tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post4870811094120213504..comments2024-03-02T14:24:03.076-05:00Comments on Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers: Is Being a Born Citizen of the United States Sufficient Citizenship Status to be President? The Founders and Framers Emphatically Decided It Was Not!Mario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-48819888730093915002017-01-10T02:42:45.021-05:002017-01-10T02:42:45.021-05:00Poke. 6 years later, Obama proved himself to be a ...Poke. 6 years later, Obama proved himself to be a well-respected and well-loved president. So... why should some qualified people, who grow up Americans and have complete loyalty to the US be excluded on the basis of quirky law?<br /><br />Or for example a single mother, who may have been raped, or otherwise not consented, and gave birth to a child whose father was not a US citizen, and then raised him/her as an American, with an American husband she took after the tragedy?<br /><br />I'm aware these are rare cases, but should they be denied the right through no fault of their own, despite "growing up American?"<br /><br />Or, somthing quite possible, an American mother with an American husband giving birth to a child through in vitro, with the cells not being from Americans? Or the father not being American?<br /><br />I think it would be better to say- born to an American mother and raised as an American, with no outside loyalties. Because the father being necessarily American raises issues.Damascus_arihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10884086133050633710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-62128300838484710002010-10-05T21:24:13.044-04:002010-10-05T21:24:13.044-04:00Continued from Part 1 of 2
NOTHING TO DO WITH NAT...Continued from Part 1 of 2<br /><br />NOTHING TO DO WITH NATURAL BORN! although the golden opportunity was there to deem Wong as 'natural born' .............. the court decided 'CITIZEN' and ONLY 'CITIZEN ............... NO 'natural born for Wong''<br /><br />Seeing as though 'natural born Citizen' was discussed at length in the Wong court, and if it was as you allege 'ruled' by the court that Wong was 'Article II 'natural born Citizen' then why do you suppose the decision did NOT state 'natural born Citizen'?<br /><br />Did the court forget to put that in the decision?<br /><br />I don't think so, do you?<br /><br />The court failed to 'make clear that the meaning of Natural Born was always “born in the country".<br /><br />All the Wong court made clear was what the English CALL their born in the land subjects 'natural born subjects'(the equivalent to a US 14th Amendment born in the land citizens.)<br /><br />The court was in error, due to the fact that what the English CALL a 'natural born subject' is a person who is born in the land, without any reference to parentage, the equivalent to a US 14th Amendment 'citizen'.<br /><br />Hence an English 'natural born subject' is not the equivalent to a US 'natural born Citizen'.<br /><br />The English 'common law' per Calvin's Case, was to determine birth-right subject, not highest office.<br /><br />The US 'natural born Citizen' is the eligibility requirement for highest office, as 14th Amendment only deals with an ordinary (NOT natural born) US citizen, which is the equivalent status as an English 'natural born subject'.<br /><br />Both and English 'natural born subject' and a US 14th Amendment citizen are NOT eligible for the highest office in their respective land.<br /><br />For eligibility for highest office of England, one must be born of sovereign PARENTS.<br /><br />Similarly for eligibility for highest office in USA, one must be born of sovereign PARENTS, they being US citizen parents.<br /><br />In USA it is the Citizens who are sovereign.<br /><br />If USA 14th Amendment citizen of the born variety was intended to be considered an Article II 'natural born Citizen', then it would have said so .............. but it didn't & the 14th Amendment came well after Article II, so there was plenty of time to get it 'right' in the 14th Amendment.<br /><br />There is NO PRECEDENT in English 'common law' for eligibility of president of a constitutional republic.<br /><br />In this instance the US Constitution IS THE PRECEDENT!Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03233671561360156161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-83733507014331489722010-10-05T21:23:33.580-04:002010-10-05T21:23:33.580-04:00In 2 parts.
