Friday, April 22, 2011

Should Enforcing the Constitution and Protecting the Nation Be An Embarrassment?

Should Enforcing the Constitution and Protecting the Nation Be An Embarrassment?

By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 22, 2011

Oklahoma’s SB91, described as “Identity and citizenship - requiring proof of citizenship for candidates,” authored by Senators Brinkley, is now making its way through the Oklahoma legislature. See information on the bill here, http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=sb91. The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 34 yes to 10 no (4 votes were excluded). On April 6, 2011, it passed the House Rules Committee by a vote of 11 yes to 0 no.

“Here in Oklahoma, where Mr. Obama won just over a third of the vote in 2008 — one of his worst state losses — Senate Bill 91 passed last month with overwhelming and even bipartisan support. People in both parties said they were confident that the House would do the same by the deadline next week (the bill would have to return to the Senate for a procedural vote). Lawmakers said they assumed that Gov. Mary Fallin, a Republican, would sign it.

A spokesman said Ms. Fallin would not comment until the bill was on her desk and she had a chance to review it.

Legislators backing credentials bills in other states are closely watching what happens here.

‘If one state passes, and the Obama administration basically ignores the requirement and does not qualify for the ballot in that state, that would send a very strong signal that we have a situation in the United States where someone who is not eligible is occupying the White House,’ said Mark Hatfield, a Republican state representative in Georgia whose own ballot bill failed to get through. If Oklahoma does not go forward, and an override of Ms. Brewer’s veto in Arizona does not materialize, Mr. Hatfield said, ‘then other states, including Georgia, have a duty to step up.’

Opponents of the birther bills say they are unnecessary and are designed to score political points more than safeguard democracy, certainly in Mr. Obama’s case.

Still, Democrats in Oklahoma were divided. For example, the minority floor leader in the House, Chuck Hoskin, said he would probably vote yes. Asked in an interview whether he was concerned about embarrassing the leader of his own party, Mr. Hoskin said he thought Mr. Obama’s failure to win over Oklahomans in 2008 was the real embarrassment.

But down the hall, an assistant Democratic floor leader in the House, Al McAffrey, said the bill was the embarrassment. ‘But this is Oklahoma — we embarrass ourselves all the time,’ he said. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/22/us/politics/22birthers.html?_r=2&hp.

What a sad state of affairs in America. Someone should ask these politicians when it became embarrassing for lawmakers to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, which is the oath of office that they all take. When did it become embarrassing to assure the integrity of the electoral process? When did it become embarrassing to restore the faith of the American people in knowing who their President is?

Was our media and Congress also too embarrassed to press Obama that he release to the public his documents showing who and what he is and to otherwise properly vet him during the 2008 presidential campaign? Were the courts too embarrassed to accept any one case in which Obama would have to produce discovery and conclusively show that he is a “natural born Citizen?” Did Arizona Governor Jan Brewer tell us that she was too embarrassed to sign the Arizona legislation that would have required presidential candidates to prove their citizenship when she said it was “a bridge too far?” Were our leaders also so embarrassed that they allowed a highly decorated military officer, LTC Terry Lakin, to be court-martialed and go to federal prison for exercising his sense of duty to protect the Constitution? And are our leaders now just too embarrassed to admit that they were simply too embarrassed to properly exercise their duties to the nation and to the American people and adequately deal with Obama?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 22, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

30 comments:

Thomas said...

Well said Attorney Appuzo.

Doublee said...

Mr. Apuzzo:

I thought you might be interested in this link. I found it when doing some research on-line related to the eligbility issue.

http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/2010/10/view-of-constitution-of-united-states.html

The title is BOOKS ON GOOGLE BOOKS THAT DEFINE "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN".

The link contains a fairly long list of references. As I scanned through the brief quotes for each reference, I found none that supported the two-citizen parent definitiion of natural born citzen. This is not to say there is none in the list; I did scan the list rather quickly.

The defintions for the most part equated native born with natural born and defined natural born irrespective of the nationality of the parents.

In other words, there is apparently a lot of "evidence" out there that can be used to counter the putative definition of natural born citizen as one who is born on U.S. soil to two citizen parents.

Dixhistory said...

Embarrassed, you can't embarrass these people. They are all looking to cover their A** when history looks at this and rightly calls them all traitors and or cowards.

Note how the MSM still will not say a word about him being British at his birth. All they are talking about is he in this country legally.

