Thursday, May 13, 2010

The Nonsense Published by Our Nation’s Editors Regarding Obama’s Eligibility to be President

As an example of the nonsense that is produced by our nation’s editors regarding the Obama eligibility issue, one can read the story entitled, Taking Issue With the Birthers, written by Daily Titan Opinion Editor, Skylaw Smith, and posted on May 9, 2010, at the Daily Titan at: Mr. Smith’s opinion article is factually inaccurate and highly biased. Mr. Smith attempts to ridicule the efforts of those who question where Obama was born, people that he calls “extremists and conspiracy theorists,” by equating their Obama birthplace inquiry to one involved in a “college level thesis of human genetics.” But our place-of-birth inquiry is not so difficult to understand and surely does not require more than a rudimentary level of education (maybe not even any education at all but just some mother-nature-given common sense). Rather, regarding the place of birth issue, we just want to see a simple contemporaneous birth certificate from 1961 (which includes the name of the birth hospital and delivery doctor), not the 2008 computer scan of an alleged 2007 Certification of Live Birth (COLB) which Mr. Smith posted as part of his article to show the world that Obama has release his “birth certificate.” If Mr. Smith would even read the bottom of the COLB here and here, it says: “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.” This caveat warns the public that this document can only be relied upon if there is no other contradictory evidence showing otherwise than what is stated in the document. If there were to exist such contradictory evidence, a court of competent jurisdiction would have to settle the factual dispute.

Mr. Smith says that Hawaii stated the computer scan of the COLB was legitimate. No such thing ever happened. I challenge Mr. Smith to produce evidence supporting such a reckless statement.

Mr. Smith alleges a "birther" forged a Kenyan birth certificate in August 2009. Again, this is wild and reckless speculation. What evidence does Mr. Smith have that it was a "birther" that forged any birth certificate? The forging could well have been done by an Obama operative so that people like Mr. Smith can go around the nation polluting what we know about Obama by way of his reckless and biased article.

Finally, Mr. Smith says that Obama, by releasing his "official birth certificate" "would be risking identity fraud and potentially making it possible for document request laws to be altered." This is really a nonsensical statement. In the beginning of his article, Mr. Smith tells us that Obama released his "birth certificate" and that should end the debate. But now he objects that if Obama were to release his "official birth certificate," all these drastic consequences would occur. First, we can see that Mr. Smith, although unconsciously, concedes that Obama has not yet released any “official birth certificate.” Even though Mr. Smith is not aware of having made such a concession, he is aware that there exists an “official birth certificate” and that Obama has not released it to the public. But he hides that fact when he first told us that Obama released his “birth certificate” and even posted the image of the COLB as proof thereof, not telling us that the document is not an “official birth certificate.” Second, I fail to see why there should be such dire consequences with the release of Obama’s "official birth certificate" but no such consequences with the release of his "birth certificate." Does the writer expect clones of Obama to appear on the planet after he releases his "official birth certificate"? Does he expect people to hold themselves out as "Barack Hussein Obama II" and thereby steal some goods or services from some unsuspecting vendor? Third, how else does the writer expect a candidate for the office of President to prove where he or she was born to meet the first requirement of the "natural born Citizen” test, place of birth?" For further information on the place of birth issue, please visit the following essay:

Mr. Smith, like so many television, radio, and print media commentators, editors, and journalist, is also probably deliberately failing to report the well-known fact that there is a valid constitutional argument that place of birth is only one part of the “natural born Citizen” test for Presidential eligibility. The definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” as relied upon by the Founders and Framers is a child born in the country (or its equivalent) to citizen parents (mother and father). The Founders used natural law and the law of nations not only to justify the revolution and to create a Constitutional Republic but also to define the new national citizenship. The Founders and Framers saw the law of nations as coming from the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” and therefore as sacred and divine. The Declaration of Independence. “[T]he Creator of all men had endowed … [man] with the great natural rights which the Declaration of Independence asserts.” Dred Scott v. John Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 575 (1856) (Curtis, J. dissenting). They also considered the law of nations as obligatory. In fact, the Framers through Article I, Section 8, Clause 10, gave Congress the power “[t]o define and punish … Offences against the Law of Nations.” They therefore looked to that law and not the English common law for guidance in defining citizenship in the new nation.  In applying the law of nations, they relied upon Emer de Vattel, who provided the Framers with the definition for what they called a “natural born Citizen” and Vattel called “Les naturels, ou indigenes” (translated in 1759 from the French to English to mean “natives or indigenes” and in 1797 to mean “natives, or natural-born citizens”), being a child “born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, Section 212 (1758 first edition in French) (1759 first edition in English). Anyone satisfying this natural law and law of nations definition was a “natural born Citizen.”