http://www.oilforimmigration.org/fact...In 2 parts.<br /><br />http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=7247<br /><br />Granite said:<br />"However, it DID rule that Wong was Natural Born, since it made clear that the meaning of Natural Born was always “born in the country.” It ruled that every child born subject to the jurisdiction of the USA (which excludes the children of foreign diplomats now, and excluded children born on Indian reservations at the time) are Natural Born. Hence it ruled that Wong was Natural Born and a Citizen. He was thus a Natural Born Citizen. It ALSO upheld the ruling of the lower court, which had actually used the words Natural Born Citizen to describe Wong."<br /><br />The decision for Wong was 'citizen' ONLY.<br /><br />Here's the SCOTUS decision on Wong:<br /><br />http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.html<br /><br />"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, WHETHER A CHILD BORN IN THE UNITED STATES, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, BECOMES AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES .. For the reasons above stated, THIS COURT IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE QUESTION MUST BE ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.<br /><br />ORDER AFFIRMED."Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03233671561360156161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-66150477070927621232010-10-05T20:37:47.107-04:002010-10-05T20:37:47.107-04:00Calvin’s Case:
“and so in case of an alien born, ...Calvin’s Case:<br /><br />“and so in case of an alien born, you must of necessity have two several ligeances to two several persons.”<br /><br />http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=911&chapter=106337&layout=html&Itemid=27<br /><br />Ergo, Obama is “alien born”.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03233671561360156161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-27651520218443529232010-10-05T10:10:56.797-04:002010-10-05T10:10:56.797-04:00Michael has left a new comment on your post "...Michael has left a new comment on your post "Is Being a Born Citizen of the United States Suffi...":<br /><br />An English 'natural born subject' is not eligible for highest office of the land unless they are child of sovereign parents.<br /><br />A US 'natural born Citizen' is the only citizen that IS eligible for highest office in the land.<br /><br />Therefore an English 'natural born subject' is not equivalent to a US 'natural born Citizen'.<br /><br />An English 'natural born subject' is equivalent only to a US 14th Amendment US citizen, who is not eligible for highest US office unless they have the additional quality of 'natural'.<br /><br />That additional quality can ONLY be born of US Citizen parents, because 14th Amendment US citizen is based only on born in the land with no reference to parents citizenship status.<br /><br />To be eligible for English highest office, one must be born of sovereign parents, with nothing to do with 'natural born subject'<br /><br />To be eligible for USA highest office, one must also be born of sovereign parents, and in the constitutional republic of USA the Citizens are sovereign.<br /><br />Horace Gray was a lackey for another usurper Chester Arthur, Gray through the course of the Wong court, attempted to erode the US Constitution's meaning and intent of Article II and even still all Wong got was 'citizen' under 14th Amendment.<br /><br />[editor's deletion]<br /><br />In fact Horace Gray was known to fiddle with court transcripts.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_Gray<br />"Gray is best known for his decision in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.<br />This case was heard twice, though only the second hearing resulted in a decision; the justices, feeling that the opinions written had not adequately explained their view of the situation (the case was about the constitutionality of a national income tax), wished to rehear the case. After the first hearing, Gray wrote that he sided with the defendant (Farmer's Loan & Trust), arguing that the tax was indeed constitutional. He was in the minority, however. After the second hearing, Gray changed his stance, joining with the majority in favor of the plaintiff. He chose not to write a dissenting or concurring opinion, in either hearing."<br /><br />No 'natural' for Wong, and rightly so.<br /><br />As it can be seen, Gray's logic was flawed and he was in error.<br /><br />English 'natural born subject' is only equivalent to USA 14th Amendment citizen because for one to be eligible for highest office in either land one must be born of sovereign parents, who in USA are sovereign US Citizens & in England also sovereign parents.<br /><br />Posted by Michael to A Place to Ask Questions to Get the Right Answers at October 5, 2010 1:44 AMMario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-721874029847802922010-10-05T10:10:45.505-04:002010-10-05T10:10:45.505-04:00Michael has left a new comment on your post "...Michael has left a new comment on your post "Is Being a Born Citizen of the United States Suffi...":<br /><br />An English 'natural born subject' is not eligible for highest office of the land unless they are child of sovereign parents.