tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post2352615913479406084..comments2024-03-02T14:24:03.076-05:00Comments on Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers: The Nonsense Published by Our Nation’s Editors Regarding Obama’s Eligibility to be PresidentMario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-36877818877940673612010-05-23T17:02:59.450-04:002010-05-23T17:02:59.450-04:00CF Kerchner,
You may wish to review the US Supr...CF Kerchner,<br /> You may wish to review the US Supreme Court audio arguments in<br />2001's Nguyen v. INS:<br /> <br />"Justice Ginsburg: Mr. Kneedler, if Congress went back to the way it when was everything was determined by the father's citizenship, go back before 1934, suppose Congress accepts your argument or we accept your argument and say plenary power, they can do whatever they damn please, so they say children born abroad of fathers who are U.S. citizens can become U.S. citizens, but not children who are born abroad of U.S. citizen mothers where the father is an alien.<br /><br />That's the way it used to be in the bad old days.<br /><br />I take it from your argument if Congress wanted to go back to that, it would not offend anything in the U.S. Constitution to do so."<br /><br />The transcript and tape is available at:<br />http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_2071/argument<br /><br />And don't forget to read the Nguyen v. INS decision @ 54 and 62. http://supreme.justia.com/us/533/53/case.html<br /><br />Obama Sr.'s paternity was allegedly validated in divorce proceedings by Ann Dunham-Obama when Barack Jr. was but an infant (allegedly). The Divorce records are currently missing any Birth Certificate or bona fide Citizenship establishment of Barack Jr. <br /><br />In the two passages of US Supreme Court Nguyen v. INS decision @ 54 and 62, we see that Obama is <br />(in my opinion and belief) required by Supreme Court Law to produce his Long Form Birth Certification showing WITNESSES to the birth, and the computer fraud his campaign produced is ILLEGAL and UNACCEPTABLE based on Supreme Court Law. <br /><br />@ 62: "The mother's status is documented in most instances by the birth certificate or hospital records AND THE WITNESSES who attest to her having given birth." [emphasis mine]<br /><br />Those pro-Obama editors, like that in the Primary Article we are commenting on...in my opinion, are primarily either intentionally illiterate or intentionally idealogues pursuing <br />the ostentacious promulgation of <br />dishonesty with all the fervor of an archilochean thespian dreaming of winning some kind of a recognition award from their profession, and all the adulations, notoriety, and prestige that accompanies such within their profession by those mobs who have lost their senses of reality in favor of the fictional re-concept that has been newly created for the masses as escapism. <br /><br /> In effect, believing Obama is an US NBC, is a form of insanity that accompanies those who envelop themselves in escapisms to define their realities...no differently than some overly zealous Trekkies and what have you.Brianroyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06460377944201908161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-26575210676016618042010-05-23T13:25:46.632-04:002010-05-23T13:25:46.632-04:00Re-posted here on behalf of ConstitutionallySpeaki...Re-posted here on behalf of ConstitutionallySpeaking. This had to be cut into parts/pieces due to its length. The Editor.<br /><br />Part VI<br />--------------------<br />* * » * <br /><br />"We are of the opinion that defendant's grandfather, at the time he removed to Canada, in 1790, was and had been for several years a citizen of this country, and that he remained such notwithstanding his removal to and subsequent death in Canada. In this conclusion we are sustained,we think.by the following authorities: Calais v. Marshfield, 30 Me. 411; Peck v. Young, 26 Wend. 612; Inalisv. Trustees Sailor's Snug Ilarbor, 3 Pet. 99. "The father of plaintiff was born in Canada, in 1795,at which time his father, as we have seen, was a citizen of this country. Ordinarily the citizenship of the child at its birth is determined by that of the father. If there be a doubt as to this principle, it must be regarded as removed by the act of Congress passed in 1802, which provides, * * * 'children of persons who now are, or havo been citizens of the United States shall, though bom out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens thereof.' Rev. Stat. U. S., §<br />2172. "This language clearly aud unmistakably includes the plaintiff's father, and he thereby (if not otherwise) became entitled to all the [rights of oitizenship.<br />----------------------<br /><br />END of Re-post on behalf of ConstitutionallySpeakingcfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-82060217838168782162010-05-23T13:23:56.181-04:002010-05-23T13:23:56.181-04:00Re-posted here on behalf of ConstitutionallySpeaki...Re-posted here on behalf of ConstitutionallySpeaking. This had to be cut into parts/pieces due to its length. The Editor.