Saturday, April 16, 2011

Obama Has Made the United States and Its Leaders the Laughing Stock of the World

Obama Has Made the United States and Its Leaders the Laughing Stock of the World

by: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 16, 2011

I recently reported that Arizona has become the first state in the nation to pass a vetting and eligibility bill covering all federal and state candidates for public office, including those vying for the office of President. The bill now goes to Governor Jan Brewer for her signature. If she does not sign it, the bill will also become law. The only way the bill will not become law is if she vetoes it. She has until Thursday to act.

The April 16 edition of The Arizona Republic has a series of articles regarding the Arizona eligibility bill. The lead article on the front page is entitled, “Arizona’s ‘Birther’ Bill Faces Legal Challenges.” In the article, Professor Paul Bender, an Arizona State University constitutional law professor, is quoted as saying the bill is unconstitutional because: "You can't have 50 states using 50 different standards to determine whether the presidential standards are met." Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2011/04/16/20110416arizona-birther-bill-legal-challenges.html#ixzz1Jjh3cUKL

I do not agree with Professor Bender. I have covered this issue in my article entitled, The States Have the Constitutional Power to Pass Legislation Prescribing Presidential Ballot Access Requirements Including Determining Whether a Candidate Meets the Eligibility Requirements of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which can be read at: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/03/states-have-constitutional-power-to.html. Arizona is not adding any additional standard to the Constitutional presidential eligibility requirement. Rather, it is only enforcing the ones that are already spelled out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, i.e., a “natural born Citizen,” 35 years old, and a resident for 14 years. That a candidate presents proof of place and date of birth in order to satisfy the “natural born Citizen” and 35-years-old age requirements is not only reasonable but also necessary and proper. Such a requirement does not change the constitutional standard. In fact, Arizona could also ask for information on the citizenship of the candidate’s parents. Apart that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to U.S. citizen parents, let us not forget that one of the reasons the U.S. Senate voted in Senate Resolution 511 that John McCain was a “natural born Citizen” is because he was born to U.S. citizen parents.

So let us review the position of Obama's enablers regarding addressing Obama's eligibility to be President:

They tell us that the courts have no jurisdiction over the matter.

They tell us that no one among the people, including candidates, has standing to bring any case in court to protect themselves regarding whether their President and Commander in Chief, who has a constitutional duty to protect their lives, liberty, and property, is a “natural born Citizen.”

They concede that a person must be a “natural born Citizen” in order to be eligible to be President, but then add that Obama has a right to privacy over his birth certificate. It just so conveniently happens that this so-called right to privacy prevents the people from learning whether he really is a “natural born Citizen.”

Congress tells us that the courts have resolved the problem, even though no court has ever ruled on the merits of the question but rather dismissed most of the eligibility law suits because of standing.

The courts tell us that they have no jurisdiction and that Congress should have resolve the problem and in default thereof the people have to resolve the constitutional question of whether Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen” in the voting booth.

Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the former Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, has recently told us after almost three years that she has seen in the past Obama's real birth certificate. She recently told us exactly where it is located in the Hawaii Department of Health offices. Even though Dr. Fukino knows that the real birth certificate is “located in a bound volume in a file cabinet on the first floor of the state Department of Health,” and despite being the Governor of the State of Hawaii, Abercrombie could not find it when recently he went looking for it. Even Tim Adams, former Hawaii election clerk, said that during the 2008 election campaign, no one could find Obama’s real birth certificate. Hence, no current Hawaii official has seen the real birth certificate and only one person in the whole world has done so in the past. For more comment on Dr. Fukino, see my article entitled, An Analysis of the Current Revelations of Hawaii’s Dr. Chiyome Fukino to NBC News Regarding Obama’s Place of Birth, at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/04/analysis-of-current-revelations-of.html.

Hawaii tells us that no one can get a copy of Obama’s real birth certificate, including Obama himself. The reason they give is that Hawaii simply does not provide such copies anymore.

Obama, our Commander in Chief of the Military, would rather send one of his highly decorated military officers, LTC Terry Lakin, who acted out of duty to the Constitution, to federal prison and cause him to lose military career, pay, and pension rather than show his real birth certificate.

And let us not forget our illustrious media which has been telling us that Obama has long since released to the world his birth certificate even though Governor Abercrombie and the 2008 election officials could not find it and Dr. Fukino is the only person in the world who allegedly saw Obama’s real birth certificate.

