Donate

Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts

Friday, May 13, 2011

When Will Congress and the FBI Investigate the Suspicious Circumstances Involved With Obama’s Alleged Long-Form Certificate of Live Birth?

Multi-Layering & Other Manipulation Evidence in
Forged Obama Long Form BC PDF File put on
White House Servers. Click on Image for Details
When Will Congress and the FBI Investigate the Suspicious Circumstances Involved With Obama’s Alleged Long-Form Certificate of Live Birth?

By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
May 13, 2011

WND reports today that the Obama Certificate of Live Birth released on April 27, 2011 which appears on the White House web site( viewed here http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf ) has the Hawaii Department of Health State Registrar’s stamp which contains what appears to be a typographical error. The stamp, which was affixed on April 25, 2011, says “TXE RECORD.” But when viewing a different Hawaii long-form birth certificate with a stamp affixed on March 15, 2011, the same stamp shows “THE RECORD.” Read more: New 'birth certificate' anomalies inexplicable http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=298101#ixzz1MHHSmIr1 Why would a stamp affixed just about one and one-half months before not contain the same error? Does the Hawaii Health Department have two stamps? Why would the clerk’s office use a stamp with a typographical error on the birth certificate of the President of the United States, especially in the context of the on-going constitutional crisis regarding the question of whether such a document existed?

The same WND article also states that there is no visible raised seal on the Obama April 27, 2011 on-line image of his alleged long-form Certificate of Live Birth. But NBC's Savannah Guthrie, who attended the White House release of the new long-form document, reported that she had the opportunity to view the document and that she “felt the raised seal.” View the video and transcript at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42779923/ns/politics-white_house/

So, how does Guthrie feel a raise seal on that document but a scan of allegedly that same document does not show any raised seal?

Is WND sure that there is no sign of any raised seal on the White House scan? Is there no computer expert in the land that can confirm the presence of any raised seal on the White House image? Is there such an expert who can tell us that if Guthrie was able to feel a raised seal, the seal should appear on a scan of that same document which now allegedly appears on the White House web site?

Assuming that Guthrie really did feel a raised seal and there really is no raised seal on the White House scanned image, what is going on?

Now we also find out that Guthrie took a picture of the Obama Certificate of Live Birth. Was she the only person who would have been allowed to take such a picture? If so, why just her? That picture allegedly shows that there is a seal on the Obama newly-released document. The photograph can be viewed at http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/05/be-sealed/#comments. But why does Guthrie’s photo show a raised seal and the White House scan image of allegedly the same document does not?

Moreover, blogger butterdezillion reports today that the seal that can be viewed on the Guthrie photograph and the seal that can be viewed on the FactCheck image found on the Factcheck photo of Obama’s 2008 COLB at http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg are not one and the same. She concludes: “Before I could see any seal, I believed the absence of the seal proved the document’s inauthenticity. Now that the seal has been revealed, IT proves the document’s inauthenticity.” http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/obama-bc-seal-contradicts-factcheck/%20

In addition to the question of the typographical error and raised seal, we have seen so many other anomalies with the Obama scanned White House image related to layering, image pixel duplication, the Stanley Ann Dunham signature created in part by computer graphics rather than a pen, and kerning on what is supposed to be a scanned image of an underlying document completed with a typewriter in 1961. Apart from signatures created by computer graphics, a typewriter simply could not produce in 1961 kerning and duplicate letters or images which show up as pixel duplication on the computer scan.

Moreover and what is the smoking cannon of common sense, we have yet to see any confirmation from Kapi’olani Hospital of an Obama birth there or any other medical evidence confirming such a birth there.

Where is Congress and the FBI to complete a full investigation of this matter and report their findings to the American people who they are supposed to serve and protect? Such an investigation and report are desperately needed to put the matter of Obama’s place of birth finally to rest.

According to a new Gallup Poll reported by USA Today, only 47 percent of those surveyed say they think Obama was "definitely" born in the United States. And 8 percent say he "probably was." We saw the amount of doubters decrease after Obama’s recent release of his alleged long-form birth certificate. Why would Obama not welcome such an investigation which if he is telling the truth should reduce the number of doubters even more?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
May 13, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

Monday, May 2, 2011

New Wash Times Ad: Obama Committed Draft Registration Fraud! Whose CT Social Security Number is President Barack Hussein Soetoro Obama Using? Washington Times National Weekly in 02 May 2011 issue - pg 5


New Wash Times Ad: Obama Committed Draft Registration Fraud!  Whose CT Social Security Number is President Barack Hussein Soetoro Obama Using? Washington Times National Weekly in 02 May 2011 issue - pg 5

http://www.scribd.com/doc/54410634/Obama-Committed-Draft-Registration-Fraud-Whose-SSN-is-He-Using-Wash-Times-Natl-Wkly-20110502-pg-5

Federal lawsuit* accuses putative President Obama of Selective Service (Draft) Registration fraud and that he is fraudulently using a Social Security Number which is legally not his and which was issued only to residents of the State of Connecticut, a state where Obama never legally resided and certainly not during the time frame of circa 1977 when that SSN was issued!


042-XX-XXXX*

This Social Security Number is reserved for the people of Connecticut NOT Hawaii. Obama never lived in Connecticut, and he certainly wasn't living there when the number was issued in 1977, rather he was a 15 year old attending high school in Hawaii. This Connecticut geographic region SSN was used by Obama to register for the Selective Service System. Obama was either in HI or in CA attending Occidental College during his late teens when he was required to file and register with the Selective Service System. Investigations by various sources reveal that this draft registration was not done by Obama when required by federal law to as a teenager or young adult but was done circa 2007 in preparation for his run for the Presidency and was done using the stolen SSN he has been using since 1986. The Selective Service (draft) registration was illegally entered into the Selective Service System via the Chicago IL central USA regional processing center circa 2007. The entry was illegally back dated to 1980. Use of this SSN by Obama as recently as the year 2008 has been confirmed by two private investigators - Susan Daniels and Neil Sankey. See the federal lawsuit for more details.

*For more information and details on the civil lawsuit against Obama and his Social Security Number see Federal Court Docket Number: 1:11-cv-00402-RCL - Taitz v Astrue, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration.

When is Congress and FBI going to investigate Obama for all the unconstitutional, nefarious, illegal, and criminal activities he is engaged in?