A deal among these thieves has been made and I hope the honor there is less strong than that made to their oath of office.

Understand that from your local to the highest office these people go to school or work shops to be told how to act and do things in office.

Their staff gets the most training as these people depend on them as their go to person.

DixHistory

MichaelIsGreat said...

I repeat myself on this matter and it is necessary. There is a vital need to inform the American people of the 2 conditions that are needed to be a natural born citizen, a requirement to be President of the USA:
1) the President must be born in the USA.
Obama never ever showed his LONG FORM birth certificate where it is clearly stated the hospital and the doctor who performed the birth delivery.
2) the President must be born of parents who are BOTH American citizens at the time of birth!!
Obama's father was never ever an American, he was a Kenyan citizen under the rule of Great Britain at that time.

This second condition is basically, for 99.9% of the American people, completely unknown! More surprisingly, even Representatives and Senators seem to have no clues whatsoever concerning this second condition to be a natural born citizen!!

If this second condition would be known to most of the American people, we would have long ago got rid of this Communist Obama who is at the Presidency and who, in less than 2 years, has managed to bankrupt the USA!!
Not only that, he started a third war in a Muslim country in Libya, as if the US did not have already spent enough than more than $ 1.5 trillion already spent on Iraq!! Not to even mention the cost of wasting our time in Afghanistan!!

Obama is a curse for the USA, irrespective of what is your personal political affiliation! Even many Black Americans hope to see Obama gone as soon as possible, as Obama is also a curse for job creation in the USA!!

I have hope with Donald Trump only and now also with the various states that, sooner rather than later, will implement their own legislation to enforce the Constitution of the USA.
My third hope is the coming Corsi book. See "Where's the Birth Certificate?: The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President [Hardcover] by
Jerome Corsi (Author)" at http://www.amazon.com/Wheres-Birth-Certificate-Eligible-President/dp/1936488299/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1303329337&sr=8-1-fkmr0 .
This book is planned to appear around 17 May 2011.

On the other hand, I have zero hope with the American Judicial system. Especially with the Supreme Court judges who are nothing less than completely corrupted on this matter related to Obama!!
With the new two judges that Obama appointed, these two new judges even took part at the recent cases related to Obama, in direct violation of their duty to withdraw on cases related to Obama to avoid conflicts of interest.
These Supreme Court judges should be sent to jail to teach them a lesson on putting their duty before their political bias.

If one of you has the mean to make sure to inform Donald Trump of the second condition for being a natural born citizen, please do so. Because if Donald Trump knew this second condition, he would raise it right away in interviews, simply asking Obama to resign immediately!! That would save the US a lot in many areas, especially in relation to the US Economy.

James said...

Mario,

Dr. Corsi's book "Where's The Birth Certificate?" sits at near #1 on Amazon. Maybe you can create a post to further promote Corsi's book. I'm sure Corsi's wouldn't mind and you can always ask him.

Pagina sobre el padre von Wernich said...

Mr. Apuzzo
Please read.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/22/us/politics/22birthers.html?_r=1
I sent an e mail to Mr. Johnson asking him were on line we can find those investigations.

And posted a message at the site with your url.

Puzo1 said...

Doublee,

Those citations of "other authorities" do not trump Minor v. Happersett (1875), a U.S. Supreme Court decision which said that a "natural born citizen" is a child born in the country to citizen parents. Minor even referred to these "other authorities" and said that they said that a "citizen" could be one who was born in the country without reference to the citizenship of the parents. Minor said there were doubts with such a proposition. In any event, Minor said that such children could be "citizens," not "natural born citizens."

Minor's natural law and law of nations (not English common law) definition of a "natural born citizen" was recognized and confirmed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which used English common law to answer the question raised by Minor of whether a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was a "citizen." Wong Kim Ark also recognized that children born in the U.S. to citizen parents were “natural born citizen” while children born in the U.S. to alien parents were just “citizens.”

The Minor/Wong Kim Ark natural law/law of nations/American common law definition of a "natural born Citizen" has never been changed and prevails to this day.

Puzo1 said...

What is amazing is how Obama supporters declare Obama a "natural born citizen" under Calvin’s Case, 77 Eng. Rep. 377 (Exchequer Chamber 1608). For them to make this quantum leap, they totally disregard over 100 years of our history, starting with just before the American revolution.