<br /><br />Part V<br />--------------------<br />* * * * <br /><br />" I suppose the doctrine that ohildren, if legitimate, follow in regard to their political rights and duties,the condition of their fathers, to be found in natural law, and to be substantially the same in most, if not all, civilized countries. Vattel says: " Society not being able to subsist and perpetuate itself, but by the children of its citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers and succeed to all their rights." B. 1, ch. 19, S 212. In a subsequent action the same author says: " It is asked whether the ohildren born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens, the laws have deoided this question in several countries, and it is neoessary to follow their regulatious. By the. law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights. The place of birth produces no change in this particular, and canuot of itselt furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given, him. 1 say of itself, for the<br />civil law, or politics, may order oUierwise from particular views. Id., § 215. <br /><br />" It is shown by Vice Chancellor Sandford, in Lynch v. Clark, 1 Saudf. Ch. 583, 675, that the law of France, Spain, and Portugal is in accordance with this doctrine, by express enactment it is true, as it is now in England and in this country. But the uniformity goes to show that it is founded upon a law of nature, and of course prevails in every country, unless, as Vattel says, it is changed from the municipal law'from particular views.' ______________________________________________________ <br /><br />State v. Adams, 45 Iowa, 99 (1876), was a suit brought to determine whether Adams, the defendant, was a citizen of the United States and of the State of Iowa, the object being to test his right to hold the office of the mayor of the town of Avoca. The following passages are extracted from the opinion of Seevers, C. J.: " The right of the defendant to hold the office in question depends upon the fact, whether or not he was a citizen of the United States and State of Iowa. The Circuit Court made the following finding of facts: <br /><br />" 1st. That the defendant's paternal grandfather was born in Connecticut in the year 1764, and from there emigrated to Canada, in the year 1790, with the intention of making Canada his permanent domioil, and that he remained in Canada until his death in the year 1838. <br /><br />"2d. That the defendant's father was born in Canada in the year 1795, and resided there until the year 1834. <br /><br />"3d. That the defendant was born in Canada in the year 1834, and during the same year came with his father to the United States, where tbey have ever since resided. <br /><br />"4th. The defendant has resided in the State of Iowa over sinoe its admission into the Union, and in the town of Avoca, for the two years last past. <br /><br />"5th. That the defendant's father, while a resident iii Canada, served in the Canada militia in the war of 1812, but that such services were involuntary on his part. <br /><br />"6th. That in the year 1875, the defendant's father received of the Canadian government a bounty of f20 for such services. <br /><br />"7th. That neither tho defendant nor his father has ever been naturalized under the laws of the United States for the naturalization of aliens. <br /><br />* * » * <br />----------------------<br />continued ...cfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-58980637745090415172010-05-23T13:22:45.926-04:002010-05-23T13:22:45.926-04:00Re-posted here on behalf of ConstitutionallySpeaki...Re-posted here on behalf of ConstitutionallySpeaking. This had to be cut into parts/pieces due to its length. The Editor.<br /><br />Part IV<br />--------------------<br />In Ludlam v. Lntllam, 26 N. Y. 356 (1883), it appeared that Richard L. Ludlam, a citizen of the United States domiciled in New York, went at the age of eighteen to Peru for business purposes, but took no steps toward naturalization iu Peru, or toward a permanent change of domicil. He remained iu Peru fourteen years and when in Peru married a Peruvian woman, who also was a native of that country. A child was born to him iu Peru. This child was held by the Court of Appeals to be a citizen of the United States, domiciled in New York. From the opinion of the court which was delivered by Selden, J., the following passages are extracted. <br /><br />"It seems to me to result of necessity from these principles, that the children of English parents, though born abroad, are nevertheless regarded by the common law as natural born citizens of England. The decision upon the plea in Calvin's case, which was merely repeating what was decided in Cobbledike's case, as early