Monday, February 8, 2010

AD - "Citizen vs Natural Born Citizen"- it's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" with Obama's Exact Citizenship Status-Wash Times Natl Wkly-Mon 08 Feb 2010-pg 15

AD - "Citizen vs. Natural Born Citizen" -  it's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" with Obama's Exact Citizenship Status - Washington Times National Weekly - Monday 08 Feb 2010 Issue - pg 15: 

Many people do not know there is a difference between a "Citizen" and a "natural born Citizen." Being a "Citizen" of any type, whether an Article II natural born Citizen, 14th Amendment born Citizen, 14th Amendment naturalized Citizen, or statutory born Citizen under a Congressional Act, means you are a member of the society and entitled to all its rights and privileges. But under our Constitution to serve in the singular most powerful office in our government, that is to be the President and Commander-in-Chief of our military under our Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, of our Constitution you need to be a "natural born Citizen." Being a "natural born Citizen" cannot be conveyed by any laws of man and can only be conveyed by the facts of nature at the time of your birth and circumstances of your birth, i.e., being born in the country to two citizens of the country. (Legal Treatise "The Law of Nations - Principles of Natural Law" Section 212 by E. Vattel 1758, SCOTUS Decision Venus 1814, SCOTUS Decision Minor v Happersett 1874). This new advertorial is designed to help educate the public pictorially about the fact that Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the USA and thus is ineligible under our Constitution to the office he sits in. Obama is a Usurper who was allowed to be put there by millions in foreign money, a corruptly led Congress, and an enabling main stream media. This is a constitutional crisis and a national security concern that must be addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court or our Republic, Constitution, and Liberties are in great danger.

Obama is hiding the truth from the People with an enabling media and is refusing to answer questions on his Article II constitutional eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief of the military. In fact he said last week people should not even question him about it. With him his exact citizenship status policy is, "don't ask, don't tell" and hope it goes away. Well it is not going away. This is a constitutionally based legal eligibility question. Obama's election fraud and cover up will be revealed. The truth and the Constitution will win the day in the end and We the People will constitutionally remove the Usurper from his illegally obtained office.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress ... help the cause:


Incredulous said...

I love this.
This simple logic really makes them squirm!
The fact is when they prove Obama is a statutory US Citizen, they prove he's ineligible. No US Citizen who wasn't alive in 1788 is eligible.
The terms are distinct, divided by the legal term "OR" in Article II, divided by majority holding in Minor v. Happersett, divided by the absence of NBC from 14th/1401.

There's no way to screw with this logic. There's only 2 types of citizens, natural and statutory, because every other type fits into the statutory category. Obama is on the 1401 list.
What has perpetuated the bot argument too long is the conflating of terminology. They are distinct by precedent, logic, and law.

jayjay said...


Indeed you are correct and Obama's whole life seems to be nothing but a work of fiction. The man has never shown himself to be Constitutionally eligible to hold the office he now occupies.

If you'd like to see something from a different point of view, watch the two short videos below which, even though they start
slowly and have a bit of fun, contain a wealth of factual data - more than we've seen from Obama.

In fact in the second video a famous senator is quoted speaking about someone that sounds for all the world like "Our Boy" and
really strikes a chord.

Only thing is the senator was the Roman named Cicero speaking in 42 BC - but the message is still very directed and pertinent for all of us: Three Little Words Merry Christmas OmeriKa!!

Guy4013 said...

Great ad Charles!

I like the Don't Ask, Don't Tell (my citizenship)

I believe that it is the new Whitehouse policy.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

We have recently witnessed Obama publicly demand that the American people not question his citizenship. Well, that is an amazing statement given two "little" things:

One, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 requires that a would-be President be a "natural born Citizen." Hence, surely the office contender's citizenship is relevant to determining whether he or she is a "natural born Citizen" and therefore, also meeting the age and residency requirements, qualified to be President.

