the 14th Amendment, Rep John Bingham, clearly stated that neither WKA nor Obama is a natural born citizen: “I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen;”

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332

Bingham’s definition, as well as that of his partner in the Senate in regards to the 14th Amendment, Senator Howard, were referenced as the most accurate in understanding the 14th Amendment’s intent by Justice Hugo Black in Duncan v Louisiana, 1968.

(quote from Duncan v Louisiana) “Professor Fairman’s “history” relies very heavily on what was not said in the state legislatures that passed on the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead of relying on this kind of negative pregnant, my legislative experience has convinced me that it is far wiser to rely on what was said, and, most importantly, said by the men who actually sponsored the Amendment in the Congress. I know from my years in the United States Senate that it is to men like Congressman Bingham, who steered the Amendment through the House, and Senator Howard, who introduced it in the Senate, that members of Congress look when they seek the real meaning of what is being offered. And they vote for or against a bill based on what the sponsors of that bill and those who oppose it tell them it means.”

Grey got it wrong on many counts, but he got it wrong on multiple levels as well. Let’s look at three holes in Grey’s logic when he claimed Natural Born Citizen was the equivalent of Natural Born Subject.

Poison Pill #3: Beyond the fact that the founding fathers relied on natural law rather than English common law when drafting the Constitution, the most devastating flaw in Grey’s logic was the fact that in British common law, a natural born subject required both jus soli and jus sanguinis, not just jus soli like Grey and the court portrayed. (Calvin’s Case, or the Case of the Postnati) Grey’s ruling was predicated on a lie, much like the entire Obama legacy.

bdwilcox said...

Poison Pill #4: Grey said the founding fathers relied on British Common Law when drafting the Constitution’s wording. From their own records the founding fathers declare him a liar. “The common law of England is not the common law of these states.” -George Mason, delegate from Virginia, in the notes from the Federal Constitutional Convention – Thursday, June 19, 1788

http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_16.txt

Poison Pill #5: Thomas Jefferson spoke from the grave when, in the drafting of the Declaration of Independence, he very purposely erased ‘subject’ and replaced it with ‘citizen’, proving the terms were NOT simply interchangeable and were very different in meaning and connotation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/02/AR2010070205525.html

I still get chills every time I read this article.

‘Subjects.’

“That’s what Thomas Jefferson first wrote in an early draft of the Declaration of Independence to describe the people of the 13 colonies.

But in a moment when history took a sharp turn, Jefferson sought quite methodically to expunge the word, to wipe it out of existence and write over it. Many words were crossed out and replaced in the draft, but only one was obliterated.

Over the smudge, Jefferson then wrote the word “citizens.”

No longer subjects to the crown, the colonists became something different: a people whose allegiance was to one another, not to a faraway monarch.”

bdwilcox said...

Posted that on Dr. Kate's blog in response to an obot who Dr. Kate deleted. Thought someone here might find it interesting.

-bdwilcox

James said...

Mario,

I got breaking news! Miki Booth has been able to obtain a Long-Form Birth Certificate (Certificate of Live Birth) from the Hawaii DOH. Miki has posted the image of the birth certificate on her FaceBook page. The Certificate of Live Birth shows the hospital name and has a date of March 15, 2011. In addition, the Birth Certificate is stamped with State Register of Hawaii who is Alvin Onaka. Check it out if you can.

bdwilcox said...

James,

And it's stamped on the front like every other official Hawaiian document...except Obama's.

MichaelN said...

Here's link to the CertifiCATE of Live Birth on Miki Booth's page

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/photo.php?fbid=1646821495774&set=a.1086340484099.2013840.1394022018&theater

It can be downloaded.

James said...

I got breaking news! Miki Booth has been able to obtain a Long-Form Birth Certificate (Certificate of Live Birth) from the Hawaii DOH. Miki has posted the image of the birth certificate on her FaceBook page. The Certificate of Live Birth shows the hospital name and has a date of March 15, 2011. In addition, the Birth Certificate is stamped with State Register of Hawaii who is Alvin Onaka. Check it out if you can.