Posted by:
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Monday, April 25, 2011

New Wash Times Ad: Whose CT Social Security Number is President Barack Hussein Soetoro Obama Using? Washington Times National Weekly in 25 Apr 2011 issue - pg 5

New Wash Times Ad: Whose CT Social Security Number is President Barack Hussein Soetoro Obama Using? Washington Times National Weekly in 25 Apr 2011 issue - pg 5

http://www.scribd.com/doc/53819158/Whose-CT-SSN-is-President-Barack-Hussein-Soetoro-Obama-Using-Wash-Times-Natl-Wkly-25-Apr-2011-pg-5

Federal lawsuit* accuses putative President Obama is fraudulently using a Social Security Number which is legally not his and which was issued only to residents of the State of Connecticut, a state where Obama never legally resided and certainly not during the time frame of circa 1977 when that SSN was issued!


042-XX-XXXX*

This Social Security Number is reserved for the people of Connecticut NOT Hawaii. Obama never lived in Connecticut, and he certainly wasn't living there when the number was issued in 1977, rather he was a 15 year old attending high school in Hawaii. This Connecticut geographic region SSN was used by Obama to register for the Selective Service System. Obama was either in HI or in CA attending Occidental College during his late teens when he was required to file and register with the Selective Service System. Use of this SSN by Obama as recently as the year 2008 has been confirmed by two private investigators - Susan Daniels and Neil Sankey. See the federal lawsuit for more details.

*For more information and details on the civil lawsuit against Obama and his Social Security Number see Federal Court Docket Number: 1:11-cv-00402-RCL - Taitz v Astrue, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration.

When is Congress going to investigate Obama for all the unconstitutional, nefarious, and illegal activities he is engaged in?

Posted by:
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Monday, April 18, 2011

Wash Times Ad: What U.S. President in History Has So Many Sources in a Foreign Country Saying He was Born in Their Country and NOT in the USA?

Wash Times Ad: What Post-Founding era U.S. President in History Has So Many Sources in a Foreign Country Saying He was Born in Their Country and NOT in the USA?

Answer: None - until Obama usurped the Presidency of the United States

18 April 2011 issue of Washington Times National Weekly edition - pg 5
http://www.scribd.com/doc/53259902/What-Other-U-S-President-in-History-Has-Multiple-Sources-in-a-Foreign-Country-Saying-He-Was-Born-There

Posted by:
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Monday, April 11, 2011

Wash Times Ad: Whose Social Security Number is President Barack Hussein Soetoro Obama Using? Wash Times Natl Wkly - 11 Apr 2011 pg 5

Wash Times Ad: Whose Social Security Number is President Barack Hussein Soetoro Obama Using? Washington Times National Weekly in 11 Apr 2011 issue - pg 5


Federal lawsuit* accuses putative President Obama is fraudulently using a Social Security Number which is legally not his and which was issued only to residents of the State of Connecticut, a state where Obama never legally resided and certainly not during the time frame of circa 1977 when that SSN was issued!


042-XX-XXXX*

This Social Security Number is reserved for the people of Connecticut NOT Hawaii. Obama never lived in Connecticut, and he certainly wasn't living there when the number was issued in 1977, rather he was a 15 year old attending high school in Hawaii. This Connecticut geographic region SSN was used by Obama to register for the Selective Service System. Obama was either in HI or in CA attending Occidental College during his late teens when he was required to file and register with the Selective Service System. Use of this SSN by Obama as recently as the year 2008 has been confirmed by two private investigators - Susan Daniels and Neil Sankey. See the federal lawsuit for more details.

*For more information and details on the civil lawsuit against Obama and his Social Security Number see Federal Court Docket Number: 1:11-cv-00402-RCL - Taitz v Astrue, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration.

When is Congress going to investigate Obama for all the unconstitutional, nefarious, and illegal activities he is engaged in?

Posted by:
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Saturday, March 26, 2011

President Dwight Eisenhower Had to File a Birth Certificate to Run for President - Unlike Obama, Ike had nothing to hide!

Via Sonoran News; - Ike needed birth certificate to run for president - ‘Ike had nothing to hide!’ -

BY LINDA BENTLEY - CAVE CREEK – Glen Fairclough, a reader from Salt Lake City, Utah, sent us an e-mail last week to express his gratitude for publishing the recent article regarding President Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate.

And, while going through digital images online of his hometown newspaper, the Deseret News and Telegram, Fairclough forwarded us a United Press wire article from the Oct. 2, 1952 edition he thought we would find interesting.

The article appeared on page 6A with a dateline of Sherman, Texas. It was headlined: “General’s birth certificate officially filed,” and stated, “A certificate recording Dwight Eisenhower’s birth in Denison on Oct. 14, 1890, was filed Wednesday [Oct. 1, 1952] in the Grayson County Clerk’s office. Read more ...

Read rest of the story via the link and for further information about Ike's proven natural born Citizenship status upon his birth in Texas in Oct 1890 to two U.S.
citizen parents, unlike Obama who claims he was born in Hawaii but whose father was a foreign national and was not even an immigrant to the USA. And also unlike Ike, Obama has relatives, African newspapers, and government officials in Kenya saying he was born there and not in the USA. Ike never had relatives and government officials in foreign countries stating repeatedly that he was born in their country. Thus, the logical justification to ask to see Obama's original long form birth registration documents in Hawaii, and any amendments to same. This is logically needed to verify that he indeed was physically born there and not just had a false birth registration done in Hawaii via sworn affidavit of a birth at home with no independent witnesses and submitted by mail by his maternal grandmother who lived there in order to get U.S. Citizenship for her foreign born grandson. Birth registration fraud was easy in Hawaii in 1961 due to the very lax laws in the new state.