Two, we still do not know whether Obama was born in Hawaii, for he has to date refused to produce a contemporaneous (from 1961) birth certificate or other contemporaneous and objective documentary evidence proving such fact. Rather, he has only posted on the internet a questionable June 2008 image of a Certification of Live Birth (COLB) of which the alleged underlying authentic paper document would nevertheless only be “prima facie” evidence of the birth event (“true” only from the face of the document and which “truth” can be disproved by contradictory evidence). I have provided a list of this contradictory evidence in my essay, What Is Putative President Obama’s Current U.S. Citizenship Status? , which may be found at This contradictory evidence surely compels Obama, who wants to occupy and exercise the great power of the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military and who has the burden to prove that he is constitutionally eligible to fill those offices, to provide corroborating evidence of his place of birth.

The simple answer to Obama's statement that the American people should not question his citizenship is that he should simply not have run for President.

Too bad that our Congress failed to understand this very simple point.

Let us move forward said...

Mr. Appuzo,

Justice Kennedy to retire in June. He will probably be replaced with a very "liberal" justice. How will that affect the slant of the Court when considering your case?

Anonymous said...

I heard it is Stevens & Ginsberg for possible retirement, not Kennedy.

Where did you hear Kennedy is retiring in June?

Link please?

Let us move forward said...

Sorry it was Stevens.

jayjay said...

Let us move forward &

Give this some thought ... when the Kerchner et al case reaches the Supreme Court (and assuming the present make-up of the Court) it would seem to me that at least two of the Justices - if they are forthright and horable - should recuse themselves.

Sotomayor since with the eligibility of her appointer in question is beholden to the man and is potentially liable to re removed if he is found to be ineligible.

Ginsburg, because she has publicly stated that she thinks her grandson (born in France; not sure of the parentage) "should be" a natural born citizen, thereby pre-judging the issue before have heard or seen an arguents.

What do you think - is it OK for Justices with such obvious bias to be allowed to decide such an unprecedented case???

Anonymous said...

Let us move forward,

Whew, you had me worried as I couldn't find anything on it and was getting nervous about a major shift in the court.


I am tossed on the Sotomayor issue. In my heart I believe she should recuse herself. I just don't know so I'll let Mario & the legalese chime in on that one. As far as Ginsberg. I see no need for her to recuse herself because of personal family relations. She took the oath and we can only hope she would put personal feelings aside and judge according to the evidence and intent of the founding fathers for the sake of our nations national security & the future of our sovereignty.

James said...


It looks like DOJ may be reponding any day now. (Didn't you say they have 30 days to respond to your brief?) I hope you can or have been able to anticipate their angle of attack. Be ready to fire back a smashing rebuttle to their response. I am sure they will be citing the Berg decision since you are appealing in the same court. Be ready to punch holes in that decision and other birther case decision they will cite. You must anticipate their plan of attack and be ready for it.

shakes said...

Larry Sinclair needs our help, Obama thugs attack, Social Security benefits, Sinclair political prisoner, Help Sinclair help America
February 9, 2010

As many of you know, I have covered the Larry Sinclair story since right after he released the Youtube video in January of 2008. Larry has made the supreme sacrifice for this country. He has had non stop personal attacks and death threats on himself and his family. In 2008, at the conclusion of his news conference at the National Press Club, Larry was arrested on trumped up charges from Joe Biden’s son, the then Attorney General of Delaware. Larry was eventually released after the charges were found to be false.

Larry Sinclair has fought off every attempt to silence him and keep his story from the public. That is one of the reasons I fought so hard all along to make sure the story got out, despite the best attempts of the MSM to smother Sinclair’s story or discredit him. Larry Sinclair, despite overwhelming odds, wrote and published a book “Barack Obama & Larry Sinclair: Cocaine, Sex, Lies & Murder.” Sinclair has made little or no money on this book.

Larry Sinclair needs our help. I knew that he was in dire straights. The Obama thugs filed charges that Sinclair was making money off of his book and that he was not entitled to Social Security Benefits. This is treated as a criminal investigation and Sinclair receives no benefits until the investigation is concluded. Larry is a proud person and he does not want to ask for help. He needs $ 680 by tomorrow afternoon to keep from losing everything. He has already lost his car. He waited to the very last minute for this plea and I know that this hurt him to ask. He has told me that if he can get by until the end of the month, he can see the light at the end of the tunnel.

Larry Sinclair, in the spirit of the founding fathers who risked all, has sacrificed everything. If you can give just $ 5 it will help. I intend to donate myself. I would not ask for him if this was not an emergency.