James said...

Mario,

Donald Trump is making the rounds with the MSM over Obama's birth certificate. The MSM is going nuts trying to snuff out the issue. It appears Trump has been better educated. He is touting the facts but I think he needs just little more refining to get facts just right. Have you and Charles been able to get anywhere in seeking an audience with Donald Trump? I understand the an AZ birther lawmaker will meeting with Trump on Friday. More education for Trump but I really think he could use your and Charles guidance.

cfkerchner said...

Not only did step-grandma Sarah Obama in Kenya say twice in that taped interview, while being interrupted by her family members in the process trying to tell her what to say, that she was there in that Mombasa Kenya hospital when Obama was born, again despite here grandson trying to get her to change her story to the politically correct answer they wanted her to say, i.e., born in Hawaii ... but more than a year later in a special event in her honor, Sarah Obama said the U.S. President "passed through her hands". That statement imo confirms she was their when he was born and she held the newborn right there in Kenya.

See this Kenyan newspaper story of Sarah Obama saying the U.S. President passed through her hands:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/52209399/Step-Grandmother-Sarah-Obama-Says-US-President-Obama-Passed-Through-Her-Hands-Sunday-Nation-newspaper-in-Kenya-4-May-2010


CDR Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org

puzo1moderator said...

The numerous African newspaper stories going back to the year 2004, elected government officials statements, and also Obama Kenyan family statements saying and confirming that Obama was born in Kenya and is not a native born American.
http://www.scribd.com/my_document_collections/2441535

What other U.S. President in history since the founding generation has had so many sources in a foreign country saying that he was born in their country and not the USA? The answer ... none. Obama is a conman, grifter, and usurper. He is not constitutionally eligible to be the President and Commander of our military. He must be removed.

CDR Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org

Chief Skunk said...

Arizona moved 2177 out of committee yesterday by a 5-4 vote. But, there was an amendment to the bill, which seems a possible out for Barry.


Fiftieth Legislature BurgesFirst Regular Session S.B. 1157 BURGES FLOOR AMENDMENTHOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AMENDMENTS TO S.B. 1157(Reference to the GOVERNMENT Committee amendment)Page 4, lines 25 and 26, strike "INCLUDING INFORMATION SUFFICIENT TO DETERMINE THE CITIZENSHIP OF BOTH PARENTS,"Line 28, after the period insert "IF THE CANDIDATE DOES NOT POSSESS A LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE AS REQUIRED BY THIS PARAGRAPH, THE CANDIDATE MAY ATTACH TWO OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS THAT SHALL TAKE THE PLACE OF THE LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE IF THE CANDIDATE SWEARS TO THEIR AUTHENTICITY AND VALIDITY AND THE DOCUMENTS CONTAIN ENOUGH INFORMATION FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO DETERMINE IF THE CANDIDATE MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED IN ARTICLE II,SECTION 1, CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES:(a) AN EARLY BAPTISMAL OR CIRCUMCISION CERTIFICATE.(b) A HOSPITAL BIRTH RECORD.(c) A POSTPARTUM MEDICAL RECORD FOR THE MOTHER OR CHILD THAT IS SIGNED BY THE DOCTOR OR MIDWIFE OR PERSON WHO DELIVERED OR EXAMINED THE CHILD AFTER BIRTH.(d) AN EARLY CENSUS RECORD."Line 30, strike "THE PRECEDING". After line 31, insert:"C. IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUBSECTION B, THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE MAY ALSO SUBMIT A NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT FROM TWO OR MORE PERSONS WHO WITNESSED THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE'S BIRTH. D. IF THE SECRETARY OF STATE RECEIVES ANY DOCUMENTS IN PLACE OF A LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION B, PARAGRAPH 1 AND CANNOT DETERMINE IF THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED IN ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, THE SECRETARY OF STATE MAY ESTABLISH A COMMITTEE TO ASSIST IN THE DETERMINATION OR HOLD HEARINGS AND SUBMIT ANY DOCUMENTS FOR FORENSIC EXAMINATION.