Regardless of the lack of claims of foreign birth about Eisenhower, Ike was still required to file a copy of his birth certificate with controlling legal authorities upon running for election as President. So Whoopi Goldberg, was it racist to ask Ike to file a certified paper copy of his birth certificate with controlling legal authorities in order to run for President. Ike wasn't allowed to just show a picture of it on television. He had to provide a certified paper copy of his birth certificate to the authorities. What is racist about having to prove you are constitutionally eligible to run for President? What is racist about the rule of law of which our U.S. Constitution is the fundamental law of the land. Read more here: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/03/reminder-dwight-d-eisenhower-had-to.html

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

P.S. If Whoopi Goldberg needs another example of others being asked to show documents and birth certificates to prove they are eligible to run for President, she should read about the challenges made to John McCain's natural born Citizen status in the 2008. John McCain was sued in NH by a man named Hollander charging he was not a natural born Citizen. The Senate Judiciary Committee chaired by Senator Leahy, and of which Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were voting members, investigated McCain in response to citizen requests. He was required to show his paper certified copy of his birth certificate to them in executive session. But for similar requests in much larger numbers calling for the investigation of Obama's eligibility, and with lawsuits filed charging Obama was not eligible, that was all ignored by the Democratic Party lead Senate. That is lack of due process and unequal protection under the law of land and the U.S. Constitution. So Whoopi Goldberg's charges of racism on The View TV show are completely groundless and show her ignorance of history or her willingness to go to the lowest level of politics and debate, and shout and yell and act absurd on air ... and play the race card and call and imply that anyone who questions Obama's eligibility is a racist. See this blog post in late February 2008 and early March 2008 by Professor Jonathan Turley questioning McCain's eligiblity who along with mysteriously simultaneously appearing articles in the New York Times (looks to me like they were started based on orders from Hillary Clinton operatives) started the investigation of John McCain under constitutional grounds which ultimately lead to the Senate investigation and resolution in April 2008: http://jonathanturley.org/2008/03/06/the-supreme-redux-is-john-mccain-ineligible-to-be-president/ and http://jonathanturley.org/2008/02/29/mccains-constitutional-dilemma-native-son-but-not-natural-born/ . And this one: http://birthers.org/misc/FOMB.html
####

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

May We See Your Real Birth Certificate, Mr. President?

May We See Your Real Birth Certificate, Mr. President?

By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 22, 2011


WND in its recent story, Why Short Forms Fall Short, states that Washington D.C. and Virginia Passport Offices do not accept short-form birth certificates as acceptable items of proof of identify, but Hawaii does.

Joseph Farah reports: “I recently conducted a little experiment. I called three passport offices with the following apocryphal tale: I said I needed to apply for a passport but only had a short-form certification of live birth from Hawaii. Would that suffice? The three passport offices I contacted were in Hawaii, Washington, D.C., and Virginia.

Hawaii said "no problem."

Washington and Virginia both said no way.”
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=277753

I checked the U.S. Department of State web site on this issue. The U.S. Department of State, in giving instructions to the public on how to apply for a U.S. passport, states that a birth certificate is one method of proof of identify. It then states:

“*A certified birth certificate has a registrar's raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar's signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar's office, which must be within 1 year of your birth. Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes.”
http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_830.html.

The U.S. Department of State also has this to say about birth certificates from Puerto Rico:

“As of October 30, 2010 the United States Department of State does not accept Puerto Rican birth certificates issued prior to July 1, 2010 as primary proof of citizenship for a U.S. passport.

The Puerto Rican government passed a law that went into effect on October 30, 2010, invalidating all Puerto Rican birth certificates issued prior to July 1, 2010. The law does not affect Puerto Rican born citizens who already have a U.S. passport. As of October 30, 2010 the Department of State only accepts Puerto Rican birth certificates issued on or after July 1, 2010 as primary evidence of U.S. citizenship.”
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=277753 .

And in New Jersey, the Department of Health and Senior Services says this regarding the reliability of some birth certificates which have been proven to be forgeries:

“Birth certificates previously issued by the Jersey City/Hudson County Office of Vital Statistics (with the raised seal from Hudson County):

• Are no longer accepted by the federal government when applying for a U.S. passport;

• May not be accepted by other federal agencies; and

• May not be accepted by the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission, depending on year of birth.”
http://www.state.nj.us/health/vital/jerseycity.shtml .

So, as we can see, birth certificates by themselves are not necessarily reliable pieces of evidence of where someone was born. That someone is registered as born in a certain place does not necessarily mean that the person was in fact born there. It is the corroborating information that is stated in the certificates or any other supporting evidence that gives one any reasonable degree of assurance that the birth event occurred as is represented in the document.

As the only proof of his birth place, Obama has presented a 2008 computer image (not a piece of paper) of an alleged 2007 Certification of Live Birth (COLB), which is a short-form birth certificate and not a long-form, hospital generated birth certificate. This computer image does not include the name of the birth hospital or the name and signature of the delivery doctor or of any other witness to the birth. The Hawaii Department of Health has publicly stated that Obama was born in Hawaii. But we have not seen any evidence to support their assertion. Even the two newspaper announcements of his birth in Hawaii are nothing more than a repeat of what someone allegedly told the Hawaii Department of Health in 1961 regarding Obama’s alleged birth in Hawaii. On the contrary, there is much evidence putting into serious doubt Obama’s claim that he was born in Hawaii. See this evidence at, A Catalog of Evidence - Concerned Americans Have Good Reason to Doubt that Putative President Obama Was Born in Hawaii, http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/catalog-of-evidence-concerned-americans.html.

Additionally, on July 4, 2010, Lucas Smith provided each member of Congress with his or her own personal copy of the Coast Province General Hospital Kenya Birth Certificate, bearing Certificate No. 32018, which shows that Obama was born on August 4, 1961, at the Coast Province General Hospital in “Mombasa. British Protectorate of Kenya.” On March 12, 2011, Mr. Smith called into the Hagmann-McLeod Report on CFP Radio, a radio show on which Commander Charles Kerchner and I were guests. I directly asked Mr. Smith if he is willing to testify under oath and under penalty of perjury before Congress as to how he obtained this birth certificate. He said that he has always been ready to do so. One may listen to the show via podcast at: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/cfp-radio/2011/03/13/hagmann-mcleod-report . Despite all this, Congress has not asked for any investigation into the authenticity of the Lucas Smith birth certificate. Nor has this Kenyan birth certificate yet been proven to be a forgery.

Obama’s short-form birth certificate, which states that it is only prima facie evidence of place of birth, is not only unreliable, but fails to adequately prove Obama’s place of birth in light of all this other conflicting evidence. Evidently, Obama’s internet-posted COLB has not convinced a great majority of Americans. A new poll and survey shows that 91% of Americans doubt Obama is constitutionally eligible to be President. In other words, only 9% believe Obama has adequately documented his eligibility to be President. See the recent WND story by Bob Unruh, entitled, “Shocking scientific poll on Obama's eligibility” at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=276865.