Thanks and God bless.

from Citizen Wells blog

Click on the donate button here:

PS- Larry stated that if anyone contributing supplies an email or mailing address, he will provide a special thank you.

shakes said...


Larry Sinclair // February 9, 2010 at 9:40 pm

Thanks to those who had sent what you could to help. Please note that when you send paypal click on the PERSONAL tab and mark it as a gift so that Paypal does not charges fee’s.

I appreciate everything each of you have done to help me at this time. I hope we can make this happen in time to pay these late fees by 5:00 PM

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

smrstrauss has left a new comment:

Re: "he has to date refused to produce a contemporaneous (from 1961) birth certificate or other contemporaneous and objective documentary evidence proving such fact."

He has NOT refused. He posted the only birth certificate that he has, the Certification of Live Birth, which was what Hawaii sent him in 2007 and is the only birth certificate that Hawaii now sends out to ANYONE. (

Obama can only post what he has, and that is what Hawaii sent him. Yes, his family at one time had the original BC. Yet it is highly likely that that was lost, and that is the reason he asked for a BC in 2007, and Hawaii sent him the short-form Certification.

The Certification is now the official birth certificate, and when it says on it "born in Hawaii" as Obama's does, it is accepted as proof of birth in the USA by the US State Department and the branches of the US military.

Re: "Rather, he has only posted on the internet a questionable June 2008 image of a Certification of Live Birth (COLB)."

That is now the official birth certificate of Hawaii. As for the image being questionable, only two guys who will not give their names have said that it was forged. In contrast, the two top officials of the DoH of Hawaii have said twice that the facts on the COLB are confirmed by the facts on the original BC in their files.

In addition to the two officials stating twice that the original shows that Obama was born in Hawaii, Obama's BC was used by him to obtain a US passport when he left Hawaii for Indonesia as a child.

There is not a shred of evidence that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii. His Kenyan grandmother never said that he was born in Kenya. She said that he was born in Hawaii."

APUZZO'S RESPONSE: You admit that DoH has "the original birth certificate in their files." Hence, Obama can just make a simple request of them for at least a copy and share that with the American people. He is the President of the United States and I am sure a simple clerk can put the original birth certificate on a photocopy machine and satisfy his simple request. The trust of the American people depend upon it and surely Hawaii can make a little exception for the President. Given such a simple procedure, I am tired of hearing people like you whine about how the President of the United States cannot get a copy of his original birth certificate from the State of Hawaii. Who are your kidding false rhetoric?

You state that Hawaii provided Obama with his COLB in 2007? How do you know that? What is your source.

Stop telling the public that the Certification of Live Birth is the official birth certificate. Only the 1961 birth certificate is the contemporaneous birth certificate. There are no others. Stop spreading your lies.

About what two top officials of the DoH believing that "the facts on the COLB are confirmed by the facts on the original BC in their files," these two officials are not the appointed ones to determine whether someone is eligible to be President. Rather, that "someone" should be the vetting process conducted by all the available resources of our Constitutional Republic. Why does Obama run from that vetting process? What does he have to hide?

What proof do you have that Obama obtained and used a US passport when he travelled to Indonesia and Pakistan in 1981?

Here is the oath taken by persons who enlist in the armed services:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic….

The oath tells us that we can have domestic enemies. The American people have a right to protect themselves not only from foreign enemies, but also from domestic ones. Knowing the identity of their President is within their right to protect themselves from domestic enemies.

cfkerchner said...

Hi Mario,

The Obots continue to try and obfuscate the issue and make things that are simple seem to be confusing and difficult.

Providing a starting place copy of Obama's birth certificate is even easier than getting a xerox or microfiche print out from the original in Hawaii's vaults.

In Obama's book, "Dreams from My Father", at the bottom of page 26, Obama writes about having a copy of his birth certificate and old vaccination forms at the time frame when his father died in the early 1980s. Why doesn't he simply provide for starters a copy of that one?

As to getting docs from Hawaii, based on what I've read at the Post & Email website about investigations conducted by several citizen journalists writing to Hawaiian authorities, it now seem highly probable that the vital records for Obama have been amended at some point in time, maybe more than once. Thus, when we get to court subpoenas to the Hawaiian authorities, given how they have obfuscated and twisted words and requests, the subpoena is going to have to be for the entire record of all docs from original registration up until the current time, including any and all amendments.