as the reign of Edw.I, see Calvin's case, p. 9 b., necessarily implies that a child may owe allegiance to the king (f. e., not merely local or temporary, but natural and permanent allegiance), although born out of the king's dominions; nnd also that this was a broad general rule, not confined to a few exceptional cases, because if this was an exception the plea could not have been held bad on demurrer, as it was in both Cobbledike's and Calvin s cases; but the exception must have been pleaded." <br /><br />"Now, upon what ground cau allegiances in such cases be olaimed ? If natural allegiance or allegiance by birth, does not depend upon boundaries or place, as Calvin's case asserts, upon what does it depend? There cau be but one answer to the question. It is impossible to suggest auy other ground for the obligatiou than that of parentage. It must, I apprehend, be transmitted from the parents to the child, or it could not exist. This being then the nature of permanent allegiance, it follows that the king of England may properly claim allegiance from the children of his subjects, wherever born. If then the child of English parents, though born abroad, is subditus natus a born subject of the king, he must also be a born citizen of the kingdom. Allegiance and citizenship are as we have seen, correlative terms, the one being the consideration of the other. So long therefore as the parents continue to owe allegiance to the crown of England, so long will their children, by the rules of the<br />common law, whether born within or without the kingdom, owe similar allegiance, and be entitled to the corresponding rights of citizenship. <br />----------------------<br />continued ...cfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-71692076231663502482010-05-23T13:21:29.245-04:002010-05-23T13:21:29.245-04:00Re-posted here on behalf of ConstitutionallySpeaki...Re-posted here on behalf of ConstitutionallySpeaking. This had to be cut into parts/pieces due to its length. The Editor.<br /><br />Part III<br />--------------------<br />To the same effect is Morse on Citizenship, 13, 141. <br /><br />Iu Udny v. Udny, L. It., 1 Sc. App. 444, it was held that the Hiatus of a child as to legitimacy is determined by the laws of his father's domicil at the time of the child's birth. The distinction between civil status and political status is thus put iu this case by Lord Westbury: <br /><br />"The law of England, and of almost all civilized countries, ascribes to each individual at his birth two distinct legal states or conditions; one by virtue of which he becomes the subjeot of some particular country, binding him by the tie of natural allegiance, and whioh may bo called his politioal status; another, by virtue of whioh he has ascribed to him the character of a citizen of some particular country; and as such is <br /><br />possessed of certain municipal rights, and subject to certain obligations, which latter charaoter is the civil status or oondition of the individual, and may be quite different from his political status. The political status may be dependent on different laws in different countries; whereas the civil status is governed universally by one single principle, namely, that of domicil, which is the criterion established by law for the purpose of determining civil stains. For it is on this basis that tho personal rights of the party, that is to say, the law which determines his majority or minority, his marriage, succession, testaoy, or intestacy, must depend. International law depends on rules which, being in great measure derived from the Roman law, are common to the jurisprudence of all civilized nations. It is a settled principle that no man shall be without a domicil, and to secure this result, the law attributes to every individual as soon as he is born the domicil of his father, if<br />the child be legitimate, and the domicil of the mother if illegitimate. This has been called the domicil of origin, and is involuntary. Other domicils including domicil by operation of law, as ou marriage, are domicils of choice. For as soon as an individual is sui juris it is competent to elect and assume another domicil, the continuance of him to which depends upon his will and act. When another domicil is put ou, the domicil of origin is for that purpose relinquished, and remains in obeyance during the continuance of the domicil of choice; but as the domicil of origiu is the creature of law, and independent of the will of the party, it would be inconsistent with the principles on which it is by law created and ascribed, to suppose that it is capable of being by the act of the party entirely obliterated and extinguished. It revives and exists whenever there is no other domicil, and it does not require to be regained or reconstituted animo et facto, in the manner which is necessary<br />for the acquisition of a domicil of choice. <br /><br />• ♦ • • <br />----------------------<br />continued ...cfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-15875819341696687672010-05-23T13:19:03.722-04:002010-05-23T13:19:03.722-04:00Re-posted here on behalf of ConstitutionallySpeaki...Re-posted here on behalf of ConstitutionallySpeaking. This had to be cut into parts/pieces due to its length. The Editor.