Obama is not only applying for a passport. Rather, he wants to be President and Commander in Chief of the United States. Is it not past time that Obama produce to the American people his certified long-form, hospital generated birth certificate from Hawaii or some other evidence showing that he and his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, were patients on August 4, 1961 in the hospital in which he claims he was born, Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital, now called Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women & Children? Is it not also past time that Congress honestly and thoroughly investigate Obama’s claim that he was born in Hawaii so that we can finally put this pesky issue to rest? Or are the powers that be expecting that Obama will not run for re-election in 2012?

Finally, if Congress is not going to honor its constitutional duty to protect the American people and the Constitution, than it is up to the States to do so. On the States’ constitutional power and duty to address presidential eligibility requirements, see “The States Have the Constitutional Power to Pass Legislation Prescribing Presidential Ballot Access Requirements Including Determining Whether a Candidate Meets the Eligibility Requirements of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5", at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/03/states-have-constitutional-power-to.html .

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

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

Monday, March 14, 2011

Action Alert-Contact GA House Speaker Ralston/Majority Leader O'Neal & Urge them to 100% Support the GA HB401 with 2012 Election Cycle Effective Date

Patriot Action Alert - Contact the GA Speaker of the House David Ralston and House Majority Leader Larry O' Neal and Urge them to 100% Support the GA HB401 and a 2012 Presidential Election Cycle Effective Date and Not to Change the Bill to a 2013 Post-Election Cycle Date.

It is a crucial time for states rights efforts to gain back control of our out-of-control federal government and Congress and those who are ignoring our U.S. Constitution and usurping power they are not entitled to or not eligible for. GA HB401 the Presidential Eligibility Assurance Act is being stalled in committee in the GA House of Reps by lack of full backing by the GA Speaker of the House David Ralston, a Republican, and Republican Majority Leader Larry O'Neal. It will die in the relevant GA house committee this Wednesday or will be modified and moved out with an effective date of 2013, after the next election giving Obama another pass at compliance with Article II Section 1 of our U.S. Constitution, i.e., of having to prove he is a "natural born Citizen of the United States". Contact the Speaker of the GA House of Reps David Ralston and Majority Leader Larry O'Neal and tell them to stop their recalcitrant behavior with the stalling and delaying on the HB401 the Presidential Eligibility Assurance Act put forward by GA Reps Mark Hatfield and Sean Jerguson. Tell the GA house speaker the bill must be moved out of the relevant committee now and passed this legislative session with an effective date of this year to allow it be in effect for the 2012 presidential election cycle ... NOT 2013 as the GA speaker is twisting arms to do. Call or FAX him. Even better if you live near the GA House Capitol building go visit him personally on Monday or Tuesday and tell him how important it is that this bill HB401 be moved out of committee and passed and be in effect for the coming presidential election cycle in 2012. We cannot allow the usurper in chief Barack Hussein Obama to get another pass in the proper vetting of his original long form birth certificate records and proving to the states election officers his true legal birth identity and citizenship status in the 2012 election cycle, since he won't do it now. Internet images of questionable authenticity short-form computer print outs don't cut it in the age of photoshop and rampant birth document fraud. No controlling legal authority or state election official in any state has ever seen the alleged paper document used to make that online image for Obama's Certification of Live Birth. Only certified copies of the original long form birth certificate showing the name of the hospital of birth, attending doctor, midwife if applicable, and/or witnesses to the birth event with signatures of same will do. And that type certified paper document must be presented to each and every state's Secretary of State to prove the candidate's eligibility under the Constitution. Internet images prove nothing. Several GA reps are taking steps to make this happen. But the GA Speaker of the House David Ralston is being recalcitrant about this effort for reasons unknown. So contact him and let him know "We the People" want him to support and protect the U.S. Constitution PER HIS OATH and that he should get 100% behind GA HB401 and move it into law ASAP. Also contact the Gov of GA and tell him to get behind this bill and to openly call for its adoption in committee and movement to the full GA house for passing and adoption this year to be effective for the 2012 election cycle. Help protect our liberty and our Constitution. Make you voices heard in GA now!

Speaker of the GA House of Reps -- Representative David Ralston -- Email: "david.ralston@house.ga.gov" Tel: 706-632-2221 Fax: 706-632-6193
http://www1.legis.ga.gov/legis/2009_10/house/bios/ralstonDavid/ralstonDavid.htm

GA House Marjority Leader -- Larry O'Neal -- Email: "larry.oneal@house.ga.gov" Tel: 478-953-4557 Fax: 478-953-5022
http://www1.legis.ga.gov/legis/2009_10/house/bios/onealLarry/onealLarry.htm

GA Governor Nathan Deal --
Tel: 717-787-2500 Fax: 717-772-8284
http://gov.georgia.gov/02/governor/home/0,2822,165937316,00.html


Posted by:
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
http://www.protectourliberty.org

http://puzo1.blogspot.com

####

Wednesday, March 9, 2011

Atty Mario Apuzzo & CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) will be on the Revolution Radio Show hosted by Dr. Kate - Wed, 9 Mar 2011, 9:00 p.m. EST

Atty Mario Apuzzo & CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) will be on the Revolution Radio Show hosted by Dr. Kate - Wed, 9 Mar 2011, 9:00 p.m. EST.

The topic will be the Obama constitutional eligibility issue, natural born Citizenship, and the two Obama appointee Supreme Court justices Sotomayer and Kagan not recusing themselves from the conferences about various cases involving the Obama eligibility issue given their direct financial conflict of interest in the outcome of such cases. Also the latest on states' efforts to tighten up the vetting process of candidates for President and Vice President as to determining their exact legal citizenship status before being placed on a ballot in the various states in future presidential elections. http://www.blogtalkradio.com/drkate/2011/03/10/drkates-revolution-radio-kerchner-apuzzo-return

Get a copy of Attorney Apuzzo's "Catalog of Evidence" report about Obama's Hawiian birth nativity story at SCRIBD. Also see the Kerchner v Obama Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court filed by Attorney Mario Apuzzo in September 2010.