But again, for starters, Obama could just provide a certified copy of the one he had in the early 1980s that he wrote about in his book.

You and I know that. But the Obots keep trying to put out misleading and confusing information ... on purpose. Obama IS hiding something ... and these Obots like smrstrauss who posts his deception all over the net in blogs knows it too.

The fact that particular Obot is back here trying to post their misleading, intellectually dishonest, and in many cases totally false malarkey indicates to me they are worried in the Obot camp as evidenced by Obama mentioning part of the issue for the first time from his own lips.

Charles Kerchner

Incredulous said...

I remember Donofrio writing about Hawaii Sunshine Laws...that once a document was published that it was no longer protected.
Since the COLB was published -- "paid for Barack Obama", by the party of interest, it would no longer have privacy protections and "shall be" made available upon request.

Also Post and Email has an article showing a real Hawaii long form BC
presented to the shock of bots, at the latest Tea Party convention.

Incredulous said...
Has Janice Okubo resigned?
"In that exchange I wrote her the following letter on January 26, 2010:

Dear Miss Okubo,

I commiserate with your budget problems, but the stituation is not out of your control. Hawaii Statutes authorize the Director of the Department of Health to release kinds of information which your department has spent lots of time and money refusing to release. Like my request which you say you have responded to. Any court in the country, esp. in Hawaii is going to have a hard time believing that your office lacks all those documents I just requested. You would lose the law suit and have to pay attorneys fees, including travel expenses to Hawaii and lodging during the time of the trial. And yes, I have several lawyers willing to jump on the case.

So if you have not considered the specified requests in my Corrected Version 3 email to be a UIPA request, please do so, and I hereby renew it as part and parcel of my request.

But you also have statutorially defined discretionary authority to limit the impact all these UIPA requests are having on your office, by means of releasing data which you can release:

I refer to HRS §338-18 Disclosure of records.

Subsection (d): Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.

So your department can save a lot of money if you start using your discretionary authority to release more data. The statue gives wide latitude to the Director to decide which data to release.

Moreover, if you seek advice from the HI Attorney General, you will find that in releasing what purports to be a HI Certification of Live Birth, Barack Hussein Obama II has waived all privacy rights to the disclosure of his original vital records, because, in the matter of such a public claim, the HI DoH has the legal duty to confirm or deny the authenticity of such a claim; if anything whatsoever in that very public claim were to differ in the slightest manner from ALL the information you have on file or record, then the responsible DoH officials would be complicit in committing the federal and state crimes of misprison of felony in a matter of document fraud and federal election fraud, not to mention the consequent legal liabilities of civil damages which could be sought against you personally and as a department by all the members of the armed forces who are maimed or killed serving under Obama, if in fact he is not eligible for the office of president, in not being a natural born citizen of the USA, either by reason of having a foreign father or being born outside Hawaii.

And for Goodness sake, no one in the country is going to be upset if the data you release is true. We after all have a right to know, don’t you think so?

But it is in your best interest to start releasing data...don’t sacrifice your careers and personal fortunes for Obama."

Sallyven said...

Great ad!

Smrstrauss is now leaving comments on Professor Jacobson's Legal Insurrection blog, in his latest post on the "birther" issue:

Mr. Apuzzo, would you care to "set the record straight"? The LI blog is very widely read.

shakes said...

I received the below video from my sister today….please forward……this says it all!!!!

If his very own actions are not enough to cause a wee bit o’concern…

how about the actual words coming from his own mouth????

And you thought this was America, land of the free, home of the brave, of the people, for the people, by the people, a land [nation] that reveres God and the Holy Bible? You are wrong, your president says so.

Watch this video quick before it gets pulled.

James said...

I thought this is an interesting development.

This is unconfirmed.

Perhaps the pressure is getting to Hawaii State Officials. It seems that is in our best interest to continue pounding on Hawaii State Officials for information.

puzo1moderator said...

A comment had to be deleted due to use of profane language. In my younger days I could talk Navy "sailor talk" with the best of them when appropriate, but this blog is not the place for that type language. We ask your cooperation.