Even though the Constitution clearly states that a presidential candidate must be a “natural born Citizen” in order to be eligible to be President, lawmakers in several states have not been able to pass simple, common sense legislation that requires that candidates show proof of citizenship.

Now some states like Arizona, which have decided to take the common sense challenge, are attempting to address this issue and constitutional law Professor Bender tells us that what it is attempting to do is unconstitutional because it has added to the constitutional eligibility requirements by having the nerve to ask for proof that the presidential candidate is a “natural born Citizen,” 35 years old, and a 14-year resident of the U.S., which we all know are constitutional eligibility requirements spelled out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of that very same Constitution.

And if you should complain about any of this, you are a racist.

We can thank Obama for making the United States and our leaders the laughing stock of the world.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 16, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

20 comments:

googlex said...

Obama has his personal *right* to privacy.

But no one has the unqualified *right* to be President.

It is necessary to waive the personal right at least to the extent to prove legal qualification.

MichaelIsGreat said...

Hello Mr. Apuzzo,

Check this video link "Arizona passes birther bill" at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42622929#42617219
There might be later on an indirect challenge by Obama to this Arizona law.

I feel that Donald Trump is completely unaware that there is also an issue with Obama having used fraudulently several social security numbers from other people!! If you have a mean to contact Donald Trump on this matter, please do so.

I believe that the only hope for the birth certificate issue to be solved is through Donald Trump. Donald Trump I feel is not going to quit on this matter anytime soon.

I am strongly convinced that Donald Trump is going to run for Presidency.

Obama has already bankrupted the USA! We are now at around 14 trillions in deficit and counting!! It used to be around 980 billions a few years ago! Yet, Obama has a hard time to cut spending to a mere 36 billions!!

Zamas said...

Another good writing Mario.

As time passes and Trump still hasn't figured out (at least publicly) the nexus of the newspaper announcements, I am becoming more and more skeptical that this is going anywhere.

I heard an interview on Fox with an Arizona political reporter who said that its "50-50" that Brewer will veto this legislation. Georgia redux?

We continue to hear conservative media watchdogs (Ann Coulter et al) making nutty statements about what the facts are, and of those with any influence only Hannity has even been on the edge of making this a real issue - his interview with Trump was quite good.

I fear that if (when) Trump announces he's not running that all of his bravado on this issue is actually going to hurt the cause. Absent his actual candidacy, I do not believe for a minute he will continue his push. And, if he doesn't run, the naysaying Obots will use that to scream that he was only talking eligibility to get attention - which will look like exactly what he's doing.

We really need Trump to get to discussing the real meaning of NBC, the SS# issue, and to be coherent on the newspaper announcements - and we need him to do it sooner than later.

Forgive my skepticism. I am not a pessimist - I am an optimist with experience.

Robert said...

Remember that under Amendment XX a president must also qualify. If this doesn't mean that he must show his credential and verify a legal vote, what does it mean?

We may be the laughing stock of the world, but I'm not laughing.

puzo1moderator said...

Donald Trump gives Obama hell at a Tea Party event. Go Donald. Obama once said if the other guy brings a knife, you bring a gun. Well Mr. O, The Donald will bring his own guns, 16 inchers, and he'll tell you ... now this is a gun! There is no better street fighter than The Donald. And that's what we need to defeat a phony street fighter like Obama. The Donald is the right man at the right time to expose Obama for the fraud and criminal Obama is. Go Donald!

Watch this six minute video of The Donald in action. I loved the Chicken Salad comment.
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/04/tea-party-trump-obamas-birth.html

CDR Kerchner (Ret)
www.protectourliberty.org

puzo1moderator said...

My April 9th, 2011 memo to Donald Trump and his key adviser Atty Cohen. It was FAX'd on 9 April 2011 to Atty Cohen's office with the instruction to pass it along to Mr. Trump. The question I have in watching Mr. Trump still getting the online imaged document name wrong is ... did Atty Cohen pass along this important one page memo to Mr. Trump. Given some of the comments made by Atty Cohen to the media such as in that ABC news interview in the last day or so, I am beginning to wonder if Cohen is passing along critical information to Mr. Trump, or sitting on it because of his political ideological beliefs about Obama. Only Atty Cohen knows.

My 9 April 2011 memo to Mr. Trump via Atty Cohen on the difference between a CERTIFICATION of Live Birth and a CERTIFICATE of Live Birth ... and also the nexus to the two newspaper ads via the link in my point number 4.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/53204317/Memo-to-Trump-Cohen-20110409-on-Terminology-Certifcation-v-Certificate-Nexus-to-2-Newspaper-Ads-via-Link-in-Point-4

CDR Kerchner (Ret)
www.protectourliberty.org

jayjay said...

puzo1moderator:

Your imapatience is surely understandable, but keep in mind that it may be strategy as opposed to tactics.