What these people fail or refuse to understand is that with the new republic, the Founders and Framers did not look to the English common law when faced with resolving national problems, one of which was how to define the new American citizenship. Rather, they looked to natural law and the law of nations. And their favorite authority on the matter was Emer de Vattel and his, The Law of Nations (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758)). It is at Section 212 that Vattel defined a "natural born citizen" and it is there that the Founders and Framers would have looked for a definition of the new "natural born citizen" of the Constitutional Republic. And it is there that they would have seen that under natural law and the law of nations, "citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages" (sure sounds like the 14th Amendment), while the "natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens" (sure sounds like Minor v. Happersett (1875), as confirmed by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)).

jayjay said...

TWIMC: (To Whom It May Concern)

An essay sent today to to the appropriate OK state officials (including the Governor) follows in two parts.

A similar essay has been sent to the AZ state officials as well as The Trump Organization. Whether Trump himself ever sees the material many of us have sent is not known, but if so I know that several have alerted him to the real eligibility problem indicating that Obama could have been born in the Lincoln bedroom and STILL not be eligible.

Part 1 of 2:
=====================

Mary Fallin; Governor April 22. 2011
Rick Brinkley; State Senator
Ralph Shortey; State Senator
Sue Tibbs; State Representative

To the good people of Oklahoma and their elected state government officials ... what follows is an essay relating to Engrossed SB91 SECTION 2 AMENDATORY (Section 20-102. A.) as available to me from the Internet.

This information has also been sent in much the same form to various officials of other states working toward similar legislation as well as to The Trump Organization.

The essay only relates to the formal eligibility requirements for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States (called PVP hereafter) under our existing Federal law. Other considerations in SB91 are beyond the scope of these comments.



The following essay describes why not only is there no need for “alternative proof” of President/Vice President (hereafter PVP) eligibility requirements but that it actually creates methods for mischief in doing so - an opening of Pandora’s box to the sort of thing we see in HI today with vague requirements in the state law and the action of a state official making pronouncements far above authority ... the “Fukino Fiasco” where the then Dept. Of Health official (not even the Secretary of State) defined a candidate as a “natural born Citizen” with no cognizant state law to allow it.

No State elected official should be in that position where an awful sort of Hobson’s choice means that they are almost bound to be dreadfully wrong. Any State law should be very explicit in the eligibility requirements, as the essay points out. If a candidate wannabe does not meet the legal requirement expressed by this essay, he has the option of pressing his case in court which would very quickly go the Supreme Court as a Constitutional matter since the State would be Constitutionally justified. In the case of an existing PVP the submission to SCOTUS there would need to be an insistence that the two Justices appointed by the existing administration recuse due to obvious conflicts.

WE ALREADY KNOW THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF THE TERM-OF-ART “natural born Citizen”!! Despite much misinformation or lack of understanding, there is a Supreme Court opinion clearly stating the definition. An interesting point is that even the known-forged documents on the internet identified collectively as the Obama COLB documents (which are products of felonious criminal document fraud presented by Obama supporters as definitively shown by Dr. Ron J. Polland) indicate that the man currently occupying our highest office is not eligible to do so since he does not fit the actual “nbC” definition as even these fraudulent documents (pushed by his supporters as valid) indicate since his father is Kenyan, an alien.

While it is true that the term of art “natural born Citizen” appears only once in the Constitution of the United States of America that does not at all mean, as stated below in Minor v. Happersett, that we lack a legal, definitive, and understandable description of the term.

Spaulding said...

Ahh, it has been a while since we've seen this sort of misdirection Mr. Doublee. Using Google to define our law seems to be a trend. If Google can be used to manage mobs to put the Muslim Brotherhood in control throughout the Middle East, why not use it to establish presidential eligibility? Who needs representation when Serge Brin can tell us what to believe, by concensus? But remember, Google is an advertising business. To appear at the top of a search all you need is money! Searching is computer science. Google used to use Alta Vista's web crawler, until they sold enough advertising to buy their own servers.

A search of the US Gov Archives, which could be replaced by Google at some point, yields only one reference, and that to the Constitution, from a search on "natural born citizen" or "natural-born citizen." A search for native-born or native born citizen yielded 3372 references last time I tried. That is because native-born citizens are naturalized - citizens by law. Congress writes laws. Nature makes natural born citizens.