Also read Dr. Kate's blog at: http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/kerchner-apuzzo-return-to-revolution-radio/

Posted by:
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Friday, March 4, 2011

Atty Mario Apuzzo and CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) were on The Roth Radio Show tonight - Friday 4 Mar 2011 @ 7 P.M. EST

Atty Mario Apuzzo and CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) were on The Roth Radio Show hosted by Dr Laurie Roth - Friday 4 Mar 2011 @ 7 P.M. EST

The topic was the Obama constitutional eligibility issue.

http://therothshow.com/about/



Podcast link to the show. We were on in hours 2 and 3 on 4 March 2011:
http://therothshow.com/show-archives/march-2011/

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

The Citizenship Status of Our 44 Presidents



By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Published: February 14, 2011
Revised: February 16, 2011

A famous Holmesian dictum provides that "a page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345, 349 (1921) (Holmes, J.). There have been 43 Americans that have served as President (not including Barack Obama). Ten were born before 1787. Until Martin Van Buren (who was born in 1782 or six years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence) became President in 1837 (making him the 8th president), all the Presidents had been born before 1776 to parents who, undoubtedly, at the time considered themselves to be loyal subjects of one of the British Kings. The president following Van Buren, William H. Harrison (the 9th president), was also born before 1776 to parents who were British “natural born subjects.” All Presidents born before July 4, 1776, were born British “natural born subjects.” Those early presidents were naturalized to become “Citizens of the United States” through the Declaration of Independence and by adhering to the American Revolution. These presidents included Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Adams, Jackson, and Harrison. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, allowing anyone who was a “Citizen of the United States” at the time of the adoption of the Constitution to be eligible to be President, grandfathered these presidents to be eligible. All presidents born after 1787, except for Chester Arthur and Barack Obama, met the “natural born Citizen” criteria, i.e., born on U.S. soil to a mother and father who were themselves U.S. citizens at the time of the President’s birth. Neither Arthur nor Obama were “natural born Citizens” at the time of birth. Arthur was born to an alien father who also made his U.S. citizen mother an alien. Obama was born to a non-U.S. citizen father who never became a U.S. citizen and, being here only on a temporary student visa, was never even an immigrant. There have been 46 Americans that have served as Vice-President (not including Mr. Biden). Ten were born before 1787. All Vice-Presidents born after 1787, except for Chester Arthur, met the “natural born Citizen” criteria. Fourteen Vice Presidents have gone on to be President.

Some believe that John Tyler was our first "natural born Citizen" President. They believe that a President had to be born after the adoption of the Constitution in 1787 in order to be a “natural born Citizen.” Since Tyler was born in 1790 in Virginia, they conclude that he was the first President to be a “natural born Citizen.” I do not agree with this approach to determining who our first "natural born Citizen" President was.

The citizens made the Constitution and their government. The Constitution and government did not make the citizens. The citizens had the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness granted to them by nature and their Creator and not by the Constitution or government. On July 4, 1776, our first Americans declared independence from Great Britain and created the new American community of free and independent states. July 4, 1776 is therefore the critical date which established American citizenship. The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, the first constitution of the United States, which went into use in 1777 and which were formally ratified on March 1, 1781, officially recognized the nation as the "United States of America." Hence, all those who helped create the new nation became its members and therefore its citizens. These were the first "Citizens of the United States," which Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 grandfathered to be eligible to be President provided they were born before the adoption of the Constitution.

Hence, anyone born after July 4, 1776 in the U.S. to parents who became "Citizens of the United States" as a result of the Declaration of Independence and by adhering to the American Revolution was born in the country to U.S. citizen parents and therefore a "natural born Citizen." The First Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1790 even extended the “natural born Citizen” status to persons born abroad to U.S. citizen parents. The Third Congress, through the Naturalization Act of 1795, repealed the 1790 Act and declared such children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents to be considered as “citizens of the United States” and not “natural born Citizens.”

The first President to be born after July 4, 1776 in the U.S. to parents who became "Citizens of the United States" on July 4, 1776 was Martin Van Buren, who was born in 1782 in New York. He was therefore the first President to be a "natural born Citizen." Tyler was the second President to be born under these birth circumstances which makes him the second President to be a "natural born Citizen."

Let us now examine how President James Buchanan, who had an Irish father, Woodrow Wilson, who had an English mother, and Herbert Hoover, who had a Canadian mother, were “natural born Citizens.” As we have seen, President Thomas Jefferson, whose mother was born in England, and Andrew Jackson, whose parents were both born in Ireland, were grandfathered to be eligible to be President. Chester Arthur, not being either grandfathered or a “natural born Citizen,” will be treated separately.

When determining whether a child born in the U.S. is an Article II “natural born Citizen,” the question is not whether the parents of the child are foreign born. Rather, the question is whether they are “citizens of the United States” at the time of the child’s birth in the United States. In Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875), our U.S. Supreme Court, providing the same definition of a “natural born citizen” as did Emer de Vattel in his The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758), but without citing Vattel, and not in any way referring to the English common law, stated:

"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. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens."

Id., 169 U.S. at 679-80. So as we can see, the Supreme Court told us that a “natural born citizen” is a child born in the country to citizen parents. See also, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898) (distinguished between a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen of the United States” and cited Vattel and quoted his definition of “natural born Citizen” as did Minor v. Happersett but relied on the English common law to define a born “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment).

The status of being “citizens of the United States” can be acquired by the parents by either being “natural born Citizens” or by becoming “citizens of the United States” by naturalization under an Act of Congress or treaty or if born in the U.S. under the 14th Amendment. The case of Perkins v Elg 307 U. S. 325 (1939) makes the point and shows how a child born in the U.S. to naturalized parents was declared a “natural born Citizen.” The central question in the Perkins case dealt with whether the Elg child lost her U.S. birth citizenship status because of the acts of her parents and not because of anything she elected to do or some treaty or Act of Congress. But the case is also important in understanding the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.”

Under out naturalization laws, citizenship can be derived from a close relation to a family member. Historically, a number of U.S. laws have provided for the automatic naturalization of children or wives (not husbands) of naturalized U.S. citizens. In some periods of our history, these laws provided that married women derived citizenship from their husband and had no control over their status. Under the Act of 10 February 1855, a woman automatically became an American upon marrying a U.S. citizen or following the naturalization of her foreign husband. Kelly v. Owen, 74 U.S. 7 Wall. 496 (1868). The 1922 Married Women's Act (or the Cable Act) finally severed the link between naturalization and marital status for most women.