<br /><br />Part II<br />--------------------<br />Authorities as to domicile of children bom abroad to Americans. <br /><br />Mr. Dicey, an authoritative English cotemporary writer and a member of the Institute of International Law, in a treatise on the Law of Domicil, published in London iu 1879, thus speaks: <br /><br />" Every person received at (or as from) birth a domicil of origin. (1) In the case of a legitimate infant born during his father's life-time, the domicil of origin of the infant is the domicil of the father at tbe time of his birth. * * * The domicil of every deprudent, person is the same as, and changes (if at all) with the domioil of the person on whom he is, as regards his domioil, legally dependent." Pp. 4, 5. <br /><br />"A domicil cannot be acquired by a dependent person through his own act. P. 106." <br /><br />Mr. Westlake, a leading English author on Private International Law, in the 2d ed. of his work on Private International law, says: <br /><br />" Section 233. The original domicil of a child born in wedlock to a living father is the domicil of its father at the time of its birth. <br /><br />"Section 237. The domicil of a legitimate or legitimated unmarried minor follows that of his or her father." <br /><br />Mr. Hall (International Law, Oxford, 1880, p. 188) after a recapitulation of the law of different countries (in which he gives an erroneous statement of the law in the United States), says: <br /><br />"From the foregoing sketch of the various laws of nationality, it may be concluded that the more important States reoognize, with a very near approach to unanimity, that the child of a foreigner ought to be allowed to be himself a foreigner, unless he manifests a wish to assume or retain the nationality of the State in which he has been born." <br /><br />"La definition la plus exacte,d noire avis,a ite, donnee par lejuge des Etats-unis Hush, lorsqu'il dit que la domicile est ime residence dans un lieu particnlier accompagnee de preuves positives ou presutnees de Vintention de s'y fixer pendant un temps illimiti. <br /><br />"Le domicile de V enfant est celui de ses parents on de ceux qui les remplacent suivant la loi." Manuel de Droit International Public et Pi-ive. JPtir M. Charles Calvo. Paris, 1882, pp. 211, 212. <br /><br />The late Professor Blunschll, in an article in the " Revue de droit int." for 1870, p. 107, states the rule as follows: <br /><br />"Legitimate children acquire by their birth the nationality of their father; nor does it matter whether they were born at home or abroad." <br /><br />Sir It. Phillimore (International Law, IV, 589, p. 73), thus speaks: <br /><br />"XC. (a) The domioil of the legitimate uuemancipated minor who is notsui juris, and whose will therefore cannot conour with the fact of his residence, is the domicil of the father, or of the mother during widowhood, or—though it will be seen this is a disputed point—of the legally appointed guardian. <br /><br />"XCI. It is an undisputed position of all jurists,that of his own accord, proprio morte (to borrow the expressionof Bynkershock), theminor cannot change his domicil. In our own country this maxim was enunciated by Lord Alvanley, master of the rolls, in the case of Somerville v. Somerville, and in America, in the oase of Outer v. 0'Daniel. <br /><br />"It should seem, from all analogy, to follow that such change may be effected by the parents or guardians of the minor." <br />----------------------<br />continued ...cfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-884337400701304522010-05-23T13:17:08.481-04:002010-05-23T13:17:08.481-04:00Re-posted here on behalf of ConstitutionallySpeaki...Re-posted here on behalf of ConstitutionallySpeaking. This had to be cut into parts/pieces due to its length. The Editor.<br /><br />Part I<br />--------------------<br />IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS IN RELATION TO CITIZENSHIP, DOMICILE AND MARRIAGE. <br /><br />The following correspondence will explain the reason of the changes recently made by the Secretary of State in the diplomatic instructions in reference to the law of citizenship, domicile and marriage: <br /><br />Law Bureau, May 1, 1885. <br /><br />To the Honorable the Secretary of State: <br /><br />Sir: I beg to call your attention to two sections in oar Consular Regulations and in our Diplomatic Instructions, which call for grave consideration. In our Consular Regulations we have the following: __________________________________________________ <br /><br />In reference to the first point of change, distinctly set forth in page 4 of