<br /><br />A US 'natural born Citizen' is the only citizen that IS eligible for highest office in the land.<br /><br />Therefore an English 'natural born subject' is not equivalent to a US 'natural born Citizen'.<br /><br />An English 'natural born subject' is equivalent only to a US 14th Amendment US citizen, who is not eligible for highest US office unless they have the additional quality of 'natural'.<br /><br />That additional quality can ONLY be born of US Citizen parents, because 14th Amendment US citizen is based only on born in the land with no reference to parents citizenship status.<br /><br />To be eligible for English highest office, one must be born of sovereign parents, with nothing to do with 'natural born subject'<br /><br />To be eligible for USA highest office, one must also be born of sovereign parents, and in the constitutional republic of USA the Citizens are sovereign.<br /><br />Horace Gray was a lackey for another usurper Chester Arthur, Gray through the course of the Wong court, attempted to erode the US Constitution's meaning and intent of Article II and even still all Wong got was 'citizen' under 14th Amendment.<br /><br />[editor's deletion]<br /><br />In fact Horace Gray was known to fiddle with court transcripts.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_Gray<br />"Gray is best known for his decision in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.<br />This case was heard twice, though only the second hearing resulted in a decision; the justices, feeling that the opinions written had not adequately explained their view of the situation (the case was about the constitutionality of a national income tax), wished to rehear the case. After the first hearing, Gray wrote that he sided with the defendant (Farmer's Loan & Trust), arguing that the tax was indeed constitutional. He was in the minority, however. After the second hearing, Gray changed his stance, joining with the majority in favor of the plaintiff. He chose not to write a dissenting or concurring opinion, in either hearing."<br /><br />No 'natural' for Wong, and rightly so.<br /><br />As it can be seen, Gray's logic was flawed and he was in error.<br /><br />English 'natural born subject' is only equivalent to USA 14th Amendment citizen because for one to be eligible for highest office in either land one must be born of sovereign parents, who in USA are sovereign US Citizens & in England also sovereign parents.<br /><br />Posted by Michael to A Place to Ask Questions to Get the Right Answers at October 5, 2010 1:44 AMMario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-7696913736765519482010-10-05T04:44:38.226-04:002010-10-05T04:44:38.226-04:00An English 'natural born subject' is not e...An English 'natural born subject' is not eligible for highest office of the land unless they are child of sovereign parents.<br /><br />A US 'natural born Citizen' is the only citizen that IS eligible for highest office in the land.<br /><br />Therefore an English 'natural born subject' is not equivalent to a US 'natural born Citizen'.<br /><br />An English 'natural born subject' is equivalent only to a US 14th Amendment US citizen, who is not eligible for highest US office unless they have the additional quality of 'natural'.<br /><br />That additional quality can ONLY be born of US Citizen parents, because 14th Amendment US citizen is based only on born in the land with no reference to parents citizenship status.<br /><br />To be eligible for English highest office, one must be born of sovereign parents, with nothing to do with 'natural born subject'<br /><br />To be eligible for USA highest office, one must also be born of sovereign parents, and in the constitutional republic of USA the Citizens are sovereign.<br /><br />Horace Gray was a lackey for another usurper Chester Arthur, Gray through the course of the Wong court, attempted to erode the US Constitution's meaning and intent of Article II and even still all Wong got was 'citizen' under 14th Amendment.<br /><br />Much like Kagen & Sotomayor are lackeys for the usurper Obama.<br /><br />In fact Horace Gray was known to fiddle with court transcripts.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_Gray<br />"Gray is best known for his decision in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. <br />This case was heard twice, though only the second hearing resulted in a decision; the justices, feeling that the opinions written had not adequately explained their view of the situation (the case was about the constitutionality of a national income tax), wished to rehear the case. After the first hearing, Gray wrote that he sided with the defendant (Farmer's Loan & Trust), arguing that the tax was indeed constitutional. He was in the minority, however. After the second hearing, Gray changed his stance, joining with the majority in favor of the plaintiff. He chose not to write a dissenting or concurring opinion, in either hearing."<br /><br />No 'natural' for Wong, and rightly so.<br /><br />As it can be seen, Gray's logic was flawed and he was in error.