One of the Congressional references, from "Prologue Magazine," a publication of the National Archives, Fall of 2008, vol 40 No. 3, by Rebecca Crawford, titled "The Forgotten Federal Census of 1885" begins thus: "A. James Woodhead of Logan Township, Clay County, Nebraska, was a 40-year-old farmer who was born in Wisconsin. He was a first-generation native-born citizen; his father had been born in England, and his mother, in Ireland."

James Woodhead, like Barack Obama, and like Wong Kim Ark, was a native-born citizen of the U.S. Only his children could become president. The children, born in the U.S., of Bridgit Gabriel, or Wafa Sultan, naturalized citizens, could become president, but not the children of illegal immigrants, residents, or where either parent, for whatever reason, refuses to swear sole allegiance to our republic, like Barack Obama's father. That sounds an emminently sensible precaution to try to insure the allegiance of a commander in chief whose background may be, or may have been, obscured, for whatever reason.

jayjay said...

TWIMC Part 2 of 2:
======================


The 1875 Supreme Court opinion in Minor v Happersett:

“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. “ (emphasis added)

There is no obligation of any state to require or allow eligibility documents beyond what is required by existing Federal law. Those requirements are expressed in my essay - the Constitutionally required “natural born Citizen” using the Supreme Court decision 1875 Minor v. Happersett, still in force. Note that Minor tells us that for almost the first 100 years of the country’s life the definition of “nbC” has meant a certain, definite combination of things (birth in US, 2 US citizen parents). There is no discssion of “fairness” or anything else.

Since Minor has never been overturned it means the definition of certain “nbC” status still stands (for 230-some years now) no matter what many - for their own purposes - would wish it to be. The State would be on solid legal ground (Constitutional and Supreme Court opinion) to make the PVP candidate show that exact requirements. Introducing any number of hail-fellow-well-met “alternative” definitions is self-defeating. No State has an obligation to assist anyone to show eligibility for PVP by providing alternative methods and should not presume to do so since as Governor Brewer of Arizona elegantly stated in her veto letter of AZ HB2177:
“... I do not support designating one person as the gatekeeper to the ballot, which could lead to arbitrary or politically-motivated decisions.”

The Federally-defined “Certificate of Live Birth” or CLB (see http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/vsus_1961_1.pdf page 228 for the CLB current in 1961) has had for many, many years not only the requisite information blocks for the person born but also blocks for his parents birthplace. This document alone should suffice with no arbitrary decision required. Should the citizen’s CLB lack the parental citizenship then he perhaps could be allowed to submit the CLB for the missing parent(s) but that likely should be of the candidate’s impetus rather than black-letter law.
In your Engrossed SB91, the items 2, 3, and 4 allowing alternative documents should not be allowed since all three are open to “mischief” and (if they exist) are not as Constitutionally close as the actual state Certificate of Live Birth (CLB). There is no point opening the door for deceit since the Federal government does not issue a CLB (item 2), nor a CLB (item 3), nor a CLB report (item 4). All three are contrivances intended for other purposes that do not have the same force of law as the Constitutional requirement of “natural born Citizen” and its definition.
With no Minor-defined paperwork there should be no approval and the applicant would then have to determine his own further course of action. In view of the above, please remove all of the “alternative” PVP methods and stick with the laws we presently have. It would be a refreshing change and would be strictly legal. All in all, it’s a great bill ... why not make it truly bulletproof?

Puzo1 said...

Here is part of a story written by Tim Talley of the Associated Press in connection with Oklahoma SB91.

"Officials in Hawaii have provided public access to Obama's birth records, and courts have rejected challenges to his citizenship. Another possible Republican hopeful, Michele Bachmann, said she had no doubts about Obama's citizenship."

Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Okla-leaders-weigh-birther-measure-1348882.php#ixzz1KJbog3QG

But what is the truth? Hawaii has told us that they cannot release Obama's real birth certificate because of privacy laws. Not even the alleged birth hospital, Kapi'olani, will publicly confirm whether Obama was born there. And let's not forget Governor Abercrombie who first told us that he could not find any birth certificate (and even told the same thing to his good friend, Hollywood celebrity journalist/radio host, Mike Evans) and then he told us that he could not help the public any further because of privacy laws.

The courts have denied eligibility cases because of standing, not because of the merits of whether Obama has conclusively proven he was born in Hawaii.

Did Michelle Backman really say that?

Don't you just love the lies they tell.

Puzo1 said...

Here is another good one. This relates to Pennsylvania's effort to pass vetting and eligibility legislation. This is an editorial appearing in the GoErie.com:

"Our lawmakers have more important things to accomplish than this nonsensical venture into conspiracy theories."