If we are going to determine what the Framers meant when they wrote “natural born Citizen,” we need to find where they probably obtained the phrase. It is well known that the Framers were well read in the Roman and Greek classics. I have found evidence that the Framers probably found the phrase “natural born Citizen” in the works of Quntilianus. With many of the Founders also being proficient in Latin, Greek, and French, they probably obtained the clause “natural born citizen” and its synonym, “native,” from ancient Latin text which was also translated into English rather than from simply copying the clause “natural born subject” from the English common law and substituting the word “citizen” for “subject.” That ancient text was found in Institutio Oratoria, by Marcus Fabius Quintilianus (or Quintilian), published in Latin in the first century A.D. Quintilianus’ work covered not only the theory and practice of rhetoric, but also the foundational education and development of the orator himself. Quintilianus had a love for Cicero. Tacitus, another one of the Founders’ favorite, was probably one of his students in the school he opened in Rome on rhetoric. Texts by natural law philosophers Aristotle, Cicero, and Seneca, among others, were essential subjects of study in a legal education in the early American Republic. David Hoffman, A Course of Legal Study 59-63 (2nd ed. 1836). Following in the steps of Cicero, Quintilianus believed that the natural order was the proper guide to perfect oratory. Quintilianus stressed the important role that both the father and mother played in their child’s education from the moment of birth. His textbook covered subjects such as the natural order and the relation of nature and art. Along with the works of Aristotle and Cicero, his textbook on rhetoric represents one of the ancient world's greatest works on rhetoric.

From the excellent research conducted by John Greschak, we learn the following: “In 1774, the phrase natural born citizen was used in an English translation (from the Latin) of the book Institutio Oratoria, by Marcus Fabius Quintilianus (published in the first century A.D.); this was done in Chapter I of Book VIII. The phrase is found in the Latin text: Quare, si fieri, potest et verba omnia et vox huius alumnum urbis oleant, ut oratio Romana plane videatur, non civitate donata. Quintilianus, Institutio Oratoria, Book 1, Chapter VIII. There have been at least five different English translations of this work and this sentence. The first was by Guthrie in 1756. Since then, there have been translations by Patsall (1774), Watson (1856), Butler (1920-2) and Russell (2001).” Greschak found that Guthrie in 1756 used the word “native” when translating Quintilianus’ reference to that Roman citizen who because of birth and family upbringing was expected to be most able to speak the pure Roman language. In referring to the same type of citizen, Patsall in 1774 translated the same sentence as: “Therefore, if possible, every word and the very tone of voice, should bespeak the natural born citizen of Rome, that the language may be purely Roman, and not so by a right different from birth and education” (emphasis supplied). Greschak states: “I do not claim that this is the first use of the phrase natural born citizen, but it is the earliest use of which I am aware.” Id. “Alumnum” means "nourished, brought up; reared/fostered by; native, brought up locally." (Latin-English Dictionary 1.97FC). “Urbis” means city. Parentage, education, and upbringing made an “alumnum urbis oleant.” Just being born in the city was not sufficient to meet the definition of the phrase. It was both birth in the locality and parental and institutional rearing and education from birth that produced the “natural born citizen.”