Strategy being to wait until things are just a bit further along before saying something like "... the BC is fine and would certainly be helpful, but the really important point is that Obama has already told all of us in many different venues that he is NOT a "natural born Citizen" by saying that his father was a Kenyan alien and never an American citizen. That clearly most likely makes Obama the first anchor baby to be President.

Let's just see the BC as a starting point for a full investigation of his eligibility since newspaper ads don't cut it.

He may just open up once he declares. Until then there's little pointin putting everything "out there". Note that all the lib TV Talkers and other MSM types are attacking Trump and talking him down in every possible ways.

MichaelN said...

Part 1 of 2

Mario & Charles
Is there a concerted effort to enlighten the Louisiana legislatures and guide them with their state eligibility bill?

I tend to think that the quote of John Bingham says it all in one brief, easy read statement as a taster, then as additional information the more detailed articles such as the ones you have authored would be in addition.

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
"[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen..."

MichaelN said...

Part 2 of 2

Bingham again....

"All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians"(Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))

Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:
"Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen." (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

(In the words of Leo Donofrio)
"No other Representative ever took issue with these words on the floor of the House. If you read the Congressional Globe to study these debates, you will see that many of the underlying issues were hotly contested. However, Bingham’s definition of "natural born citizen" (born of citizen parents in the US) was never challenged on the floor of the House."

puzo1moderator said...

All: Please read or re-read for a refresher the Blog Rules for this site as to what is an acceptable comment post for this blog and to learn why your comment may not have made it through.

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/rules-for-newbies.html

roderick said...

I guess anybody can run for president and become president. If you are a full blown criminal, you might as well be president. After all, nobody has a right to question your criminal past. Your criminal past is protected under the right to privacy. That is a totally worthless job anyway if there is no background check. barry soetoro could never work for Delta Air Lines. I had to undergo a month long investigation into my past before I was hired. If at any point I refused to cooperate, Delta would not continue their pursuit of my services. I just wanted to notify everybody that if you want to get the message out to hundreds of thousands of people in one fell swoop, go to Yahoo.com and post comments on any story remotely related to the government.

mr-slippery said...

Lookie, Lookie -
Black owned newspapers unwittingly providing us cover. Who's racist?

I know it's off topic, I understand if my post doesn't make it, but I wanted you see this - The irony of this is too delicious :)

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/04/17/newspaper-publishers-in-the-black-community-think-barack-obama-is-foreign-born/

Puzo1 said...

mr-slippery,

The article has nothing to do with race. The article does imply that even if Obama was born out of the United States, he would be a "natural born Citizen." But the article cites the wrong law as applicable to Obama's situation. Even assuming for sake of argument that one could be a "natural born Citizen" if born abroad to at least one U.S. citizen parent (a postition with which I do not agree), Obama would still not be a "natural born Citizen."

Obama would not qualify to obtain U.S. citizenship from his U.S. citizen mother. A child born in wedlock and abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA, provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child). http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html. So as we can see, the article did not apply the law that applies to Obama who was born in 1961.

Obama’s mother, born on November 29, 1942, was 18 years old when she gave birth to Obama on August 4, 1961. She was 117 days short from being 19 years old. But she had to be at least 19 years old (14 years old plus 5 years of U.S. physical presence) to satisfy the legal requirement of Section 301(g). Hence, if Obama was born in Kenya, under the Fourteenth Amendment, he is neither a U.S. citizen by birth on U.S. soil nor one by naturalization. (There is no existing evidence that Obama was ever naturalized.) Nor would he qualify to be a U.S. citizen by any act of Congress by being born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent. If this scenario is accurate, it can be reasonably argued that Obama is an illegal alien.

Jeremy1Esq said...

so we are happy because a law is going to be passed that says we should enforce a law already in place?

Let me guess, after Obama is reelected, they will pass a law that says any future Presidents have to show a long form birth certificate and be a natural born citizen.

Obama is laughing at us all.

What kind of bizzaro world do I live in?

Jeremy1Esq said...

Dont give up the fight Mario!! You, Kerchner, and Lakin, deserve medals from our country.

We need you to be our voice.

puzo1moderator said...