James said...

Here is Janice Okubo's Contact information:

Communications Director
Janice S. Okubo

Phone: (808) 586-4442


Perhaps persons with legal expertise in Vital Records, Public Administration, and Comunnication as well as persons with good Social Engineering Skills can get information out of Janice.

James said...

Due to recent developments with Hawaiin State Officials, I thought it would prudent to mention this and encourage that this be spread far and wide.
Operation Hawaii Five-Obama

William said...


The answer to your timeframe question is the same I asked Mario last week. I will paste his response to me. Hope this answers your question. It appears the dates would be on or around 2/18, then 3/4.

Mario replied:

“I filed Appellants' Opening Brief on January 19, 2010. Obama and Congress have 30 days within which to file their opposition brief. Then I have 14 days within which to file my reply brief. Then the Third Circuit Court of Appeal in Philadelphia reviews the materials and will advise on oral arguments in Philadelphia. It is hard to predict when the court will actually decide the case.”

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

"Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty?"

Patrick Henry (1736-1799) American revolutionary and orator
Speech, Virginia Ratifying Convention (5 Jun 1788)

Robert said...

SMRSTRAUSS, is this you? -

Many people justify their opinions with the facts and the law, whereas others do not let the facts and the law get in the way of their reasoning. Which one are you? If you are one of those people out there who thinks that the birthers are nuts, then let’s consider something that is not nuts — which one of the three burdens of proof applies to any candidate for President regarding his Article II eligibility? Is it by a preponderance of evidence? By clear and convincing evidence? How about by beyond a reasonable doubt?

Once you decide which one applies, and you must pick one if your argument is to be credible, then consider this before drawing a conclusion — Although Hawaii calls the posted Certification of Live Birth an “official” birth certificate, it is nothing more than a digital copy of a summary of a 1961 vital record that derives from one of the six birth records procedures in place at the time of Obama’s birth, five of which arguably lacked adequate indicia of reliability and trustworthiness because they were fraught with the potential for fraud.

Does anyone know which one of these procedures was used to generate a 1961 birth record for Barack? Barack won’t tell. Was it the one with a doctor’s signature and hospital documentation, or was it from one of the other five, one of which allowed a family member to mail in a form attesting to an at-home birth and receive a Hawaiian BC? Consider this hypo — state A issues a birth certificate to a person who supplies a hand-written note that claims baby B was born somewhere on so and so date. No independent witnesses are required. Later, the state issues an “official” scant summary of the “original” birth certificate.” The issue is, do you trust that summary? You can read the actual Hawaii Revised Laws in effect in 1961 at that would have allowed for such a thing to happen.

To date, not one single solitary person in the three branches of government has bothered to subject Obama’s 1961 vital record to any meaningful scrutiny. Furthermore, they have not even identified which burden of proof was applied to reach their conclusions. They have instead chosen to accept his posted Certification of Live Birth, a summary, as conclusive evidence of his alleged birthplace simply because it reads -“Born in Hawaii.” It reminds me of someone who tells another, “Because I say so.”

Now, for those on the Left who like to pretend that the birthers believe that the Hawaii newspaper birth announcement was planted so Obama could run for president 47 years later. Nobody on either side of the fence really believes that scenario. It is nothing but a ridiculous distraction from an alternative, plausible motive — the announcement could have been placed so Ann Dunham would have had documented evidence for immigration purposes should Barack’s birthplace ever be called into question by the INS when he was younger. Even if you are not willing to accept this scenario, in 1961 a family member could mail in a form attesting to an at-home birth and receive a Hawaiian BC. The state registrar would then send that information to the papers. So the Hawaii newspaper announcement is not reliable or trustworthy evidence either.

On a closing note, assuming arguendo, that Obama is completely barred from getting a copy of his original 1961 birth certificate, what prevents him from either admitting or denying that his 1961 vital record on file at the DOH Hawaii is the one with a doctor’s signature and supporting hospital documentation?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

"When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property." Thomas Jefferson.

As we know, Obama feels that he can hide his original contemporaneous birth certificate and other background documents from the American people, relying on federal and state privacy laws. His political and media enablers, of course, tell us that it is his right to do so. Too bad that he and those who blindly follow him have not heeded Thomas Jefferson's wisdom.

cfkerchner said...