Seems that he wouldn't be able to comply with the "two or more" provision that replaces the long form BC, but those docs will be easier to forge and there is no doubt that forgery is an option for these guys.

Not clear how this will play out, but my confidence wanes as time passes. The fix in Georgia was put in place in a matter of hours, and this could go the way of Georgia in a heartbeat. Also, this language may or may not be of value in 2012.

jayjay said...

puzo1moderator:

Note that a caller named Angela from Arnold, MO today on the Rush Limbaugh show ripped into Rush for not taking up the eligibility issue as Trump has been.

Limbaugh continued his recitation of the Congressional Research Service (and other Flying Monkey) talking points ("no proof he's not born in the US", etc.) I think Rush is rapidly losing creditility on this issue at the very least.

WND has a blub on it ...

Texoma said...

Chief Skunk,

Was there language in the Arizona bill regarding dual citizenship at birth of the candidate, and if so, what happened to that language? Such language would make Obama ineligible, as there is no document that will ever show Obama Senior to have been a US citizen.

James said...

Mario,
Can you share with us any insight with the Trump meeting today in New York with AZ lawmakers. I understand that you were there if needed.

James said...

Charles,
Your analysis of the Sarah Obama tape is pretty much same as that of Dr. Corsi's analysis. Perhaps one of you can get to Trump to further refine him on this evidence regarding Obama's birth. Donald Trump needs to be fully educated.

James said...

Remember everyone,

The 3 top birther directives or goals should be:
1. Backing and Educating Donald Trump in everyway possible.
2. Contacting state reps and supporting state eligiblity laws.
3. Promoting Dr. Corsi's book "Where's the Birth Certificate?" in everyway possible.

Puzo1 said...

Chief Skunk,

Obama has said that he was born in Kapi'olani Hospital. Hence, the Arizona Secretary of State would in all likelihood ask to see that medical evidence if Obama says he does not have a long-form, hospital generated birth certificate.

The point that we have to remember is that Obama says he was born in that hospital. He also allegedly wrote a letter dated January 24, 2009 saying he was born there (the authenticity of this letter has not been confirmed yet). Hence, there should be readily available evidence of his birth in that hospital. This is not a complicated matter.

Only someone looking to suppress the truth, like our political parties, the mainstream media, and Obama's team, make this issue more complicated than what it is.

Donald Trump is doing the job that our political institutions and media should have done prior to the 2008 presidential election. He is attempting to bring closure to the issue of Obama’s birth place. Yet, there are elements which ridicule him in his search for the simple truth. Are these detractors looking out for our nation and Constitution or are they beholden to corrupt party spirit and who knows what else?

bdwilcox said...

In my opinion, the most important thing to relay to Mr. Trump is that a decorated combat office was jailed because Obimbo wouldn't show his papers. I want Trump out there saying Lt. Col. Terry Lakin's name in every breath so the world will know what a patriot hero Terry is and what a loathsome creep Soebarkah is.

giveusliberty1776 said...

Jayjay
Regarding your comment today re Jeff Lichter/Trump meeting, please email me so we can discuss this further.

Steve @ Give Us Liberty
www.giveusliberty1776.blogspot.com

email: deliverusfromevil2009@gmail.com

Thanks for the relay Cmdr Kerchner, regards

puzo1moderator said...

For people wishing to send information to Donald Trump’s top adviser and lawyer to pass along to Donald Trump. Attach an executive summary cover page telling him exactly what page to read the statements you want to call to their attention and highlight them with yellow highlighter which will not block out text when making copies at their end if they so desire, such as pink or other color highlighters do sometimes. Try not to address too many issues in one packet, 2 or 3 at most, and prepare an executive summary page, 1/2 page of text for the summary cover page for each enclosure, for what you are sending.

Send the package by some sort of next day or 2nd day service such that you know it gets delivered promptly and you can easily track it.