Read more at http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110423/OPINION01/304239997/-1/OPINION16

I never knew that enforcing the Constitution was a conspiracy theory.

You could not make this stuff up.

Puzo1 said...

Here is the transcript of what Michelle Bachmann said to Stephanopoulos: The following transcript of the exchange is taken from the ABC News website:

"Stephanopoulos: Well I have the president’s certificate right here. It’s certified, it’s got a certification number. It’s got the registrar of the state signed. It’s got a seal on it. And it says "[T]his copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding."

Bachmann: Well, then that should settle it.

Stephanopoulos: So it’s over?

Bachmann: That’s what should settle it. I take the president at his word and I think — again I would have no problem and apparently the president wouldn’t either. Introduce that, we’re done. Move on.

Stephanopoulos: Well this has been introduced. So this story is over?

Bachmann: Well as long as someone introduces it I guess it’s over."

Bachmann said the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) should settle it, not that it did settle it. She added that "as long as someone introduces it I guess it's over." What is she telling us? She is not satisfied that anyone of authority has "introduced" Obama's Certification of Live Birth. In fact, we have only seen an electronic image of it on the internet. That surely is not "introducing" it in the sense that Bachmann is requesting.

So here too, we see nothing but wishful thinking by our illustrious media.

puzo1moderator said...

And Stephanopolous did not literally have in his hands what he said he had. All he had in his hands was a local computer printout of the online COLB image which the Ayers/Obama Annenberg Foundation college kids say has a raised seal and stamp on the back for which they provided staged pictures. This far left partisan group controlled by Bill Ayers and Obama at various times is hardly a document expert. No controlling legal authority has seen the underlying document which Stephanopolous fraudulently said he had in his hands. If Michelle had any savvy she would have said ... give me that. Let me see it. Let me see the raised seal and signature on the back. She should have called Stephanopolous out on his lies and misrepresentations on what he had in his hands. As The Donald said, Stephanopolous has been co-opted by the Obama and his conmen and is obviously a willing accomplice in defrauding the nation and the electorate and is helping the usurper in chief to trample on the U.S. Constitution.

paraleaglenm said...

The problem is that citizenship at birth alone is not the legal parameter of a Natural Born Citizen.

In 1776 through 1789, habitancy or being born in one of the states was sufficient for citizenship.

In 1790, the legislature exercised its enumerated power over naturalization law and passed the first of many Acts clearly based on the citizenship of the father.

If a British subject bore a child of an American mother on U.S. soil, what citizenship would the child be?

If married, the child of such a union would be British, until such time as the father naturalized.

If born of a U.S. citizen father married to the mother, the child would be a 'natural born citizen.'

If unmarried, the child would would acquire the citizenship of the the legal parent or guardian.

However, British law provided British citizenship to such a child if the couple married, or the father declared the child his son to the secretary of state.

British law is very complex, so that is an extreme simplification.

Therefore, merely providing proof of U.S. birth is insufficient proof of presidential eligibility.

Statutory citizenship at birth has changed over the years, but the intent of the framers was in simpler times, when a woman married to an alien became that alien citizenship, and an alien woman marrying a U.S. citizen instantly acquired U.S. citizenship.

Those laws must govern the definition of Natural Born Citizen as required in Article II, for to apply modern law, or misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, or other common misconceptions, results in unconstitutionally amending Article II.

Bob said...

Any reference to 'natural-born' in British law has ONLY to do with the inheritance of property, including titles of nobility.

Its antithesis is 'bastard:' in Ireland, the title 'Fitz' was attached to the name of a son who was not 'natural born,' as in 'John Fitzgerald Kennedy.'

This is why only the Vattel definition: 'indigene ou naturel' was used by the Framers of the United States Constitution, as Mario has repeatedly argued.

Kanbun said...

I really enjoy reading all of these comments whenever Mario posts such excellent writings. I check his site frequently. Then inevitably at some point in reflection of all of the things that we all recognize, I realize that there is no firm or reliable mechanism available to not necessarily convince others of the facts, but to even present the evidence for others to consider.

The courts will not cooperate despite many attempts to present evidence for review on the merits, and the MSM continues not only to denigrate anybody that raises the issue, but to refer to their own "evidence" as proof that Barry is NBC. Earlier this week Joy Dopehart was interviewing someone on CNNHeadline about the BC, and there was a banner displayed on the screen the entire time saying that the BC claims had been "DEBUNKED" - the word in large letters.