Marie Elg's parents emigrated from Sweden to the U.S. in 1906. In that same year, Mr. Elg naturalized and became a U.S. citizen. Under the then existing naturalization laws (Act of 10 February 1855), his wife automatically became a U.S. citizen through the U.S. naturalization of her husband. Hence, when Marie Elg was born in the U.S. in 1907 both her mother and father were U.S. citizens. Marie Elg was therefore a child born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents. The Court found that “[o]n her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27; Fourteenth Amendment, § 1; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649.” Additionally, the lower court found Elg to be a “natural born Citizen.” The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed this finding. The Court therefore gave a child born to naturalized “citizens of the United States” the right to run for President. The U.S. Supreme Court in Elg therefore once again affirmed the American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen” which is a child born in the country to citizen parents, a definition that was confirmed during the Founding by Emer de Vattel in his The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758). On the other hand, no U.S. Supreme Court decision has found a child born to one or two alien parents to be an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

So as we can see, a “natural born Citizen” can be produced by being born in the U.S. to naturalized parents who are “citizens of the United States.” Also, under our old naturalization laws, once a woman married a U.S. citizen, she herself automatically became a U.S. citizen derivatively from her husband. These laws apply to show that three of the six Presidents listed were “natural born Citizens.” Jefferson was not a “natural born Citizen” but, adhering to the revolution, was a “citizen of the United States.” Under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, he was grandfathered to be eligible to be President. Jackson, also became a “citizen of the United States” by adhering to the revolution and also grandfathered to be eligible to be President. Buchanan’s father naturalized to become a “citizen of the United States” prior to his son’s birth. Wilson’s mother became a “citizen of the United States” when she married her husband who was a “citizen of the United States.” Hoover’s mother became a “citizen of the United States” when she married her husband who was a “citizen of the United States." So except for Jefferson and Jackson who were grandfathered, all these presidents were born in the U.S. to parents who were at the time of their birth “citizens of the United States.” They were all “natural born Citizens.”

The only exception to all this, apart from Barack Obama, is Chester Arthur. Chester Arthur (1881-1885), was born on October 5, 1829 in Fairfield, Vermont. His father, William Arthur, when eighteen years of age, emigrated from Co. Antrim, Ireland. His father did not become a naturalized U.S. citizen until 14 years after Chester Arthur’s birth. Chester Arthur’s mother, Malvina Stone, was born April 29, 1802 in Berkshire, Franklin, Vermont. Hence, Chester Arthur was born to a father who was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth. Because the citizenship of the wife merged into that of the husband, this made Arthur born to an alien mother and father. He was therefore born with dual citizenship of the United Kingdom and the United States. It is believed that Chester Arthur lied numerous times about his past to hide the fact that when he was born his father was not a U.S. citizen and to therefore obfuscate his ineligibility to hold Vice-Presidential and Presidential office. What is most telling is that Chester Arthur also burned all personal records just prior to his death. Chester Arthur was challenged during his Vice Presidential bid on the ground that he was not born in the United States. No one challenged Chester Arthur on the ground that even if he were born in the United States, he was still not an Article II “natural born Citizen” because of his father’s foreign citizenship at the time of his birth which also made his mother an alien. Hence, the Chester Arthur example is not and cannot be treated as any precedent since the nation was not aware of the truth about his father’s and mother’s non-U.S. citizenship status at the time of his birth. Gregory J. Dehler, Chester Alan Arthur: The Life of a Gilded Age Politician and President, Published by Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2006, ISBN 1600210791, 9781600210792, 192 pages; http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/. Also see the research done by attorney Leo Donofrio on the Chester Arthur issue which can be found at http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/.

The Founders and Framers wrote the Constitution in a way that best provided for the protection of our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They sought to do that by giving us a constitutional republic and providing for the survival and preservation of that republic. In the governmental scheme that they gave us, they provided for the Office of President and Commander in Chief, a singular and all-powerful office involving the concentration of both civilian and military power into one person. Because of such concentration of power in one individual, the Framers recognized that such offices also presented great risk to the republic and its people. They therefore gave us the “natural born Citizen” clause as one basis for eligibility to such offices. Through the “natural born Citizen” clause, they instructed us that such power must fall into the hands of a person who can be trusted with it to the greatest degree possible and that such guarantee is of much greater importance to the survival and preservation of the constitutional republic than the fleeting politics and personal favor of having one person necessarily occupy that office. What is profound is that the Founders and Framers put their trust in “Nature and Nature’s God” and not in political and legal institutions to accomplish that end.

For more information and research on the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” please see the many essays at this blog, http://puzo1.blogspot.com/.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg, NJ 08831
Tel: 732-521-1900
Fax: 732-521-3906
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
© 2011 Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved
####

P.S. A copy of this report may be downloaded at SCRIBD.com at this link:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/48894388/The-Citizenship-Status-of-Our-44-Presidents

P.P.S. Cross link to a report by CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) on the citizenship status of all 44 presidents:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/02/list-of-us-presidents-eligibility-under.html

List of U.S. Presidents - Eligibility under Article II Grandfather Clause (GFC) or Natural Born Citizen (NBC) Clause or Seated due to Election Fraud

List of U.S. Presidents - and their Constitutional Eligibility under the U.S. Constitution's Article II, Section 1 "Grandfather Clause (GFC)" or the "Natural Born Citizen (NBC) Clause", or were they seated unconstitutionally due to Election Fraud. Under the Grandfather Clause the person must have been a Citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. Under the Natural Born Citizen (NBC) Clause the person must have been born in the USA to parents who were born Citizens of the United States when the child was born. Under the NBC clause it does not matter if the parents were foreign born but only that they both be U.S. Citizens (either born or naturalized) when the child is born in the USA. Both Chester Arthur and Barack Obama were unconstitutionally seated due to Election Fraud and their lying about their respective nativity stories and hiding and destroying their personal early life records. It has been recently discovered that despite the fact the Chester Arthur's father ultimately was a U.S. Citizen, he did not naturalize until after his son Chester Arthur was born. Obama's father was never a U.S. Citizen, never intended to be, was not even an immigrant to the USA nor was he even a permanent resident. Obama's father was a foreign national sojourning in the USA to attend college. Obama's father was a British Subject and at birth Obama was also a British Subject governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Obama was thus not a "natural born Citizen" of the United States and is constitutionally ineligible to be President and Commander in Chief of our Military.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/48856102/List-of-U-S-Presidents-Eligibility-under-Grandfather-Clause-GFC-or-Natural-Born-Citizen-NBC-or-Seated-due-to-Fraud

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

P.S. Cross link to a report my Mario Apuzzo, Esq., on the eligibility of our 44 Presidents:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/02/citizenship-status-of-our-44-presidents.html

Sunday, January 9, 2011

Atty Mario Apuzzo & CDR Kerchner were Guests on Les Naiman Show, WGTK 970, Louisville KY, hosted by Les Naiman, Sunday 09 Jan 2011 7:05 PM EST

Les Naiman Show

Atty Mario Apuzzo and CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) were featured guests on the Les Naiman radio show, WGTK 970 in Louisville KY, hosted by Les Naiman, on Sunday, 09 Jan 2011, 7:05 PM EST.