<br /><br />English 'natural born subject' is only equivalent to USA 14th Amendment citizen because for one to be eligible for highest office in either land one must be born of sovereign parents, who in USA are sovereign US Citizens & in England also sovereign parents.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03233671561360156161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-37496804877925394002010-09-27T22:55:24.903-04:002010-09-27T22:55:24.903-04:00House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C. said tha...House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C. said that if the Republicans gain a majority in Congress, Darrell Issa will be issuing subpoenas everywhere: "The White House will be full-time responding to subpoenas about where the president may or may not have been born, whether his mother and father were ever married, and whether his wife's family is from Georgetown or Sampit."<br /><br />Gee, Mr. Clyburn, why would such subpoenas pose a problem to the Dems? Wouldn't Barry simply answer them honestly and truthfully, vindicating himself and putting the issue to rest? Or do you think such subpoenas will pose a problem? And why do you think that? Is there something you know and aren't telling us?bdwilcoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03723935463347132039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-48583745543345064182010-09-27T16:56:43.310-04:002010-09-27T16:56:43.310-04:00Our new ad running today on page 5 of the Washingt...Our new ad running today on page 5 of the Washington Times National Weekly edition has been featured at ObamaReleaseYourRecords.com<br /><br /><a href="http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/09/washington-times-ad-obama-cant-cover.html" rel="nofollow">http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/09/washington-times-ad-obama-cant-cover.html</a><br /><br />CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)<br /><a href="http://www.protectourliberty.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.protectourliberty.org</a>cfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-60223996420733129582010-09-27T07:05:44.869-04:002010-09-27T07:05:44.869-04:00@ Dixhistory who said...
@ bdwilcox
Char...@ Dixhistory who said...<br /><br /> @ bdwilcox<br /><br /> Charles and other have answered in great details but I want to add the fact that if you read the US Constitution it is plain to see that Senator or house member need be only a Citizen to be eligible where as in this same document it states to be POTUS you need to show that you are a natural born Citizen.<br /><br /> So what did the framers think the difference was between Citizen and natural born Citizen was at that exact point in time?<br /><br /> September 22, 2010 12:55 PM<br /><br />'Citizen' = inaugural US Citizen<br />'Natural born Citizen' = Generational US CitizenMichaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03233671561360156161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-28328393465959092702010-09-26T15:03:59.787-04:002010-09-26T15:03:59.787-04:00To Michael,
It is good to see that WND is getting...To Michael,<br /><br />It is good to see that WND is getting up to speed on the latest buzz as they call it on the net started by a recent blog post on the ButterDeZillion blog with more details about the Hawaiian Democratic Party officials being unwilling to certify the constitutional eligibility of Obama. <br /><br />However, this two cert forms issued in regards to HI in 2008 is not a new story and the original report on this two DNC certification of nomination forms being issued did not start with that author Mr. Williams with the articles he wrote in the CFP site. In fact, the fact that the DNC issued a special Cert form to Hawaii is a part of the Kerchner et al vs Obama/Congress/Pelosi et al lawsuit filed on 20 Jan 2009, weeks if not months before Mr. Williams began writing about it at CFP. This information was known months before it was even included in our lawsuit. WND should have mentioned that this action is part of the Kerchner et al v Obama/Congress et al lawsuit. For the discussion of the two cert forms and the special one going to Hawaii in 2008 see page 19 in the lawsuit. Here is a link to the table of contents which shows it with a link to the full lawsuit where you can read the full details of our bringing this to the courts attention back in Jan 2009. Of course we have to get this to trial on the merits which Obama and his legions of lawyers have been blocking, now with the help of the DOJ. See page 19 for more details at this link:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/19914488/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-00-Table-of-Contents-2nd-Amended-Complaint" rel="nofollow">http://www.scribd.com/doc/19914488/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-00-Table-of-Contents-2nd-Amended-Complaint</a><br /><br />So while I commend the work and writings of Mr. Williams on this issue, he is not the original writer on the subject which was discussed extensively on the net back in the last couple months in 2008 and as I said, we incorporated those issues into our lawsuit as an example that something was very, very wrong with the DNC's vetting of Obama, the lack thereof, and that we feel they knew something was wrong in Hawaii with Obama's birth registration records and subsequent amendments to same. <br /><br />The fact that the attorney for the Hawaiian Democratic Party (DPH) in 2008 was the same attorney who handled the divorce for Obama's mom from Mr. Soetoro of Indonesia, is a further smoking gun that something in those records was of serious concern to the DPH such that they would not certify Obama was constitutionally eligible to be the President as they had done previously with no problem for Kerry and Gore when they ran.