Dr. Wharton's report, and in further support of it you will find that Vattel, in his Law of Nations, book 1, ch. 19, p. 101, fully sustains it; and further, in book 2, ch. 8, p. 17-'!. Our own Supreme Court has of late years announced the same doctrine, with a clearness and force that cannot be misunderstood. Carlisle v. United States, 10 Wall. 147; and still more recently in the case of Radich v. Hutching, 95 U. S. 210. <br /><br />The other change suggested by Dr. Wharton in these regulations as stated in his report, p. 7, touching "the domicile of children of citizens of the United States born abroad," is based upon principles that are as universally recognized and established as the first ohange already discussed ; and I call your attention to Savigny on Private International Law, pp. 50-7. Our Supreme Court at a very early date, before the case in 3 Peters referred to by Dr. Wharton recognized this principle, and quoted all the leading authorities then known to the profession in the case of McJlvaine v. Coxe's Lessee, 4 Cranch, 209 (1808). Again, in the year 1817, in the case of The Dos Hermanos, 2 Wheat. 76; and in 1852, in Ennis v. Smith, 14 How. 400; in Jones v. Afo-Waster, 20 id. 8; in White v. llurnley, id. 235; in Mitchell v. United Slates, 21 Wall. 350; and in Desinare v. United Slates, 93 U. 8. 605; but more recently, and yet with more emphasis if possible, in the case of Lamar v. Mieou, 112 id.<br />452.<br />----------------------<br />continued ...cfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-90574151344091399122010-05-20T16:43:38.193-04:002010-05-20T16:43:38.193-04:00A Must Read Book about Obama & Backers Disinfo...A Must Read Book about Obama & Backers Disinformation, Misinformation, and Ideological Indoctrination "techniques" being used to control the American people with an enabling lame stream media. This is the next level of mind control of the American People beyond Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals as taught by the KGB and other intelligence covert operations organizations:<br /><br />White House Special Handbook, or How to Rule the World in the 21st Century | by Mikhail Kryzhanovsky (former KGB agent)<br /><br /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0875865151/genealogicalrese" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0875865151/genealogicalrese</a><br /><br />CDR Kerchnercfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-88203047884445416122010-05-20T11:28:02.191-04:002010-05-20T11:28:02.191-04:00Here is more nonsense reporting by our nation’s ne...Here is more nonsense reporting by our nation’s newspaper editors on the question of Obama’s birthplace: <br /><br />“Proving the power of the Internet, mistaken belief and conspiracy theorists in every ZIP code, “birthers” believe Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii. This even though Hawaiian officials repeatedly have confirmed the president’s citizenship; his birth certificate has been made public; and two Honolulu newspapers published his birth announcement.<br /><br />The New York Times, the country’s “newspaper of record,” on Friday published a copy of Obama’s “Certification of Live Birth” from Aug. 4, 1961, naming Honolulu as his hometown, his parents and that he was born at 7:24 p.m.”<br /><br />***<br /><br />“ ‘Enough is enough; the state of Hawaii is saying ‘no’ to birthers,’ ” said one state official. “ ‘We have more pressing demands of our workers’ time. The question has been answered,’ ” said Dr. Chiyonne Fukino, the state’s health director. “ ‘Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born American citizen.’ ”<br /><br />Montrose Daily Press, May 20, 2010 http://www.montrosepress.com/articles/2010/05/20/opinion/editorials/doc4bf4b4ac31ade784717469.txt<br /><br />This editorial raises a much more important message which lies hidden. This is an editorial and one would think that the editor would mount an all-out attack to prove his or her point. What is important to ponder is that after almost two years of public trashing of the Obama birthplace issue, the 2008 alleged electronic on-line image of an alleged 2007 Certification of Live Birth (a COLB which is not a Certificate of Live Birth that contains the name of the birth hospital and delivery doctor), the two 1961 newspaper announcements, and what some Hawaii officials say in 2009 and 2010 is the only evidence provided by our nation’s editors and political leaders on the question of where Obama was born. So let us review. What evidence do we currently have which sufficiently proves where Obama was born? We have an unconfirmed 2008 computer image of an inconclusive COLB which some experts maintain is a forgery, two unsubstantiated 1961 newspaper announcements which do not tell us the source of the birth information stated therein, and some hearsay statements made by Hawaii officials in 2009 and 2010 which all together and by themselves do