Michael D. Cohen
Executive Vice President and
Special Counsel to Donald J. Trump
The Trump Organization
725 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10022

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org

Puzo1 said...

The question is asked whether one U.S. citizen parent is sufficient to make one born in the United States a “natural born Citizen.” The answer is “no.”

The Founders and Framers were greatly concerned with self-preservation and survival for the new Republic. One of the major threats that they saw to the new Republic was foreign influence making its way into our government and especially into the office of President and Commander in Chief. They looked to natural law and the law of nations for guidance in how to assure that self-preservation and survival. And it is in Vattel’s The Law of Nations that they found the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Indeed, Vattel told them that only such a citizen would give them the best chance for preservation and survival of the society. Hence, it made perfect sense for them to demand that for those born after the adoption of the Constitution, they had to be “natural born Citizens” in order to be eligible to be President.

So, the sole reason they used the “natural born Citizen” clause was to assure that the nation would be lead by someone they could trust. That trust was gained at a minimum by being born with sole allegiance to the United States. The only way that one could be born with sole allegiance to the United States was for one to be born in the United States to a U.S. citizen father and mother. With any one of these factors missing, the child could be born with a foreign allegiance through either jus soli (acquiring allegiance and citizenship from the soil on which one is born) or jus sanguinis (acquiring allegiance and citizenship from either one of the parents to whom one is born).

Hence, the child born in the U.S. needs to be born to parents who are both U.S. citizens in order to be a “natural born Citizen.” To say that one U.S. citizen parent will suffice is like saying that the child can be born with a foreign allegiance. That would defeat the intent of the Founders and Framers for using the “natural born Citizen” clause which was to include all those who were born with no foreign allegiance and to exclude all those who were so born.

zachjonesishome said...

Did you see that Trump met recently with Rep. from Arizona who is involved with eligibility legislation? Trump gave homework to the participants of the meeting regarding "Natural Born Citizen". I hope Trump files a declaratory judgment action. His mother was a 'naturalized citizen' at the time of his birth. That would open things up I believe.

http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/04/08/attendee-at-trump-meeting-it-couldnt-have-gone-any-better/

MichaelIsGreat said...

Mr. Apuzzo, you are right on saying very clearly for all to see that Obama should be removed from office. I add: AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. This crazy madman communist has already bankrupted our country and he still haggles on cutting spending!!!

Unfortunately, I am convinced that it will be next to IMPOSSIBLE to achieve this goal of removing Obama ASAP through the corrupted American judicial system!! And especially through the extremely highly biased toward the Democrats Supreme Court of the USA that is nothing less than a very bad parody of Justice.

The only hope that I have is with Donald Trump. I have the very strong feeling that he will never ever give up on this matter until he is 100% sure that Obama is fully proven eligible to be President of the USA, an impossible task. Unfortunately, Donald Trump (and probably around 99% of the American people and of the media) seem completely unaware that to be a natural born citizen, the President of the USA not only needs to be born in the USA, he also MUST needs to be born of parents who are BOTH American citizens.

Consequently, I strongly suggest that you do your best to contact directly Donald Trump and to explain him that to be a natural born citizen, there is also a second condition that is that the president must be born of parents who must be BOTH American citizens. As Obama's father was never ever an American citizen, the question is already settled concerning Obama's completely lack of eligibility to be president of the USA!!

More, I really feel that Donald Trump should really read your web site and especially the articles related to the definition of what a "natural born citizen" is. If Donald Trump knew the condition that both parents must be American citizens according to the Constitution of the USA, he surely would raise the issue immediately in front of the media and that surely would quickly lead to the removing of Obama from office to stop Obama from bankrupting our country any further!!!

Consider this request seriously, Mr. Apuzzo, to make sure to inform Donald Trump that there is also this second condition that the parents of the president of the USA must BOTH be American citizens in order for the president of the USA to meet fully the TWO Constitutional requirements that are needed to be a natural born citizen.
Thanks to consider this idea and, more importantly, to act upon this idea by contacting Donald Trump ASAP.