ACTION ALERT request from CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret):

Please call, email, or FAX the AZ Governor Jan Brewer and urge her to sign the presidential eligibility vetting bill into law which was recently passed by the AZ legislature, and to get it into law as soon as possible, effective this year. I have just made a call and sent a FAX to her office. Please do this today or tomorrow at the latest. Ask her to sign the bill ASAP. The bill must be signed by this Thursday per AZ's constitution, as I understand it. So let her know we want her to sign it to send a message to Washington DC that states are not going to let the U.S. Constitution be ignored even if the cowardly Congress and spin machine far left main stream media is doing that. Let her hear from us.

Address:
AZ Governor Jan Brewer
State Capitol, West Wing
1700 W Washington, 9th Floor
Phoenix AZ 85007

Phone#: 602-542-4331
Email: azgov@azgov.com
Fax# 602-542-1381


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

Kanbun said...

AND THE LAUGHING CONTINUES
Arizona is Georgia #2. Brewer vetoed the bill as some suspected she would. Her excuse? She's not sure that "we can regulate federal elections".

This turn of events will certainly discourage others and is a big check mark in the "I can do what I want" column for Barry.

Apparently there are (were) enough votes to override Traitor Brewer's veto. But, anybody taking odds that there will be no such vote? I'm betting there will be no override vote. The fix is in here just like Georgia, and these folks will back down like the sheep Brewer is.

Barry wins....again.

Kanbun said...

I hate to do this, really. But, there isn't going to be an override in Arizona. These guys have no fortitude or stomach for the right thing whatsoever.

House Speaker Kirk Adams shook his head wearily when asked Monday evening if lawmakers would attempt to override the veto. "No," he said. He added that legislative researchers found that the last time a governor's veto was overridden was 50 years ago.

The bill's sponsor, Rep. Carl Seel, R-Phoenix, said pursuing an override would be as much about defying the governor as it would be supporting the bill's intent.

"Overrides are a real difficult monster," said Seel, who called the governor's decision to veto the measure "unfortunate."

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2011/04/18/20110418arizona-birther-bill-brewer-veto.html#ixzz1JwplTLbf

Kanbun said...

Dr. Kate has posted an excellent essay that she's sent to Trump.

http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/

Take a look, you'll be impressed.

Puzo1 said...

Governor Abercrombie continues to make a fool out of himself and confirm what I said that Obama has made a laughing stock out of the United States and its leaders. Consider this gem as documented by Don Fredrick, author of The Obama Timeline:

"Video: Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie Slams Trump; Lies Again, This Time Saying He Saw Baby Obama 3 Days After His Birth | @ Birther Report: Obama Release Your Records
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/04/hawaii-governor-abercrombie-slams-trump.html

My Timeline entry for later this evening:

Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie is asked by a reporter to clarify what he meant by “he was there” when Obama was born—a statement ridiculed by Donald Trump. Abercrombie responds, “I was here in Hawaii.” Reporter: “You were here in Hawaii, not in the [delivery] room obviously.” Abercrombie: “Look, you know, let’s, let’s be serious, and it, it, uh, it is simply reprehensible to have this kind of conversation, uh, insulting someone’s mother and father speaks about the person who is doing it.” Abercrombie claims he first saw the infant Obama just “days after he was born” when his parents brought him to the University of Hawaii campus. “We not only saw him and were with them but were introduced to him of course at our gatherings, our student gatherings. And, uh, of course over the years then, uh, as he was raised buy his mother and his grandparents, uh, we of course saw him frequently because he was, he was with his grandfather all the time.” (There are several problems with Abercrombie’s story. Abercrombie purportedly told long-time friend Mike Evans he first met Obama when he was playing T-ball at age 5 or 6—not as an infant. Further, although Obama’s father, Obama, Sr. attended the University of Hawaii in the fall of 1961, his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was attending the University of Washington and, in August 1961 visited her friend Susan Blake in Seattle to show off her new baby. By the time Dunham returned to the University of Hawaii, Obama, Sr. had already left for Harvard. It was therefore impossible for Abercrombie—or anyone else—to have seen Obama, Jr. with his parents at “student gatherings” in Hawaii because mother and baby were in Seattle. In researching The Obama Timeline, this author interviewed former students of the University of Hawaii who knew Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. quite well. None of them ever heard of Stanley Ann Dunham; none of them ever saw Obama, Sr. with a woman with that name; none of them believed he was married to anyone other than a woman in Kenya; and none of them ever saw him with an infant son or were told he had a new child. Abercrombie is lying.)"

What an embarrassment for our nation.