<br /><br />CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)<br /><a href="http://www.protectourliberty.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.protectourliberty.org</a>cfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-38891043834399962632010-09-26T14:39:33.345-04:002010-09-26T14:39:33.345-04:00Thank you for all your efforts to fight for the tr...Thank you for all your efforts to fight for the truth.<br /><br />Here is another interesting article on "Hawaii Dems button-lipped on Obama eligibility status" at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=207197 <br />Here is an extract: "The original report came from a commentator at Canada Free Press who revealed the Democrats failed to certify their candidate's eligibility in 49 of the 50 states."<br /><br />Obama is a usurper of the American Constitution and should resign immediately or be thrown out of office immediately.<br /><br />NEVER GIVE UP ON YOUR FIGHT TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA. <br /><br />THANKS MANY TIMES.MichaelIsGreathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12020964848057963778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-44835024534183770562010-09-24T18:22:50.287-04:002010-09-24T18:22:50.287-04:00An excellent essay on this thread's topic was ...An excellent essay on this thread's topic was recently posted in Paralegalnm's Blog. See it at this link.<br /><br /><a href="http://paralegalnm.wordpress.com/2010/09/20/my-response-to-obama-conspiracy/" rel="nofollow">http://paralegalnm.wordpress.com/2010/09/20/my-response-to-obama-conspiracy/</a><br /><br />CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)<br />Lead Plaintiff<br />Kerchner et al v Obama/Congress/Pelosi et al<br /><a href="http://www.protectourliberty.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.protectourliberty.org</a>cfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-6521235606817234702010-09-24T18:03:33.409-04:002010-09-24T18:03:33.409-04:00Hi Charles,
A follow up on your comment about the...Hi Charles,<br /><br />A follow up on your comment about the HDP and the refusal of the HDP to certify and sign the nomination form.<br /><br />I wrote earlier but the monitor ate my comments.<br /><br />The attorney for the HDP is William H Gilardy, JR[ WHG]<br /><br />WHG was also the attorney for Stanley Soetoro in her divorce.<br /><br />WHG must know the birth history of Barry and Maya.<br /><br />WHG must have seen the birth certificates of Barry and Maya.<br /><br />WHG must know if Barry was an Indonesian citizen.<br /><br />WHG must have known that Barry was not eligible and had the HDP refuse to certify the nomination form unless the Constitutional clause was agreed to by Pelosi, Alice Germond, Howard Dean and the DNC attorneys.<br /><br />I would love to hear testimony from WHG.Guy4013https://www.blogger.com/profile/06252648919825885608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-2005148495794640322010-09-24T00:08:41.347-04:002010-09-24T00:08:41.347-04:00Excellent! The history of how the article II citiz...Excellent! The history of how the article II citizenship clause evolved does two things. It ends speculation that NBC came from art or other dialog instead of Vattel and it further defines the actual purpose of the article being to deny foreign influence. That is most important simply because we should be aware of all who have an affinity for foreign laws, cultures or establishments which they might deny unlike the ability to hide ones birth which would be well documented. So, it appears we have much more reason to impeach than just the refusal to comply with the law but because he professes and even espouses an affinity for the most antiamerican sentiment possible, anticolonialism.A penhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06519441140048530323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-31376830162588858342010-09-22T16:05:53.591-04:002010-09-22T16:05:53.591-04:00It is clear to me that those in power of all parti...It is clear to me that those in power of all parties want a so called new world order. They have been putting this in place for quite some time.<br /><br />They can only do that by trashing our US Constitution. So far it seems to be they are doing a better job of tearing it apart that protecting and upholding it.<br /><br />Forget about their oath to it as they see you as a fool if you think something written in the 1700's can compare to their modern thinking ability.<br /><br />May God bless Charles legal action and may all those that knew and did nothing be charged and tried for their crimes.Dixhistoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04131112648747290805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-75829402832160975442010-09-22T15:55:33.225-04:002010-09-22T15:55:33.225-04:00@ bdwilcox