Texoma said...

zachjonesishome,

Assuming that you know that Trump is natural born citizen, would your suggestion of a declatory judgement on his part be a tactic to get a discussion on this matter in the courts and the media?

If not, then please know that Donald Trump does not need to file a declaratory judgement regarding his natural born citizen status on account of his mother being a naturalized citizen. Both of his parents were citizens at the time of his birth in NY, and so Donald Trump is a natural born citizen (born in the country to citizen parents).

The 1939 US Supreme Court case of Perkins v. Elg made it clear that the US-born child of naturalized citizen parents was a natural born citizen.

Elg was born in NY in 1907 to Swedish immigrant parents who naturalized in 1906. Hence, Elg was born in the US to US citizen parents, and was a natural born citizen. The Supreme Court affirmed this.

js said...

yu need trump..besides..without the proper education...that boy is going to embarrass us all...

js said...

back in the day...when the brit's common law was rejected and we drew up our constitution...did the british common law even call its people "citizens"...

the reason for that...the british were recognized as subjects of the crown...i wonder if the term citizen actually was present under thier laws in the 1770's when the US Revolution occured...and beyond...the entire notion of natural citizenship itself...as it exists in The Law of Nations...which has to be translated from its original French Publications...because the two concepts are direct contradictions...

the concept below from the idea and general principals in the law of nations violate the entire concept of british common law...where all of the people are subjects to and of the (bearer of the) crown...a concept that most certainly would have to have been an aboration to the british empire...as the crown was the creator of laws and sovreign power of the nation;

"As men are subject to the laws of nature, — and as their union in civil society cannot have exempted them from the obligation to observe those laws, since by that union they do not cease to be men, — the entire nation, whose common will is but the result of the united wills of the citizens, remains subject to the laws of nature, and is bound to respect them in all her proceedings. And since right arises from obligation, as we have just observed (§3), the nation possesses also the same rights which nature has conferred upon men in order to enable them to perform their duties"

MichaelN said...

Stephen Thorburn says:
Friday, April 8, 2011 at 11:21 PM

If two citizen parents were not required for ‘Natural Born Citizen’ status then there is no possible logical reason for the adoption clause in Article 2 Section 1. All the founders were charter citizens with non-citizen parents because the country did not exist when their parents gave birth to them. And there were many citizens at that time who were born on U.S. soil but not to citizen parents for the same obvious reason. The only distinguishable difference between the “citizens at the time” and a “natural born citizen” is the citizenship of the parents at the time of birth. The founders knew it would take a generation to produce the first ‘Natural Born Citizen’ born on U.S. soil from parents who were citizens to produce a candidate free from any direct foreign birthright allegiances. The founders needed to include the charter citizens in order to have Presidential candidates (themselves) until a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ could be available for candidacy. At the time of the adoption there were only two groups of charter citizens available for the candidate pool…native born citizens (born on U.S. soil to non-citizen parents) and naturalized citizens (those born abroad). If either of these groups were eligible to hold office as President then there would be no reason for the adoption clause nor would there be a need to distinguish ‘Natural Born Citizens’. and to those who would suggest that the adoption clause was because the ‘soil’ was British before the adoption and that it was strictly a matter of jus soli, the article would read ‘no person except a native born citizen’ instead of ‘no person except a natural born citizen’ as it was well understood and a part of the language of the day to regard a person born on the soil a native born citizen.
http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/04/08/attendee-at-trump-meeting-it-couldnt-have-gone-any-better/

Puzo1 said...

It is really hillarious seeing the Obots worrying about the type of birth certificate Arizona is asking for in its proposed vetting and eligibility statute rather than worrying about whether any presidential candidate is a "natural born Citizen."

Carlyle said...

What do you think of this I wrote:

URGENT URGENT

I have no direct access to Donald Trump or any of his staff. I have no direct access to Rush Limbaugh, but I do know several of his biggest monetary supporters. I have passed this to them to forward along. Please post this wherever you can and use any contacts you have to forward in the right direction.