not conclusively prove that Obama was born in Hawaii. We also have a desperate appeal to the authority of the New York Times thrown in as “evidence” to boot. <br /><br />What our editors and many political leaders fail to understand (unwittingly or intentionally) is that this evidence does not tell us who with personal knowledge and/or what (some physical piece of evidence) existing in 1961 (called contemporaneous evidence) says or shows that Obama was born in Hawaii at that time. What makes matters worse is that these same leaders have not taken Obama to task for his hiding his personal papers from the American public (original 1961 birth certifiate and travel, work, and education documents). That is a lot to think about. What ever happened to America’s intelligence? The manner in which our nation’s leaders have addressed the Obama birthplace issue is shocking given that we are supposed to be concerned with properly vetting and identifying the to-be President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Military before we entrust him or her with the survival and preservation of our nation and the free world. <br /><br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq. <br />May 20, 2010<br />http://puzo1.blogspot.comMario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-85369973676523800902010-05-19T11:05:56.035-04:002010-05-19T11:05:56.035-04:00medical:
Well said ...medical:<br /><br />Well said ...jayjayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09845961766550552240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-28355618282397632472010-05-18T23:53:02.651-04:002010-05-18T23:53:02.651-04:00My blood has soaked this Earth many times in suppo...My blood has soaked this Earth many times in support of my precious nation. I bear physical and emotional wounds which shall never heal. For the Usurper to threaten all that so many have fought and died to build and defend and to see arrogant, fat, and lazy Congressmen resting upon their fluffy satin pillows while ignoring the eligibility issue defies all logic and reason. Many of my closest friends are now stars on a wall above the "Book of Honor" - and to what purpose? So a Kenyan Usurper could undermine and destroy our nation? He shall never succeed, so help me God! God bless all the "Stars", I miss each and every one of you TRUE American Heroes, your word was your bond, your hearts were forever true to the red white and blue! Though the Earth has swallowed you up, you live on in the hearts and minds of many. How many times I have heard the mournful sound of "Taps" played by a bugler? How many thousands of tears have poured down my face and soaked my clothing? How many times have I wondered "why him and not me"? How many United States flags folded into triangles have I seen ceremoniously passed to grieving mothers, wives, or children who have lost so much? Those who do not courageously stand and fight the Usurper and his lies are not patriots, they are merely freeloading and joyriding upon the blood of patriots! GOD BLESS AMERICA, WE SHALL PREVAIL!Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12254885881347846017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-23346914960350250942010-05-18T13:22:18.373-04:002010-05-18T13:22:18.373-04:00I chase these blogs around the internet and try to...I chase these blogs around the internet and try to educate but this one came into my email this afternoon and when I read it I just shock my head and said to myself, This one is not worth the effort.<br /><br />http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/48834<br /><br />As a great old talk show host use to say after a weird call..."Their out there"Greg Gosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05618441283107952475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-78423689105180698292010-05-18T12:10:42.407-04:002010-05-18T12:10:42.407-04:00medical, even if he corrects it, it will get delet...medical, even if he corrects it, it will get deleted/censored by the bots that haunt that. The only changes that I've been able to get into Wikipedia are surreptitiously planted in not-obvious links, but anything about NBC...no matter your link or argument or reference, it does not matter, they will out-persevere you on it!! Wiki is crap! Another of their censorship efforts is against candidates (in particular Allen West) they will not allow any depiction of this man's true facts.Increduloushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10387112256966709689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-51251536082764047252010-05-18T03:15:19.472-04:002010-05-18T03:15:19.472-04:00Mr. Apuzzo, If you should find the time, will you ...Mr. Apuzzo, If you should find the time, will you please edit and clarify the "natural born Citizen" page for Wikipedia? It does not appear to be correct and it is definitely a confusing mess. Thank you, Sir.