Exposé: Obot SMRSTRAUSS Finally Unmasked!

by: Erica of Jefferson's Rebels

An individual using the tag smrstrauss has been an extraordinarily busy fellow and an annoying enigma on the internet since late 2008, but now his identity is known. Mr. smrstrauss has contributed countless hours, days, weeks, months, and thousands of comments to defend Barack Obama against everyone who questions the President’s eligibility. Smrstrauss sometimes writes long essay comments, and he often cites case law, so if you didn’t know better, you would be excused for thinking he’s an attorney. I can assure you he is not!

I also need to take this opportunity to backtrack on a supposition I previously made about the identity of this man. Based on the comments of another blogger who claimed to have researched the name smrstrauss, he concluded the person was D.C. Shadow Senator, Paul Strauss, who also happens to be a Democrat Superdelegate. After the in-depth research I have just done on smrstrauss, I now know he is not that person, and retract my comments suggesting otherwise.

Such intense activity by smrstrauss would make sense if Obama is paying him to confuse people about his eligibility to serve as President, but I have no way to confirm this without filing a Freedom of Information request of the administration.

If smrstrauss is not being paid by someone, then his efforts must be a labor of love, and for that President Obama may eventually consider bestowing the Presidential Citizens Medal upon this gentleman for his obsessive/compulsive determination to defend The One, irrespective of the truth.

Read the rest of the article at this link ...

giveusliberty1776 said...


From a Reader please take note.


Steve @ Give Us Liberty

Below is a copy of an email I’ve sent to Attorney ... Below is a copy of an email I’ve sent to Attorney Orly Taitz. Those who have been following this issue might find it interesting:


Orly Taitz
Defend Our Freedoms Foundation
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy Ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
Phone 949-683-5411

Mrs. Taitz,

While studying the 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling, I came across a precedent of law which I thought *might* be used to gain standing in lawsuits regarding Obama's eligibility for the presidency.

In this historic case, Jane Roe's appeal for the right to abort her child would have been considered moot after she had given birth to the child. However, an exception to this rule was cited considering this type of case as "capable of repetition, yet evading review". This established precedent was accepted, as it was unlikely that any pregnant woman would be able to get past the trial stage before giving birth.

I noticed the similar circumstances between this case and those against Obama which have been thrown out because he has already assumed the presidency. This crisis of uncertainty with regard to the Presidency, if not resolved within this term, may very well happen again. Although use of this precedent may be dubious, it might be worth consideration and may lead to another method of thinking.


I must add- I think it is unreasonable that so many cases against Obama have been tossed out on the premise of lack of standing. I consider our Constitution to be more than law- It is a guarantee. It is a contract between each American individual and their government, and provides recourse against a government which would attempt to violate that contract. To say that an assault on and a deterioration of our Constitution does not affect the individual is absurd!

Thank you for your continued efforts in this matter. I believe many others share my concern and sentiments.


Anonymous said...


I apologize in advance if you have previously addressed this, but I went back to to copy some text when I noticed the following:

"Obama's British citizenship was short-lived. On Dec. 12, 1963, Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom."

FactCheck did not (deliberately?) say which Obama they were referring to, Sr. and/or Jr. I believe they meant Sr., but perhaps are hoping people will think they are inferring Jr.

The"facts" as written must be intended to obfuscate and confuse.

Incredulous said...

As the neomarxist takeover from within progresses, the FBI, CIA, Congress, judiciary, and every system set up to defend the USA is attacking those that actually do.
And America sleeps...but it's hearing that annoying ever-louder buzzing in its ear, and when the sleeping giant finally awakes, it will never rest again until this evil is purged.

Incredulous said...

Before Obama's deadline to choose his Kenyan citizenship expired by his 23rd birthday, the British Nationality Act of 1981 had already by then made him a permanent regular British Citizen.
If he did choose his Kenyan citizenship, that's all he is since they do not allow dual citizenships. If he did not choose that, then he is at least still a British citizen and perhaps a US citizen, unless of course he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro and traveled as an adult to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport, in which chase he is solely Indonesian because they do not allow dual citizenships.