Charles and other have answered in gre...@ bdwilcox<br /><br />Charles and other have answered in great details but I want to add the fact that if you read the US Constitution it is plain to see that Senator or house member need be only a Citizen to be eligible where as in this same document it states to be POTUS you need to show that you are a natural born Citizen.<br /><br />So what did the framers think the difference was between Citizen and natural born Citizen was at that exact point in time?Dixhistoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04131112648747290805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-81491755928895693152010-09-22T02:32:58.357-04:002010-09-22T02:32:58.357-04:00New YouTube Video. This new video does a good job ...New YouTube Video. This new video does a good job in presenting the reason for the variation in the Certification of Nomination form sent by the DNC and Nancy Pelosi in 2008 to Hawaii when they sent a differently worded one to the other 49 states. This has been reported here in this blog before. But this video does a very good job in summary form in both words and visuals.<br /><br /><b>Democratic Party of Hawaii Refused to Certify Obama</b><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXFwqUi3zR0" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXFwqUi3zR0</a><br /><br />The variation in the Certification of Nomination form sent to Hawaii by Nancy Pelosi, Chairperson of the DNC, as compared to what she sent to the other 49 states, is covered and pointed out in the Kerchner et al vs Obama/Congress/Pelosi et al lawsuit for which a petition is now being prepared to take it to the U.S. Supreme Court. See page 19 of the lawsuit. This is the table of contents with a link therein to the full text.<br /><a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/19914488/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-00-Table-of-Contents-2nd-Amended-Complaint" rel="nofollow">http://www.scribd.com/doc/19914488/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-00-Table-of-Contents-2nd-Amended-Complaint</a> Now in the last few weeks we know the reason why. This video clearly shows why.<br /><br />Pass this video and our link herein to all your family, friends, associates, and members of Congress. Election fraud and other felony crimes were committed aplenty in the 2008 presidential election. Let us hope and pray that the Supremes still consider this a nation of laws and are willing to uphold the constitution, the fundamental and foundation law of our republic and nation. If not, complete loss of liberty and tyranny is just over the horizon, imo. And we need to throw out in the November elections this year as many of the culprits as we can who enabled the election fraud in 2008, in both parties. Throw out those who directly committed the crimes and those who committed misprision of a felony by allowing it to go on. Once out of office the criminal prosecutions will come next for some.<br /><br />CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)<br />Pennsylvania USA<br /><a href="http://www.protectourliberty.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.protectourliberty.org</a>cfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-49506386090635398382010-09-21T20:45:30.964-04:002010-09-21T20:45:30.964-04:00Another way to look at what a natural born Citizen...Another way to look at what a natural born Citizen is is a person who is 2nd generation American born in the United States with both his parents being American Citizens. The parents can be first generation naturalized Citizens when the child is born. Natural born Citizens are the children of the Citizens born in the country. And as such being born in the country and raised in the country by two U.S. Citizen parents they will gain maximum exposure to American culture from both the soil and the parents. They will grow up "well marinated in American culture". That is what the founders and framers intended for national security reasons. I am told that certain types of very high level specialized and extremely sensitive security clearances are not open to foreign born people or people with a foreign citizen parent. Someone expert in security clearances can comment on that if they have more details.<br /><br />Yes, the Presidential eligibility clause was and is a national security issue. That is why the framers put it in. To minimize the amount of foreign influence on the person who would be President and Commander in Chief of the military by requiring an extra generation of distance between them and the old country. They did not want a commander of our military who was dreaming dreams from his father whose father was still in the old country as we have with Obama and thus being very concerned to help his living immediate family over there when he should personally be solely and 100% interested only in the best interests of the USA.