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12254885881347846017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-33861289205532944942010-05-17T11:31:04.747-04:002010-05-17T11:31:04.747-04:00BO was born in Kenya, Even his grandmother has tes...BO was born in Kenya, Even his grandmother has testified to this fact:<br /><br />“This is a show of blessing from God, since I have always dedicated my time to tend to the orphans. Even the US president passed through my hands,” <br /><br />Grandmother was not in Hawaii when Bo was born, passing through her hands.<br />http://www.nation.co.ke/News/regional/Obamas%20grandmother%20throws%20party%20/-/1070/912088/-/132bh0/-/index.htmlGeorgetownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12281549786478937203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-23362432711868606352010-05-17T10:16:59.098-04:002010-05-17T10:16:59.098-04:00Additionally, Fukino, as the Director of a state&#...Additionally, Fukino, as the Director of a state's health department, has no legal authority or competence to be declaring Obama an Article II "natural born Citizen." Given that Congress refused to address this question despite its constitutional duty to qualify the President under the Twentieth Amendment, this is now a constitutional question which only a court of competent jurisdiction and eventully the United States Supreme Court can answer.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-41563895327261855342010-05-17T10:05:07.202-04:002010-05-17T10:05:07.202-04:00Our genius media mocks the so-called "birther...Our genius media mocks the so-called "birthers," saying that Obama has alrady produced his "birth certificate" for the world to see. They add that the Hawaii Department of Health has also confirmed the authenticity of Obama's "birth certificate" and claim. <br /><br />Anyone who is knowledgeable with this issue knows that Obama only "produced" in 2008 a computer image of a 2007Certification of Live Birth (COLB). They also know that the problem is not with what Hawaii's health officials have said but with what they have not told us. <br /><br />Anyone who is only relying on the fact that Hawaii officials do not say that Obama was born in any place other than Hawaii is missing the point which is what sufficient and credible proof exists that Obama was born in Hawaii. Fukino's statements and even an authenticated COLB are legally insufficient for proving that Obama was born in Hawaii, for they merely represent that Obama's alleged birth record is on file in the state of Hawaii. They are insufficient to confirm that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii. Neither Fukino's statements nor the COLB offer any information regarding who supplied the information that is the basis of any alleged birth certificate nor do they confirm the authenticity of the information provided by that unknown person. Again, Fukino's statements and the COLB merely indicate that birth information is “on file," but we do not know who provided the information or whether that information is authentic. In short, we do not know what evidence Hawaii is relying on to simply say that he was born in Hawaii. If the underlying root "evidence" is fraudulent, then anything Hawaii says is of no value and surely not evidence that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii. In other words, in such a case, Hawaii would be picking fruit from a poisonous tree.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-62595791210381098232010-05-16T22:19:28.792-04:002010-05-16T22:19:28.792-04:00You can find some info here.
http://www.123people...You can find some info here.<br /><br />http://www.123people.com/<br /><br />search for <br />Mark NdesandjoJonahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01735515403054403015noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-51044938344189486852010-05-16T20:53:37.606-04:002010-05-16T20:53:37.606-04:00Jonah, I've always thought that Mark was his O...Jonah, I've always thought that Mark was his OLDER brother since he looks older and hides his birthdate, and he looks like Obama so much...I think Ruth was his mom...now this is just speculation but can you find Mark's graduation dates?<br /><br />Mr. Apuzzo: Is there a way to force Hawaii to abide its own laws?Increduloushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10387112256966709689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-24526025340187153002010-05-16T20:41:06.714-04:002010-05-16T20:41:06.714-04:00@ Jonah - If everyone knew all the facts about the...@ Jonah - If everyone knew all the facts about the Usurper and his family, the revolution would begin within an hour.