We now find ourselves hoping beyond hope that Trump will be the key to just getting some of the facts out there for everyone to see, to move the discussion from the BC to the definition of NBC, to the facts about the unreliability of not just Barry's COLB but any Hawaiian COLB, to how the newspaper announcements are equally unreliable because the unverified process that produces them. And yet, if Trump doesn't get there, if he doesn't sooner or later move from the BC to facts that cannot be reasonably rebutted by Barry's media legions, what are we left with? I can think of nothing except the state eligibility bills which so far have been torpedoed and which as aptly pointed out here are deficient as they relate to the the real issue, the definition of NBC.

Barry can rightly do a Charlie Sheen and declare that he is "winning". Mario and his tireless efforts to right this ship give me solace in the sadness that I find in how our country, our courts, and our political leaders have allowed this sham to happen and to perpetuate.

Let us move forward said...

Stephanopolous has been in the tank from the earliest days. As press secretary for Clinton surely he has seen it all, and knows how to cover up embarrassing developments. Didn't he participate regularly in the famous 5 am coordinating call?

Michelle Bachman personally wants to avoid this issue like the plague, and used Stephanopolous' ploy as a crutch. Does she see the eligibility question as a personal attack on the president?

No one is going to remove Mr. O from office. What would be the international status of all who served in combat while reporting to an illegal commander in chief?

The focus has to be to get him out of office in 2012. All the laws would stand just as if no one ever signed them. If he could be proven ineligible after removal, then challenge his SC appointees.

Puzo1 said...

Kudos to Louisiana Senator, A.G. Crowe. He did a fantastic job in putting CNN, Randi Kaye, in her little place.

Despite her wanting to intimidate him from backing off passing any state vetting and eligibility legislation because she wants to make the issue all about Obama, Senator Crowe aptly told her that the proposed law is about protecting the Constitution and representing his constituents. Now that is what I call a smart guy.

It is utterly despicable how these media talking heads put loyalty to Obama, who refuses to prove himself eligible for the job, over loyalty to the Constitution.

See the interveiw here http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/04/louisiana-senator-slaps-cnn-host-over.html

MichaelIsGreat said...

See "Trump offers support for Ind. senator's birther bill" at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGBFlVPNerg

MichaelIsGreat said...

See "Trump offers support for Ind. senator's birther bill" at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGBFlVPNerg

Lawmanjed said...

Americans should understand the difference between mere "citizenship" and "natural born citizenship"(NBC). The former can be acquired under various laws and circumstances, may or not require birth in this country and may require that both, only one or even no parent of the child be an American citizen in order for the child to acquire "citizenship". Mere "citizenship" may be acquired at birth or at some later date depending on the circumstances and the "naturalization" law or laws "creating" that citizenship.

NBC can only be acquired at birth, requires BOTH birth on American soil AND parents who were BOTH American citizens at the time of the birth. NBC is provided for in Article II, Section I of the Constitution as a requirement for the presidency. The 12th Amendment now requires Vice Presidents to also be NBC's as well. No other office requires NBC status under the Constitution. It can ONLY be acquired at birth and NOT later and is not dependent upon or created by any special laws enacted by Congress, and is therefore "natural" because it is only dependent on the birth itself on American soil and the citizenship of the parents and,of course, the requirements of Article I, Section II.

You and I and most of the people you know are probably NBC's, as are the majority of the population of this country and most other countries in the world. We were born here and both our parents were citizens (either born or naturalized here). After fighting the British in a long and bloody war for independence, the former colonies were weak and wary of any foreign intrigue, interference and invasion, especially from England. Note that the British later invaded and burned Washington, DC during the War of 1812. In creating a strong Presidency with great powers to conduct foreign affairs and command the military, the founders wanted to prevent future Presidents from having allegiance to any other nation or subject to foreign education, training or influence. By requiring both American birth and American parentage from BOTH parents, ie. NBC, they hoped to reduce if not eliminate the possibility of a President with allegiance to another nation, since a NBC would most likely be raised in this country by parents who were both loyal Americans.

Some claim that NBC only requires ONE citizen parent, rather than two. This position contradicts the understanding of the term NBC that our founders had and various Court decisions over the years that have described NBC and distinguished it from mere citizenship. But it also defies common sense since it is illogical and unthinkable that the founders and ratifiers intended to permit, for example, a person born in America to an American mother and British father to be eligible to be President, or a NBC.