<br /><br />And it should be noted that natural born Citizens of a country are the most populous group/type of Citizens. They are the 3 leaf clovers of the Citizens, not the 4 leaf clovers. 95% or more of the legal U.S Citizens are natural born Citizens.<br /><a href="http://countryfirst.bravehost.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=105&t=2985" rel="nofollow">http://countryfirst.bravehost.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=105&t=2985</a><br /><br />And there are more than just two types of Citizens as the Obots try to sell to the unknowing. There were five (5) types alone mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.<br /><a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-US-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same" rel="nofollow">http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-US-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same</a><br /><br />And then finally, there is this Euler Diagram by TheBirthers.org site which was incorporated into this essay by Mario Apuzzo which logically shows the various types of Citizenship and logically who is a "natural born Citizen of the United States", .i.e., a person born in the country to two U.S. Citizens (unity of citizenship at birth) and in compliance with Vattel, Vol.1, Chapter 19, Section 212, the legal treatise used by the founders and frames of the Constitution.<br /><a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-means.html" rel="nofollow">http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-means.html</a><br /><br />CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)<br /><a href="http://www.protectourliberty.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.protectourliberty.org</a>cfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-62989119833423912182010-09-20T12:00:21.238-04:002010-09-20T12:00:21.238-04:00(continued from prior comment post)
Here is an es...(continued from prior comment post)<br /><br />Here is an essay I wrote on the USC 1401 and the OBOTS flawed logic.<br /><br /><a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/citizen-at-birth-cab-does-not-equal.html" rel="nofollow">http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/citizen-at-birth-cab-does-not-equal.html</a><br /><br />And this essay by Atty Apuzzo which includes a Euler logic diagram prepared by the Birthers.org site.<br /><br /><a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-means.html" rel="nofollow">http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-means.html</a><br /><br />And another essay by Attorney Mario Apuzzo:<br /><a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html" rel="nofollow">http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html</a><br /><br />The logic of what the founders and framers intended and what USC 1401 as a statutory law addresses is clear as a bell to those who wish to see. The OBOTS deliberately obfuscate and put out disinformation in a rendition of a cold war KGB disinformation operation to confuse the enemy. There is no doubt in my mind that this disinformation operation is being planned and coordinated at the highest level using the far left George Soros funded entities such as the Center for American Progress. To the OBOTS the enemy is the truth and the Constitution. They will do and say anything to protect their Marxist/Communist messiah/usurper in chief.<br /><br />The contributor SP is spot on with her analysis of one of the OBOTS most commonly used misinformation tactics.<br /><br />CDR Kerchner (Ret)<br /><a href="http://www.protectourliberty.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.protectourliberty.org</a>cfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-76987862014815735692010-09-20T11:57:47.203-04:002010-09-20T11:57:47.203-04:00Sent to me to be posted by a person trying to help...Sent to me to be posted by a person trying to help and explain the OBOTS debating tactics and their flawed logic.<br /><br />-------------------------<br />Take a look at US law...<br />US CODE 1401 Nationals and Citizens At Birth in USA<br />These are REQUIREMENTS<br />a) born in-country subject to jurisdiction (Jus Soli with only US jurisdiction)<br />b) 1 US native parent in-country (Jus soli, One Parent Jus sanguinis) = Obama , by bot definition<br />c) 2 US citizen parents born out-of-country (No Jus Soli, Two Parents Jus Sanguinis)<br />d) 1 US citizen parent + 1 national born out-of-country (No Jus Soli, One Parent Jus Sanguinis)<br />e) 1 US citizen parent born out-of-country (No Jus Soli, One Parent Jus Sanguinis)<br />f) unknown parentage found in USA under age 5 (Miscellaneous)<br />g) 1 US citizen parent w/5 year residence or military or gov't job + 1 alien born out-of-country (No Jus Soli, One Parent Jus Sanguinis)<br />h) 1 US citizen parent prior resident of USA + 1 alien born prior to 5-24-1934 out-of-country (No Jus Soli, One Parent Jus Sanguinis)<br /><br />So you can see the ONLY omitted permutation from ALL of the statutory definitions for "Born Citizen" is that for Vattel's Natural Born Citizen, as in "Jus Soli, Two Parents Jus Sanguinis). Why? Because this is a natural born citizen, and they "don't need no stinkin' statute like mere "born citizens". How beautifully poetic the irrefutable mathematical logic is!