Hence, Quintilianus’ work, which was translated from the Latin to the English, provided the clause “natural born citizen” and the word “native” and the translators used the words interchangeably to mean the same thing. This fluctuation in translation explains why the Founders, English translations of Section 212 of Vattel’s The Law of Nations, and United States Supreme Court cases used the words “native” and “natural born Citizen” synonymously. Quintilianus also provides an explanation of how the Framers translated Vattel by taking his French words of “Les naturels, ou indigenes” or the same words translated into English as “natives or indigenes” and translated or converted them into “natural born Citizen” which is what they wrote into Article II.

Being able to read and understand the definitions that Vattel gave to the clause “Les naturels, ou indigenes” (in French) and “The natives or indigenes” (in English), they realized that Vattel’s clauses as written in either French or English were the equivalent to “native” or “natural born citizen” with which they were familiar from having found the clauses in ancient Latin text or its English translations that we saw above. The Founders would have been familiar with both “natural born citizen” and “native” from having seen the two expressions in these various English translations of the ancient Latin text. These English translations took the Latin clause “alumnum urbis oleant” and translated it into either “native” or “natural born citizen.” Hence, it appears that the English translators believed that either “native” or “natural born citizen” captured the meaning of “alumnum urbis oleant.” The Framers, applying their study and knowledge of natural law, would have equated Vattel’s description of “Les naturals, ou indigenes” or “the natives or indigenes” found in Section 212, which was a citizen of true origin and therefore of the highest order with what Quintilanus called “alumnum orbis oleant,” also considered by him to be a citizen of true Roman origin and of the highest order.

Vattel’s French 1758 edition of The Law of Nations was first translated into English in 1759. It was also translated into English in 1760 which edition provided:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist, and perpetuate itself, but by the children of the citizens; those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this; in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of their becoming members. The country of the fathers is then that of the children; and these become true citizens, merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether on their arriving at the years of reason, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they are born. I say, that in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a stranger, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” Id. Sec. 212 Of the citizens and natives.

The Framers relied on this well-known law of nature and law of nations definition of “natives, or indigenes” or what Vattel called in French, “Les naturels, ou Indigenes.” They borrowed this definition to define their Article II “natural born Citizen.” With a “natural born Citizen” being so defined in natural law and the law of nations, they did not see any need to define it in the Constitution as they did not define all the other terms they included in the Constitution. This was the meaning that the Framers gave to a “natural born Citizen.” There was no other form or definition of a “natural born Citizen” at the time of the Founding. At that time, the English common law did define a “natural born subject” as one born in the King’s dominion and allegiance without any reference to the citizenship of the parents. That law also said that “[a]n alien naturalized is “to all intents and purposes a natural-born subject.” Co. Litt. 129. But the English common law would have supported the definition of the original citizens whom the Framers called “Citizens of the United States.” But the Framers did not adopt the English common law and its definition of a “natural born subject” to define the future “natural born Citizen” of the new nation or to guide them in constituting the new Constitutional Republic. Rather, they rejected the use of the English “natural born subject” definition which was a relic of feudal and monarchical England, and instead relied upon the natural law and law of nations for that definition which was relevant to a free society with a self-representative government. Indeed, "[t]he words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people,' and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty."  Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 404 (1856). 

There is direct evidence from the Founding period that the Founders and Framers used natural law and the law of nations to define a “natural born Citizen” and that they did not simply take the English common law “natural born subject” and substitute in its place a “natural born Citizen.” David Ramsay, a highly respected doctor and historian from the Founding period, wrote an essay on citizenship during the Founding entitled, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789). David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. Ramsay “was a major intellectual figure in the early republic, known and respected in America and abroad for his medical and historical writings, especially for The History of the American Revolution (1789)…” Arthur H. Shaffer, Between Two Worlds: David Ramsay and the Politics of Slavery, J.S.Hist., Vol. L, No. 2 (May 1984). In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained that there is an “immense” difference between a British “subject” and a United States “citizen,” with the former being “under the power of another” and the latter being “a unit of mass of free people, who, collectively, posses sovereignty.” He informed that “Republics, both ancient and modern, have been jealous of the rights of citizenship.” He then explained that the “original citizens” of the United States were those who were parties to the Declaration of Independence and thereby adhered to the revolutionary cause. But the importance of his work does not stop there, for he also described the future citizens to come after the original citizens, whom he defined as the children born to citizen parents. He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id. at 6. He added that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” Id. at 7. He continued that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6. Here, Ramsay referred to “natural right,” which ties into the Framers’ use of the clause “natural born Citizen.” By focusing on citizenship that occurs by “natural right,” Ramsay distinguished citizenship that occurs naturally versus citizenship that occurs by operation of law. It is evident from his writing that in defining the original citizens and the future citizens who were to follow them, Ramsay did not look to English common law but rather to natural law, the law of nations, and Vattel, Sec. 212, which all provided the same definition that he provided. As we can see, Ramsay required the future citizens to be children of citizens. While he did not call these future citizens “natural-born citizens,” Ramsay’s standard was the same standard that Vattel provided when he defined the “natives, or indigenes,” which in 1797 came to be translated into “natives, or natural-born citizens.”