Yes, it could have been longer and more complete. But we must start with something simple and dramatic to get their attention. Details can come next.

The Obama fraud — Why we are frustrated — Further to your conversation with a caller whereby it was insinuated that you were slow to come to this issue.

Yes, we understand that you were and are ahead of others in the Media in at least touching on this issue. But we are very frustrated that no one, yourself included, came even remotely close to addressing this issue with the vigor it deserves.

You and Donald Trump, still, have just tickled the edges of this monumental fraud and constitutional crisis. This is likely the biggest con, in the biggest leader, in the biggest nation in the history of the planet. And it gets second or third billing, or no billing at all.

There are thousands of us, tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands or millions – highly educated professionals (lawyers, doctors, teachers, scientists, engineers) as well as industrious hard workers – who have quite thoroughly understood this issue and it’s depths and nuances since the middle of 2008. But nobody would listen to us. We have no bully pulpit. We understand that the liberal MSM would ignore us. But we are frustrated that our congressmen ignored us. We are frustrated that conservative spokesmen, such as yourself, ignored us. We sent letters and evidence, we sent millions of emails, we called into your broadcasts, and many others. We are uniformly rebuffed and discourteously rejected by the call screeners.

We tried to get the situation investigated BEFORE the 2008 election. Back when it could have done some real good. Nobody listened! Did we expect anyone to simply believe us hook, line, and sinker? Of course not, but we rightly expected people such as yourself and our congressmen to spend at least a LITTLE effort in investigating what we knew.

We know all about all the court cases. We participated in them. What do you (or Donald Trump) know about them? Do you know for instance that the merits of our case have never been heard? Ever! All cases have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or standing. How can “We The People” lack jurisdiction or standing to enforce our own constitution? This in itself is as big a problem as the Obama Crisis itself. Our courts have failed to provide any sort of process or redress. This is unacceptable.

Do you know that there is at least one high-profile political prisoner? A highly respected and decorated Army Officer is currently behind bars for no more than simply asking THE question. Is that acceptable in a constitutional republic?

There are credible sources who understand all this. Professional people who are way ahead of you and Donald Trump. Please don’t start from scratch and replow all that has been known for over two years. Seek out these people – or let them get through and talk to you.

Please. For the sake of our country and our constitution.

Linda said...

Mario,

Have you thought of writing an article using the statelessness method?

A child born to a foreigner on US soil could never be left stateless if US citizenship was denied because at birth, that child owed allegiance to, and was considered a member in, a foreign society. On the other hand, a natural born citizen owed exclusive allegiance to the US at birth, no other country could lay claim to the child, therefore if denied US citizenship, the child would truly be left stateless.

Soil does come in per treaties & nationality laws of other countries per the law of nations, but the true tie is jus sanguinis. Take Romney, some say his father born in Mexico had Mexican citizenship. This is not true. At the time of his birth, Mexico did not recognize children born to foreigners on their soil as citizens. These children were 100% aliens to the Mexican government. Same for McCain, being born in the armies of the state abroad, he owed no allegiance to Panama because under the law of nations, Panama did not have jurisdiction over the military and their families. They did however, have jurisdiction over the civilian railroad workers there building the canal.

James said...

For Those Wishing to Send Information to Donald Trump:
Pleas read the following link:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/04/09/for-those-wishing-to-send-information-to-donald-trump/

Vincent Jappi said...

"In his book “Deconstructing Obama,” Jack Cashill concludes that Obama was likely born in Hawaii, but that his parents were probably either communist pornographer, and pedophile, Frank Marshall Davis, and Stanley Ann Dunham—or..."
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/35335

Puhleeeze, Mr Corsi, could you investigate the possible legal consequences of Soetoro
having run under a false name but
having a citizen father, and
a Communist one to boot (with sole allegiance to the Soviet Union)

Texoma said...