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12254885881347846017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-14716025764830896842010-05-16T18:23:39.035-04:002010-05-16T18:23:39.035-04:00Barack Obama's half brother, Mark Ndesandjo, w...Barack Obama's half brother, Mark Ndesandjo, who is an American citizen, spent most of his childhood in Kenya before moving to the U.S. to go to college and work in telecommunications and marketing. He has a bachelor's degree from Brown University in physics and a master's degree in the same subject from Stanford University. He also earned an MBA from Emory University in Atlanta.<br /><br />http://news.aol.com/article/obamas-half-brother-mark-ndesandjo/751417<br /><br /><br />Alpharetta is a suburb of Atlanta, GA.<br /><br />If you can't access the AOL article <br /><br />Try Veromi.com and search Mark Ndesandjo.<br /><br />Addresses include.....<br /><br />Mountain View, CA<br />Palo Alto, CA<br />San Francisco, CA<br />Orlando, FL<br />Alpharetta, GA***<br />Atlanta, GA<br />Bayonne, NJ<br />Sussex, NJJonahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01735515403054403015noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-20454309110188265552010-05-16T13:41:24.767-04:002010-05-16T13:41:24.767-04:00Enemies within the Patriot Movement
http://canada...Enemies within the Patriot Movement<br /><br /><a href="http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/23249" rel="nofollow">http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/23249</a><br /><br />CDR Kerchnercfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-84991301662581649892010-05-16T13:40:21.471-04:002010-05-16T13:40:21.471-04:00Ten Mental Mistakes of Obamatons
http://canadafre...Ten Mental Mistakes of Obamatons<br /><br /><a href="http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/23238" rel="nofollow">http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/23238</a><br /><br />CDR Kerchnercfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-44664063693990802812010-05-15T22:15:16.988-04:002010-05-15T22:15:16.988-04:00http://api.ning.com/files/aKzb6ZpdrU7-XpOAc*Ljbc8C...http://api.ning.com/files/aKzb6ZpdrU7-XpOAc*Ljbc8CSnje0MYM2Bdg3xAjFurOjcXzPV7pdQyu86pzavbZClRETvRvUcYbqWITRQeZeUYTixy9X61f/ObameBirthCert.jpg?width=715&height=600<br /><br />Regarding this birth certificate, and the COLB on fightthesmears...Hawaii is not respecting its own laws to "verify" "any record" under section 338.<br /><br />So how do you get them to comply when they just ignore? Can you copy these walk in with your $5 and say "does Hawaii verify either one of these?" Will they chase you out with German Shepards?Increduloushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10387112256966709689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-79962549831188610592010-05-15T21:18:36.838-04:002010-05-15T21:18:36.838-04:00Ross Dolan of The Daily Republic on Friday, May 15...Ross Dolan of The Daily Republic on Friday, May 15, 2010, interviewed Eleanor Nordyke. The interview may be read at http://www.mitchellrepublic.com/event/article/id/43081/. Mrs. Nordyke makes some outlandish statements, accusing “birthers” of being motivated by racism and money in pursuing the Obama eligibility issue. On the birth certificate numbers, she said: “‘My daughters’ birth certificates were 10637 and 10638, and Obama’s was 10641, so his mother must have come in after I did,’ Nordyke said, though she never met Obama’s mother.” This statement clearly shows her bias for Obama. It makes no sense to believe that birth certificates would have been issued before a baby was born and that the numbers were even issued at the hospital. Nevertheless, Mrs. Nordyke did make some important concessions. She admitted that she would have been in the same maternity ward as Obama’s mother if she was there at Kapi’olani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital (now called Kapi’olani Medical Center) on Friday, August 4, 1961; while one would not reasonably expect her to remember who was with her in the maternity ward, she did say that she never saw Obama’s mother in the maternity ward while she was there; and that even though there were only five obstetricians at the time of Obama’s birth and that her late husband, Dr. Robert Nordyke, was an internal medicine specialist at Honolulu’s Straub Clinic, she does not know the name of the doctor who allegedly delivered Obama in that hospital at that time. One would think that the doctor who delivered the President of the United States would be very famous and would be well-known within the families of doctors in Honolulu. I cannot think of any reason why the name of the doctor who delivered a President of the United States should be a secret and not even known by the medical community. Yet, Mrs. Nordyke states she does not know who the doctor is. What is also telling about this interview is that our nation’s so-called journalists have to resort to relying on the memory of a clearly biased and probably coached person to prove that Obama was born in Kapi’olani Medical Center rather than a simple contemporaneous birth certificate from 1961.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.com