Further evidence that the Framers relied upon Vattel to define a “natural born Citizen” may be found by examining the 1797 London edition of, The Law of Nations. The anonymous French to English translator translated Vattel in the 1797 London edition as follows:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” Id. Sec. 212 Citizens and natives.

This is the first known edition of The Law of Nations that used the phrase “natural-born citizens” in place of “indigenes.” Here we can see that an anonymous translator now used for the first time “natural-born citizens.” It is reasonable to conclude that the translator, living at the time that the Framers lived, knew that the Founders and Framers took their definition of their Article II “natural born Citizen” from Vattel’s editions that were in print before and at the time they drafted the Constitution in 1787 and that it was only right that Vattel’s words translated into English should reflect the terms that the Framers used in Article II. Hence, the translator inserted the phrase “natural-born citizens” in place of “indigenes” in the 1797 English edition. Given this new English translation of Vattel, we can see that a translator from only 10 years after the Constitution was adopted made a direct connection between the Framers’ Article II “natural born Citizen” clause and Vattel’s, The Law of Nations. Additionally, the fact that a translator of French into English took the phrase “natural-born citizen” and inserted it into Vattel’s, The Law of Nations, a treatise on natural law and the law of nations, is solid evidence that the phrase “natural-born citizen” was not equivalent to the English common law phrase “natural born subject,” the definition of which pursuant to Blackstone included only the element of a child being born in the dominion and allegiance of the King with the citizenship of the parents having no relevance.

The natural law and law of nations definition of a “natural born Citizen” is still the law of the land today, for it was never amended by any constitutional amendment, including the Fourteenth Amendment, or changed by any Act of Congress or any decision of the United States Supreme Court, including United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). In fact, the United States Supreme Court has to this day used the term “natural born Citizen” only to describe a person born in the country to citizen parents. We have provided in our court filings in the Kerchner et al v. Obama/Congress et al case and on this blog the numerous United States Supreme Court case citations and other authorities showing that the Founders and Framers relied upon natural law and law of nations to define a “natural born Citizen” and not the English common law and its definition of a “natural born subject.” Given the existing definition of a “natural born Citizen,” it does not matter where Obama was born, even in the White House itself. His father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was a British subject/citizen when Obama was born in 1961 (which fact Obama has conceded) and he is therefore not an Article II "natural born Citizen." It is therefore not necessary for us to prove or disprove where Obama was born. The Court must first rule on the constitutional definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen." If the Court agrees with us as it should and the United States Supreme Court affirms, the case is over and Obama is history.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
May 12, 2010
Updated May 16, 2010


Mick said...

Of course Dr. Conspiracy would claim, "but the words "natural born citizen" was not substituted for "Indigenes"". What a crock.

FollowTheConstitution said...

""But our place-of-birth inquiry is not so difficult to understand and surely does not require more than a rudimentary level of education (maybe not even any education at all but just some mother nature given common sense).""

And right here is where the biggest problem lies today in our society. People have no common sense. Just hearing the lame invented excuses and arguments they dream up proves that fact. These people have been so brainwashed and dumbed down they can not think for themselves. If you took away the MSM and their mental college professors that provide their only thinking for them they would be lost zombies wondering the streets in a total daze!