Listen to a replay of the show on podcast at this link.  Fast forward to the 63 minute point in the show where Atty Apuzzo and CDR Kerchner join the show:  http://lesnaimanshow.podbean.com/2011/01/09/the-les-naiman-show-010911/

Monday, November 29, 2010

Obama Ineligible! Obama: I Tried and Lied but It Won't Go Away! Washington Times National Weekly - 29 Nov 2010 Issue - Pg 5

Obama Ineligible! Obama: I Tried and Lied but It Won't Go Away! Washington Times National Weekly - 29 Nov 2010 Issue - Pg 5
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44262283/Obama-Ineligible-I-tried-and-lied-but-it-won-t-go-away-Wash-Times-Natl-Wkly-2010-11-29-pg-5

Article II "Natural Born Citizen" Means Unity of Citizenship and Sole Allegiance At Birth:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-means.html

A Catalog of Evidence - Concerned Americans Have Good Reason to Doubt that Putative President Obama Was Born in Hawaii:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/catalog-of-evidence-concerned-americans.html


U.S. Supreme Court orders were posted at 10:00 a.m. on 29 Nov 2010. See below. Certiorari for our case was denied. The two justices appointed by Obama who had in my opinion a direct financial conflict of interest (their very jobs and appointments to the court) in the outcome of this petition and case did not recuse themselves even though they should have! Their recusal was called for in our petition on page 36 with relevant U.S. Code cited. The two justices and the court ignored that. There were recusals declared by these two Obama appointees in many other petitions including the one immediately before our petition in the orders list and the one immediately after. Imo, apparently the court needed all nine justices in the room to kill the petition. With the full court of 9 justices it's the rule/vote of 4 to grant certiorari to move the case forward. With two recusals that would have left only 7 justices and it's then the rule/vote of 3 to grant certiorari to move the case forward. I suspect the water cooler buzz at SCOTUS was that 3 justices were leaning for granting certiorari. So it looks like Sotomayer and Kagan ignored ethical considerations and stayed in the review of the petition to be sure it got killed, i.e., to be in that room to argue against Certiorari, and to require 4 votes to grant cert instead of 3 ... financial conflict of interest and ethics be damned by those two justices. JMHO.
10-446
KERCHNER, CHARLES, ET AL. V. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL.
The motion of Western Center for Journalism for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/112910zor.pdf
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt.aspx


CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Sunday, November 21, 2010

Washington Times - Kerchner v Obama & Congress et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari at U.S. Supreme Court Conference on Tuesday 23 Nov 2010

Washington Times - Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari at U.S. Supreme Court Conference on Tuesday 23 Nov 2010

Update: No Decision Released Until Monday 29 Nov 2010
per SCOTUSblog

Supreme Court Orders Will be Posted Here at 10 a.m.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt.aspx

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

We are living through history in the making. Please read or re-read this historic Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court asking them to support and defend the Constitution ... in particular Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, the presidential constitutional eligibility clause. Read or re-read the Petition then read this ad. Then meditate on the words in both and then pray that the Justices do the right thing on Tuesday and support and defend our Constitution and Republic and grant Certiorari and take up our case and seek the truth about Mr. Obama the usurper, impostor, and fraud now occupying the Oval Office. Mr. Obama and his puppet masters and his enablers in political power and in the main stream media have perpetrated and allowed to continue the greatest fraud on this nation in the history of our Republic and he needs to be exposed and removed. See the ad linked to below and via the image at the left for an overview of the Petition and the issues.

Washington Times -- Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari Scheduled for Conference on 23 Nov 2010 with the U.S. Supreme Court - Washington Times National Weekly edition - 22 Nov 2010 issue, page 5: http://www.scribd.com/doc/43541103/Kerchner-v-Obama-Petition-Scheduled-for-Conference-at-Supreme-Court-on-Tues-Nov-23-2010-WTNW-pg-5


QUESTIONS PRESENTED TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT:
PETITION 10-446
1. Whether petitioners sufficiently articulated a case or controversy against respondents which gives them Article III standing to make their Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection claims against them.
2. Whether putative President Obama can be an Article II “natural born Citizen” if he was born in the United States to a United States citizen mother and a non-United States citizen British father and under the British Nationality Act 1948 he was born a British citizen.
3. Whether putative President Obama and Congress violated petitioners’ Fifth Amendment due process rights to life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property and Ninth Amendment rights by Congress failing to assure them pursuant to the Twentieth Amendment that Obama qualified as an Article II “natural born Citizen” before confirming his electoral votes and by Obama refusing to conclusively prove that he is a “natural born Citizen.”
4. Whether Congress violated petitioners’ rights under the Fifth Amendment to equal protection of their life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property by investigating and confirming the “natural born Citizen” status of presidential candidate, John McCain, but not that of presidential candidate, Barack Obama.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Further comments by CDR Kerchner (Ret):

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

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

Also, two U.S. Senators although popularly elected and sworn in to the U.S. Senate were subsequently removed from office after it was learned that they were NOT constitutionally eligible when they were elected.

Albert Gallatin [U.S. Senator constitutionally ineligible and his seating unconstitutional and election & seating annulled]:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Gallatin

James Shields [U.S. Senator constitutionally ineligible and his seating unconstitutional and election & seating annulled]:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Shields

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

Again, please take the time to read or re-read the Petition then read this ad. The questions and the main brief are only 36 succinctly written and easy to read pages. Then meditate on the words therein and then pray that the Justices do the right thing on Tuesday and support and defend our Constitution and Republic and grant Certiorari and take up our case and seek the truth about Mr. Obama the usurper, impostor, and fraud now occupying the Oval Office. Mr. Obama and his puppet masters and his enablers in political power and in the main stream media have perpetrated and allowed to continue the greatest fraud on this nation in the history of our Republic and he needs to be exposed and removed. May God help us save our liberty and republic and protect us in the days ahead.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
Please if you can, visit this site and help the cause:
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Friday, November 19, 2010

Article II "Natural Born Citizen" Means Unity of Citizenship and Sole Allegiance At Birth

Article II "Natural Born Citizen" Means Unity of Citizenship
and Sole Allegiance At Birth


by: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Written: April 23, 2009
Reposted: November 18, 2010


Article II of our Constitution has a lot to say about how a would-be President is born. "Natural born Citizen" status requires not only birth on U.S. soil but also birth to parents who are both U.S. citizens by birth or naturalization. This unity of jus soli (soil) and jus sanguinis (descent) in the child at the time of birth assures that the child is born with sole allegiance (obligation of fidelity and obedience to government in consideration for protection that government gives (U.S. v. Kuhn, 49 F.Supp.407, 414 (D.C.N.Y)) and loyalty to the United States and that no other nation can lay any claim to the child's (later an adult) allegiance and loyalty. Indeed, under such birth circumstances, no other nation can legally or morally demand any military or political obligations from that person. The child, as he/she grows, will also have a better chance of not psychologically struggling with conflicted allegiance and loyalty to any other nation.