<br />And this is because as Vattel says, "Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parents citoyens." and the title is Des Citoyens et Naturels, whereby citizens (statutory) are differentiated from natural born citizens EXACTLY AS IT IS IN THE CONSTITUTION. THE EXACT PATTERN OF CITIZEN VS. NATURAL BORN CITIZEN (not the bot-made-up naturalized citizen v. born citizen).<br /><br />The bot premise of 2 types of citizens being naturalized and born citizens so they can lump natural born citizens in with all other born citizens, FAILS utterly because FIVE of the EIGHT permutations for statutory US Citizenship aka "Citizens At Birth" are not even born in-country at all! Yet they are still "born citizens"!! So why do they keep harping on the birth certficate when they don't even need it?<br /><br />SP<br />----------------------<br /><br />(to be continued in next comment post)<br /><br />CDR Kerchner (Ret)<br /><a href="http://www.protectourliberty.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.protectourliberty.org</a>cfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-33890296088139076582010-09-19T17:49:04.635-04:002010-09-19T17:49:04.635-04:001836 NY Mirror, Issues 1-27
Vattel pg 47
LITERAR...1836 NY Mirror, Issues 1-27<br /><br />Vattel pg 47<br /><br />LITERARY NOTICES OF THE WEEK.<br /><br />BOOK TABLE<br /><br />There is a code (or the intercourse and governance of nations in their connexions with each other, as well as that civil code by which society is hound together, and an adherence to the former is relatively as important to the well-being of nations as the latter. Some of the acutest intellects of modern times have turned their attention to the explanation of the jurisprudence of international law, and all that has been since written on the subject is merely an enlargement of the doctrines of Grotius, Puffendorff, and Vattel, with such adaptations to the spirit of the times as the wants and altered situations of modern ages require. Since the period in which these sages wrote, kingdoms have been swept away, and others created ; the political state of Europe has been fundamentally altered, and this hemisphere has grown into a mighty portion of the great human family.<br /><br />http://books.google.com.ph/books?pg=PA47&dq=Character+for+life:+an+American+heritage%3B+%22Vattel%22&ei=jIOWTP6KEMLbnAekz6izBw&ct=result&id=_nxNAAAAYAAJ&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Character%20for%20life%3A%20an%20American%20heritage%3B%20%22Vattel%22&f=falseLindahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09930759217453160396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-59867714799782196702010-09-19T17:38:00.268-04:002010-09-19T17:38:00.268-04:00Character for life: an American heritage : profile...Character for life: an American heritage : profiles of great men and women ... By Don Hawkinson<br /><br />http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=1NgoTI1gi-wC&pg=PA299&dq=vattel+law+of+nations++founders&hl=en&ei=MWeVTPH2Aoj6cIu34KMF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=vattel%20law%20of%20nations%20%20founders&f=falseLindahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09930759217453160396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-75059929276685925482010-09-19T10:05:03.113-04:002010-09-19T10:05:03.113-04:00BdWilcox,
Personally, I find no flaw in the tra...BdWilcox,<br /><br /> Personally, I find no flaw in the translation from French to English in subsection 212 - 1st and 2nd paragraphs. Let's look at briefly.<br /><br /> The most obvious, but not the most critical is the second sentence at 212. Vattle said:<br /><br /> "Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parents citoyens." <br /><br /> ....de parents citoyens... <br /><br /> Although when refering in French to a "single parent", the word is "mére". The French word for Plural as for "both", is "Parents", just as Vattle used. <br /><br />Certainly, if Vattle "intended or meant" to use only a single parent in French, he would have said "mère", for only one.<br /><br />In others words, at 212 second paragraph, in French, if his intention was a single parent, it would have read: <br /><br /> "de mère citoyen". (Only one) And not "de parents citoyens" (Both Parents)..<br /><br />Of course, there have been some whom attempt to swap nouns for adjectives to mis-quote Vattle, but that is for another day. You read in French, both pages to understand his intent and usage. <br /><br />Hope that helps someWilliamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16825827635450657740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-76192722246274914862010-09-19T01:06:20.871-04:002010-09-19T01:06:20.871-04:00BrianRoy,
Please contact me via private email con...BrianRoy,<br /><br />Please contact me via private email concerning your suggestion using the KontactR Me link in the right frame of this blog ... about half way down. Or visit the ProtectOurLiberty.org site and use the Contact Me link there.<br /><br />CDR Kerchner (Ret)cfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.com