In no case is he a natural born citizen of America however.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


Article II "natural born Citizen" status must be acquired at the moment of birth. Just like an alien later naturalizing and becoming a U.S. citizen after his or her birth does not make him/her eligible to be President, it also would not make Obama Article II eligible if his British citizenship were short lived. It is the birth circumstances that control and not what occurs thereafter.

Moreover, please note that Obama's British citizenship from birth allowed him to acquire Kenyan citizenship when he was 2 years old which lasted at least until he was 23 years old. Hence, during Obama's formative years, he was both a British and Kenyan citizen, a condition which the Framer's would not have allowed a would-be President and Commander in Chief of the Military to have.

Incredulous said...

I believe Obama has lied about his parentage, but we have to go on his word, and that alone proves he's ineligible as a non-natural born citizen, but it could be far worse in reality as he could be just like Auntie illegal alien: There's been loads of speculation over paternity, maternity...but I say, 'FOLLOW THE MONEY AND MURDER'...

1. Do you remember that strange CBS interview from the back seat of a limo in 2008, where Obama was asked if he was black (e.g. African American) and he said “well that’s what they (Americans) think”… it's since been censored by the Obama regime, but many attest to it.

2. Obama’s top terrorism and intelligence adviser, John O. Brennan, headed a firm that was cited in March for breaching sensitive files in the State Department’s passport office, according to a State Department Inspector General’s report released this past July.
The security breach, first reported by the Washington Times and later confirmed by State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, involved a contract employee of Brennan’s firm, The Analysis Corp., which has earned millions of dollars providing intelligence-related consulting services to federal agencies and private companies.
During a State Department briefing on March 21, 2008, McCormack confirmed that the contractor had accessed the passport files of presidential candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and John McCain, and that the inspector general had launched an investigation.
Sources who tracked the investigation say that the main target of the breach was the Obama passport file, and that the contractor accessed the file in order to "cauterize" the records of potentially embarrassing information. "They looked at the McCain and Clinton files as well to create confusion," one knowledgeable source said. "But this was basically an attempt to cauterize the Obama file."
At the time of the breach, Brennan was working as an unpaid adviser to the Obama campaign.
The passport files include "personally identifiable information such as the applicant’s name, gender, social security number, date and place of birth, and passport number," according to the inspector general report.
The files may contain additional information including "original copies of the associated documents," the report added. Such documents include birth certificates, naturalization certificates, or oaths of allegiance for U.S.-born persons who adopted the citizenship of a foreign country as minors.
The State Department Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a 104-page report on the breach last July. Although it is stamped "Sensitive but Unclassified," the report was heavily redacted in the version released to the public, with page after page blacked out entirely."
This guy should be in prison, not in the Executive Office Building.

Incredulous said...

3. And Lt. Quarles Harris' murder?
KEY WITNESS IN PASSPORT FRAUD MURDERED According to Indonesian law once Obama was adopted, he became an Indonesian citizen, and according to US law, majority affirmation of such citizenship, such as traveling as an adult on an Indonesian passport, made him only an Indonesian citizen. The supposition is that Obama used his Indonesian passport to travel to Pakistan in 1981, and later Kenya. We don't know if he at that time switched his Indonesian citizenship for Kenyan, but he could have since he may have had documents stating that BHO, Sr. was his father.
Remember during the campaign the feigned indignation at the across-the-board passport breeches?
There is a video here of Obama’s response to the passport “breach” back on March 21, 2008. Watch it – I think it’s telling that he says, not that he has anything to hide, “not because I have any particular concerns” [minute -.23]. This is before the birth certificate scandal. Who would say that?

4. An Expat in Southeast Asia, Larry Martin, Sept. 18, 2008 wrote this:“Obama is Indonesian." “My sources claim that he was adopted and that the Indonesian government is aware of this – so are Obama’s people who cut a deal with the Indonesian government to have the records suppressed.” According to Martin’s post, Faleomevaega’s meeting with Indonesia’s president regarding West Papua and his subsequent flipflop on supporting West Papau’s right to self-determination is something that you might think would warrant at least a press release on the congressman’s website, but there is nothing, nor is there any mention on the House Subcommittee’s site. No press release, nothing, not even a mere mention of his trip to Indonesia.