To Linda,

You bring up an interesting question regarding the citizenship of a child born in the US to parents who are “stateless” – having citizenship in no country. I had a recent blog conversation with Mario on this, but I don’t recall coming to any conclusions.

My question was related to Marco Rubio. His parents fled Cuba in 1959 and he was born in Florida in 1971. For having fled Cuba and abandoning the Cuban nation, what if his parents had their Cuban citizenship removed by Cuba, and what if they then lived in the US without US citizenship and then did not become US citizens until after 1971?

In the above scenario, would Marco Rubio be eligible to be President, given that he was born with no foreign allegiance, given that he could not have gotten Cuban citizenship from his parents? He would have been born only with allegiance to the US based upon jus soli.

Regarding McCain, you are right that he was born with no foreign allegiance since Panama did not grant citizenship to children born in Panama to foreign-citizen parents. Panama did grant McCain an option to become a Panamanian citizen at age 21, but this is not citizenship at birth.

Regarding Panama’s jurisdiction of military bases, Panama was the sovereign of the Canal Zone, including the land within the Canal Zone used by our military bases. This evidenced by the fact that the US paid Panama rent each year for use of all the land that comprised the Canal Zone. If we were the sovereign, we would not have been paying rent to anyone.

Robert said...

NEWS FLASH, aAccording to the msnbc article posted today:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42519951/

Fukino has now admitted that:

Obama's long form birth certificate — described by Hawaiian officials as a "record of live birth" — absolutely exists, located in a bound volume in a file cabinet on the first floor of the state Department of Health. Fukimo said she has personally inspected it — twice. She also found the original birth record, properly numbered, half typed and half handwritten, and signed by the doctor who delivered Obama, located in the files.

Everyone should read the article.

zachjonesishome said...

Texoma said...
zachjonesishome,

Assuming that you know that Trump is natural born citizen, would your suggestion of a declatory judgement on his part be a tactic to get a discussion on this matter in the courts and the media?


------
Absolutely! What would be the effect if a court said something like this:
Yes, Mr. Trump you are eligible because both of your parents were citizens at the time of your birth.

Hello Obama and his father who was never naturalized.

However, the risk is that a court might say that they are not worried about the citizenship of your parents. Given the lenghts the media, politicians, and judges have gone to protect Obama, anything is possible.

It would be in the news for months however driving Obama's numbers down.

Linda said...

Texhoma,

McCain is a citizen per section 217of Vattel, children born in the armies of the state.

If Panama was a true "jus sanguinis" citizenship state, the only way a child could gain it at adulthood is through naturalization & the right of expatriation. Anything otherwise indicates that they do lay some claim to the child at birth, that they do have some sort of the feudal "jus soli" as part of their citizenship laws pertaining to non-military alien residents.

The easiest test of natural born is birth on soil to parents who are citizens, but according to the laws of nations, it is not the only test. If the citizenship laws of the foreign country are true "jus sanguinis" common law, then a child born there can never become a citizen because of a special privilege extended to them because of that birth. They have to absolutely & unequivically be recognized as an alien to the government no matter what.

The point of statelessness was not a conclusion of mine. It came from studying SCOTUS opinions as well as Law reviews from Harvard & Michigan from the 20th century that referred back to the Buchanan administration, the 14th Amendment & the Expatriation Act that defined the US citizenship doctrine of "exclusive allegiance".

Robert said...

There have been 10,129 replies to the msnbc's article claiming that Fukino has admitted to their investigative reporter that she has seen his long-form bc complete with the signature of the doctor who delivered Obama. It is obviously gaining widespread attention.

Has anyone confirmed this report with Fukino herself? I'd like to see a statement by her detailing what she had said to their reporter.

Anyone buying it?

Puzo1 said...

Robert,

There are many problems with the Fukino alleged statements in the MSNBC article. I will address it tomorrow during the Peter Boyle Radio Show starting at 9:00 a.m. Eastern. See the post at this blog.

Texoma said...

Linda,

So what is your take on the eligibility of Marco Rubio, who was born on US soil, should it turn out that his parents were stateless at the time of his birth?