"If the Court agrees with us as it should and the United States Supreme Court affirms, the case is over and Obama is history."

This is the other problem. The courts are avoiding this issue like the plague because they know what the outcome of this will be! And should they ever get cornered into having ever hear this case I'm afraid the courts will commit the biggest fraud by covering this up and sticking this country with biggest false ruling that would put this country wide open for foreign take over from within the branches of our government.

So what are the choices? There are 3. Continue to ignore this by inventing their frivolous rulings on standing, or step up and do the job they are there to do by hearing the case and providing an honest ruling based on the facts, or hear the case and commit the biggest fraud by being dishonest just to cover up this fraud!

At the end of the day, which do you really believe will be the outcome of this?

Dixhistory said...

Mario and Charles you all and I know they all know ... only the brain dead could not know.

Mario and Charles the below is off topic but I hope you will allow it to be posted.

I have put up a short video on my web page at:

This is the person I hope will win the GA Governor race in 2010. I doubt he will as he is seen as being out of his mind.

Watch this clip and see if you think he is out of his mind.

Incredulous said...

I love the picture with the article. Look, I've "duked it out" with the Chief Editor of my local newspaper, who quickly revealed he is a classic bot. All he could do when presented with facts was load up his cannon with an arsenal of mockery, insult, outrageous lies and horrific abuse. He knew he had nada, so that's all he could do. No logic, no facts, just abuse. That's when I decided to become "citizen journalist" and I have written a few articles under a pen name...because the Obamamedia is never, ever, ever, going to tell the truth. They've been bought off, are complicit or have been threatened. They are not going to budge, and we have to get around them.

Mr. Apuzzo, when Pelosi sent an altered DNC certification form which removed the constitutional eligibility language, to all but Hawaii, the only state which REQUIRES that presidential candidates be constitutionally there some inroad to be had with the Hawaii Secretary of State as to how they determined that Obama was Constitutionally eligible? Does Pelosi's alteration of the DNC form specifically to evade the eligibility language not automatically impugn her as guilty of treason?

And what is to be done about the now 2 certified Homeland Security licensed Private Investigators who state on the record that Obama used a Connecticut social security number fraudulently, because this person's SSN was born in 1890? That is supposed to be a 5 year prison term with a $250,000 fine, and yet they are prosecuting some low level contract workers who glanced at Obama's student loan files, one year in jail and $100,000 fine. Is there no hope that these obvious crimes by Obama will be brought forth? Is it because Holder is just a dumb Obama patsy?

cfkerchner said...


Nancy Pelosi is a named defendant in my lawsuit for not only the reason you describe but much more as part of this cover up and deception and unequal protection under the law and our Constitution and other charges and is she is included in the 12 counts in our complaint as part of the Non-Obama defendants.

Some people are just now discovering things such as what Pelosi did. But we were aware of these things and included them in the lawsuit filed in Jan 2009. It is in the complaint. Just review the Table of Contents above and you will see we have virtually every angle of the fraud and cover up perpetrated by Obama and his enablers in Congress such as Pelosi covered in the complaint and 12 counts.

CDR Kerchner

Incredulous said...

Thanks for that.
When the US Attorney in Des Moines Iowa is prosecuting Mercedes Costoya, a low income Hispanic woman to put her in jail, a woman who was working as a clerk to support her family and will lose their $100,000 house she worked her entire adult life for...all for what?
For peeking at Obama's STUDENT LOAN? I cannot believe this, they are going to shred her along with others, to make an example of them!! Obama is viscous and cruel beyond all words! The Hispanic community among everyone should be OUTRAGED!

Well Klinefeldt was selected by Obama himself:
" President Obama Nominates Richard Callahan, Michael Cotter, Nicholas Klinefeldt and Stephanie Rose to be U.S. Attorneys
WASHINGTON, DC – Today, President Obama nominated Judge Richard Callahan, Michael Cotter, Nicholas Klinefeldt and Stephanie Rose to be U.S. Attorneys. "

So justice IS dead when a criminal usurper rules the roost?