Incredulous said...

5. A Hidden Memory: reports that at the time Barry Soetoro was in Indonesia, all Indonesian students were required to carry government identity cards or Karty Tanda Pendudaks, as well as family card identification called a Kartu Keluarga. The Kartu Keluarga is a family card which bears the legal names and citizenship status of all family members.
Soetoro/Obama was registered in a public school as an Indonesian citizen by the name of Barry Soetoro and his father was listed as Lolo Soetoro, M.A. Indonesia did not allow foreign students to attend their public schools in the late 1960’s or 1970’s, and any time a child was registered for a public school, the child’s name and citizenship status were verified through the Indonesian Government. See Constitution of Republic of Indonesia (Undang-Undang Dasar Republik Indonesia 1945), Chapter 13, Law No. 62 of 1958 (all citizens of Indonesia have a right to education). The Indonesian school record, indicates that Soetoro/Obama’s name is "Barry Soetoro;" his nationality is "Indonesia" and his father "Lolo Soetoro, M.A. There was no way for Soetoro/Obama to have attended school in Jakarta, Indonesia legally unless he was an Indonesian citizen, as Indonesia was under tight rule and was a Police State. See Constitution of Republic of Indonesia (Undang-Undang Dasar Republik Indonesia 1945), Law No. 62 of 1958. These facts indicate that Obama/Soetoro was/is an Indonesian citizen, and therefore he is not eligible to be President of the United States.
Under Indonesian law, when a male acknowledges a child as his son, it deems the son, in this case Soetoro/Obama, an Indonesian State citizen. See Constitution of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 62 of 1958 concerning Immigration Affairs and Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Perdata) (KUHPer) (Burgerlijk Wetboek voor Indonesie).
Furthermore, under the Indonesian adoption law, once an Indonesian citizen adopts a child, the adoption severs the child’s relationship to the birth parents, and the adopted child is given the same status as a natural child and the child takes the name of his step-father, in this case, Soetoro. See Indonesian Constitution, Article 2.
The Indonesian citizenship law was designed to prevent apatride (stateless) or bipatride (dual) citizenship. Indonesian regulations recognized neither apatride nor bipatride (stateless or dual) citizenship. Since Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship; neither did the United States (since the United States only permitted dual citizenship when 'both' countries agree); and since Obama/Soetoro was a "natural" citizen of Indonesia, the United States would not step in or interfere with the laws of Indonesia. Hague Convention of 1930.
As a result of Soetoro/Obama’s Indonesian "natural" citizenship status, Soetoro/Obama could never regain U.S. "natural born" status, if he in fact he ever held such, which we doubt. Soetoro/Obama could have only become "naturalized" if the proper paperwork were filed with the U.S. State Department, after going through U.S. Immigration upon his return to the United States; in which case, Soetoro/Obama would have received a Certification of Citizenship indicating "naturalized."

Incredulous said...

5 continued:
We are informed, believe and thereon allege Obama/Soetoro was never naturalized in the United States after his return. Soetoro/Obama was ten (10) years old when he returned to Hawaii to live with his grandparents. Soetoro/Obama’s mother did not return with him. Therefore, it appears that she did not apply for citizenship for Soetoro/Obama in the United States. If citizenship for Soetoro/Obama had been applied for in 1971, Soetoro/Obama would have a Certification of Citizenship. If Soetoro/Obama returned in 1971 to Hawaii without going through U.S. Immigration, today he would be an "illegal alien" -- and obviously not able to serve as president, but also his term as a United States Senator from Illinois for nearly four (4) years was illegal. We further believe Soetoro might have reentered the United States at age ten (10) by showing a copy of his Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth, which he received when his birth was registered in Hawaii.
In addition, we have been unable to locate any legal documents wherein Soetoro’s name was legally changed from Barry Soetoro to Barack Hussein Obama. Soetoro/Obama’s silence on these issues is deafening and his refusal to release such records to prove that none of this occurred results in his status as Acting Commander in Chief at best, and a willful action on his part to deceive the American People and the Armed Forces of the United States so that he may wield power that is in non-compliance with the United States Constitution.

6. (interesting yet inconsequential) Photo of a West Papuan:
and other Indonesians