Unity of citizenship and allegiance is based on the teachings of the law of nature (natural law) and the law of nations, as confirmed by ancient Greek and Roman law; American, European, and English constitutions, common and civil law, and statutes; and Vattel's, The Law of Nations, all of which the Founding Fathers read and understood. These sources have taught civilizations from time immemorial that a person gains allegiance and loyalty and therefore attachment for a nation from either being born on the soil of the community defining that nation or from being born to parents who were also born on that same soil or who naturalized as though they were born on that soil. It is only by combining at birth in the child both means to inherit these two sources of citizenship that the child by nature and therefore also by law is born with only one allegiance and loyalty to and consequently attachment for only the United States.

Our Constitution requires unity of U.S. citizenship and allegiance from birth only for the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military, given the unique nature of the position, a position that empowers one person to decide whether our national survival requires the destruction of or a nuclear attack on or some less military measure against another nation or group. It is required of the President because such a status gives the American people the best Constitutional chance that a would-be President will not have any foreign influences which because of conflict of conscience can most certainly taint his/her critical decisions made when leading the nation. Hence, the special status is a Constitutional eligibility requirement to be President and thereby to be vested with the sole power to decide the fate and survival of the American people. Of course, the status, being a minimum Constitutional requirement, does not guarantee that a would-be President will have love and fealty only for the United States. Therefore, the final informed and intelligent decision on who the President will be is left to the voters, the Electors, and Congress at the Joint Session, to whom hopefully responsible media and political institutions will have provided all the necessary vetting information concerning the candidate's character and qualifications to be President.

Through historical development, unity of citizenship and sole allegiance at birth is not required for U.S. born citizen Senators, Representatives, and regular citizens under the 14th Amendment and Congressional enactments. In contradiction and which confirms the Founding Fathers' meaning of what a "natural born Citizen" is, naturalized citizens, since 1795, before becoming such must swear an oath that they renounce all other allegiances to other nations. During the Washington Administration, the First Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 in which it provided that new citizens take a solemn oath to support the Constitution and “renounce” all “allegiance” to their former political regimes. This is during the time that most of the Framers were alive and still actively involved in guiding and forming the new national government and Constitutional Republic. Today, we still require that an alien upon being naturalized must give an oath that he/she renounces all former allegiances and that he/she will “support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Hence, allegiance is not simply a thing of the past but very much with us today. It is important to also understand that naturalization takes an alien back to the moment of birth and by law changes that alien’s birth status. In other words, naturalization, which by legal definition requires sole allegiance to the United States, re-creates the individual as though he were a born Citizen but only does it by law and not by nature. This is the reason that the 14th Amendment considers a naturalized person to be a “citizen” of the United States and not a “natural born Citizen” of the United States. This recreation of birth status through naturalization which also existed under English common law also probably explains why John Jay underlined the word “born” when he recommended to General Washington that only a “natural born Citizen” (as to say born in fact, by nature, and not by law) be allowed to be President. Consequently, naturalized citizens stand on an equal footing with born Citizens (who are so recognized and confirmed by the 14th Amendment or by an Act of Congress and who can be but not necessarily are also “natural born Citizens”) except that they cannot be President or Vice President, for they were born with an allegiance not owing to the United States and acquire that sole allegiance to the United States only after birth. Surely, if a naturalized citizen, even though having sole allegiance to the United States, is not Constitutionally eligible to be President, we cannot expect any less of someone who we are willing to declare so Constitutionally eligible.

The Founding Fathers emphasized that, for the sake of the survival of the Constitutional Republic, the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military be free of foreign influence and intrigue. It is the "natural born Citizen" clause that gives the American people the best fighting chance to keep it that way for generations to come. American people do not have the Constitutional right to have any certain person be President. But for the reasons stated above, minimally they do have a Constitutional right to protect their liberty by knowing and assuring that their President is Constitutionally eligible and qualified to hold the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Monday, November 15, 2010

Ad: Kerchner v Obama Petition is Scheduled for Conference in U.S. Supreme Court on Nov 23rd - Wash Times National Weekly ed - 15 Nov 2010 - pg 5

Ad: Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari Scheduled for Conference on 23 Nov 2010 with the U.S. Supreme Court - Washington Times National Weekly edition - 15 Nov 2010 issue, page 5:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/42559111/Kerchner-v-Obama-Petition-Scheduled-for-Conference-at-Supreme-Court-15Nov2010-Wash-Times-Natl-Wkly



QUESTIONS PRESENTED TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT:
PETITION 10-446

1. Whether petitioners sufficiently articulated a case or controversy against respondents which gives them Article III standing to make their Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection claims against them.

2. Whether putative President Obama can be an Article II “natural born Citizen” if he was born in the United States to a United States citizen mother and a non-United States citizen British father and under the British Nationality Act 1948 he was born a British citizen.

3. Whether putative President Obama and Congress violated petitioners’ Fifth Amendment due process rights to life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property and Ninth Amendment rights by Congress failing to assure them pursuant to the Twentieth Amendment that Obama qualified as an Article II “natural born Citizen” before confirming his electoral votes and by Obama refusing to conclusively prove that he is a “natural born Citizen.”

4. Whether Congress violated petitioners’ rights under the Fifth Amendment to equal protection of their life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property by investigating and confirming the “natural born Citizen” status of presidential candidate, John McCain, but not that of presidential candidate, Barack Obama.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments by CDR Kerchner (Ret):

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

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

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

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

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
Please if you can, visit this site and help the cause:
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####