Kanbun said...

You Tube video of Indiana Senator sponsoring bill. More of the same. The Demonut fool standing next to him refers to the online birth certificate (COLB) and of course no rebuttal. The TV station reports it like it's a fact.

Hopeless in Indiana. No facts. Don't know what NBC is. Etc. Etc.

So sad. So sad.

Puzo1 said...

Start calling Mary Fallin, Gov of OK, demand that she issue a statement (similar to one made by Gov Jundal), stating that she supports SB 91, Presidential eligibility certification 405-521-2342

From Orly Taitz, Esq.

"Great news: OK house majority leader Dan Sullivan and Kris Steel released Presidential certification bill SB 91 for the full vote of the House on Wednesday. This bill is expected to pass easily and become law within 5 days
Posted on |
April 25, 2011

I just got a phone call from a state trooper in Oklahoma. After a wave of phone calls flooding the office of the House majority leader Dan Sullivan, SB 91 was released to a full vote of the House. Deidra, clerk for Representative Sullivan at 800-522-8502 confirmed that House Majority leader Sullivan released SB 91 to a full vote of the House to be held on Wednesday. This bill is expected to pass with a wide margin and become law automatically within 5 days.

Just to be on the safe side, please keep calling your state representatives and make sure they show up for vote and vote on Wednesday to pass the bill. Please, keep calling the office of the new OK governor Mary Fallin and make sure she does not “pull Brewer” and does not veto the bill, so we don’t have to start recall of Fallin. I hope that she will not go against the will of vast majority of OK citizens, who are demanding to pass this bill and are demanding to see Obama’s long form birth certificate, that nobody can find and the original application for that CT Social Security number 042-68-4425, that he claims, he legally got while residing in HI.

PS. Mr. Obama thinks that only Chicago boys can play hardball, some girls can play hardball too.

Posted by giveusliberty1776 at 12:23 PM 0 comments

puzo1moderator said...

New animated video shows Obama explaining how he deceived the American electorate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz0_LNLA9GY

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

Puzo1 said...

On Sunday, Rev. Franklin Graham told ABC’s “This Week with Christiane Amanpour” that Mr. Obama "has some issues to deal with," referring to proving that he is a U.S. citizen.

Rev. Graham told ABC: "He can solve this whole birth certificate issue pretty quickly." "I was born in a hospital in Asheville, North Carolina, and I know that my records are there. You can probably even go and find out what room my mother was in when I was born. I don't know why he can't produce that."

Rev. Graham's family has served as spiritual advisers to numerous prominent political figures.

He also said that Donald Trump, who has also raised the question about Obama's place of birth, might be his candidate of choice in 2012.

The White House has denounced Rev. Graham for his position. Read the story here
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/04/white-house-calls-rev-grahams-comments-on-the-president-preposterous.html

puzo1moderator said...

The Oklahoma presidential constitutional eligibility vetting bill SB 91 passed the House 77-13 11 excused.

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

MichaelIsGreat said...

OBAMA'S LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE (THE ELECTRONIC VERSION IN PDF FORMAT OBTAINED DIRECTLY FROM THE WHITE HOUSE) IS SHOCKINGLY 100% A FAKE!

---See also the youtube video at "YouTube - Could This Be a Proof That Obama's Long Form Birth Certificate Is Fake." by MrVoodooevolution at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pgev9a7VDxY
---See also the youtube video at "YouTube - Obama's Long Form Birth Certificate is a Fake"by xxxxxxxpimptaddyone at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTWM361nOhk
---See also the youtube video "04/27/11 Obama's Long Form Certificate of Birth Certificate is a Forgery" by ScrapGoldBusiness at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w79TTPzYdBc
---See also the youtube video "Obama's Long Form Birth Certificate is an OBVIOUS FAKE! Nordyke Twins BC's DON'T" by KenyanBornObamAcorn at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zABmPoacYgE
---See also the youtube video "Proof Obama Long Form Birth Certificate is FAKE Composite April 27th 2011" by WarriorPoet at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4R9y6u1BbY

MichaelIsGreat said...

Two more links that are useful:
---See also "Obama releases long-form birth certificate ~ BUSTED" by 100days2bestseller at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9LN6D2ZPEc
---See also "Proof the Obama Birth Certificate is a fake" by StormCloudsGathering at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2L5a_KS6iw