Texoma said...

zachjonesishome,

Good to hear that you proposed a Trump declatory judgement as a tactic to hopefully get the Supreme Court to rule that he was eligible due to his birth in the US to two US citizen parents.

With his mother being a naturalized citizen, I would hope that the Supreme Court would look to a precedent case, such as that of Perkins v. Elg (1939). In that case, Marie Elg was declared to be a natural born citizen. She was born in the US to two naturalized US citizens.

Puzo1 said...

Maya Soetoro gave a recent interview which can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMBweS-uKaY

What is amazing is that after almost 3 years of Obama's birthplace issue being debated, she was not able to provide any new evidence of an Obama Hawaiian birth. She simply repeated the worn out Hawaii hearsay stuff that we have all heard about and offered nothing new.

MichaelN said...

We have a problem, they are fiddling the birth certificate requirements for a passport

http://travel.state.gov/passport/passport_5401.html

New Requirement for U.S. Birth Certificates
Updated March 23, 2011
New U.S. Birth Certificate Requirement
Beginning April 1, 2011, the U.S. Department of State will require the full names of the applicant’s parent(s) to be listed on all certified birth certificates to be considered as primary evidence of U.S. citizenship for all passport applicants, regardless of age. Certified birth certificates missing this information will not be acceptable as evidence of citizenship. This will not affect applications already in-process that have been submitted or accepted before the effective date.

For more information, see 22 CFR 51.42(a).
In addition to this requirement, certified copies of birth certificates must also include the following information to be considered acceptable primary evidence of U.S. citizenship:
Full name of the applicant
Date of birth
Place of birth
Raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal of issuing authority
Registrar’s signature
The date the certificate was filed with the registrar’s office (must be within one year)

Mick said...

@Texoma,
Marco Rubio's parents were present in the US for 12 years prior to his birth. Judging by the fact that Cubans get ecpedited preference in US naturalization, they were probably naturalized prior to Marco's birth. That would certainly need to be verified.

Texoma said...

Mick,

I would certainly hope that Rubio's parents naturalized in the 12 years they were in the US prior to Rubio's, and I do think that is very likely. But as you said, this needs to be verified, especially with Rubio's apparent elusiveness on this topic.

What is your opinion of Rubio's eligibility should it turn out that his parents were stateless in 1971?

MichaelN said...

Hawaiian Revised Statutes

§338-11 Form of certificates. The forms of certificates shall include as a minimum the items required by the respective standard certificates as recommended by the Public Health Service, National Center for Health Statistics, subject to approval of and modification by the department of health. In addition, the forms of death certificates shall require the individual's social security number. The form and use of the certificates shall be subject to sections 338-16 to 338-18. [L 1949, c 327, §15; RL 1955, §57-14; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-11; am L 1997, c 293, §17]

Safari Through The Word Ministries said...

http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/04/14/long-form-birth-certificates-were-available-until-trump-trumped-obama/

Safari Through The Word Ministries said...

http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/04/14/long-form-birth-certificates-were-available-until-trump-trumped-obama/

MichaelN said...

Obama's sudden visit to Hawaii in the middle of the election campaign?

Hawaiian Revised Statutes

§338-6 Local agent to prepare birth certificate. (a) If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as provided in section 338-5 is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local agent of the department of health shall SECURE THE NECESSARY INFORMATION FROM ANY PERSON HAVING KNOWLEDGE OF THE BIRTH AND PREPARE AND FILE THE CERTIFICATE.

(b) The department shall prescribe the time within which A SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT FURNISHING INFORMATION OMITTED ON THE ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE MAY BE RETURNED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPLETING THE CERTIFICATE. CERTIFICATES OF BIRTH COMPLETED BY A SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED AS "DELAYED" OR "ALTERED". [L 1949, c 327, §10; RL 1955, §57-9; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-6]

Mike1776 said...

This whole thing is a lunatic invention made of lies and fantasies.