Brianroy said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Incredulous said...

So poor little Mercedes Costoya gets persecuted by Klinefeldt puppet…while Obama uses a fake social security number without consequence?

Private investigator Neil Sankey, using Intelius, Lexis Nexis, Choice Point and other public records, found around 25 Social Security numbers connected with Barack Obama’s name.

However, it may not be as many as 25, since Sankey also searched using closely related names such as: “Barak Obama,” “Batock Obama,” “Barok Obama,” and “Barrack Obama.” There may very well be some Kenyans living in America with the same last name and a similar first name. In any case, I will exclude these records for the purpose of this research and focus only on names spelled exactly like his name.

Moreover, we can verify many of the Social Security numbers as valid since they’re connected to addresses at which we know Obama resided. Needless to say, there are also a slew of address and social security numbers connected to addresses in states that Obama has no known connection to.

In Obama’s home state, Illinois, Sankey tracked down 16 different addresses for a Barack Obama or a Barack H. Obama, of which all are addresses he was known to have lived at. Two Social Security numbers appear for these addresses, one beginning with 042, and one starting 364.

Incredulous said...

In California, where Obama attended Occidental College, there are six addresses listed for him, all within easy driving distance of the college. However, there are three Social Security numbers connected to these addresses, 537 and two others, each beginning with 999, which are not valid SSNs.

There are no addresses listed in New York where he attended Columbia University, but there is one listed for him in nearby Jackson, NJ, with a Social Security number beginning with 485.

In Massachusetts — where Obama attended Harvard Law School — we find three addresses, all using the 042 Social Security number. After Obama was elected to the United States Senate in 2005, he moved into an apartment at 300 Massachusetts Ave NW; the Social Security number attached to that address is the 042 one. Yet, three years later, Obama used a different Social Security number for an address listed as: 713 Hart Senate Office Building. This was the address of his United States Senate office. This Social Security number began with 282 and was verified by the government in 2008.

This mystery grows even stranger as other addresses and Social Security numbers for Barack Obama appear in a dozen other states not known to be connected to him. Again, I am excluding those records names not spelled exactly like his name.

Tennessee, one address with a Social Security number beginning with 427

Colorado, one address, with a Social Security number beginning with 456.

Utah, two addresses, with two Social Security numbers beginning with 901 and 799.

Missouri has one address and one Social Security number beginning with 999.

Florida has two addresses listed for his him, three if you count one listed as “Barry Obama.” One is connected to a Social Security number beginning with 762.

In Georgia there are three addresses listed for him, all with different Social Security numbers: 579, 420, and 423.

In Texas there are four different addresses listed for him, one is connected to Social Security number 675.

There are two addresses listed for Barack Obama in Oregon and one address listed for him in the states of Wisconsin, Michigan, South Carolina, and Pennsylvania.

All told, there are 49 addresses and 16 different Social Security numbers listed for a person whose name is spelled “Barack Obama.” In some cases, the middle initial “H” is listed. If you were to expand the search to include closely related names such as: “Barac,” “Barak,” and “Barrack” Obama, you would find more than a dozen additional addresses and Social Security numbers.

Finally, the one Social Security number Obama most frequently used, the one beginning with 042, is a number issued in Connecticut sometime during 1976-1977, yet there is no record of Obama ever living or working in Connecticut. Indeed, during this time period Obama would have been 15-16 years old and living in Hawaii at the time.

Extracted from an article by Steve Baldwin. Read the whole thing here . . .

Susan Daniels, a second investigator filed an affidavit, with true and correct copies here, in the Barnett v. Obama case. Susan Daniels is a private investigator, licensed by the State of Ohio.

In her affidavit, Daniels states that she has located Barack Obama’s Social Security Number. She states it was issued between 1977 and 1979 in the State of Connecticut. She states that it is the only Social Security Number Barack Obama ever used.

The number assigned to Barack Obama “appears to be associated with someone born in the year 1890.”

Larry said...

@ Incredulous - One thing I can ABSOLUTELY PROVE is that one of the many former addresses listed in the databases I checked for info on "0" (the databases obtain info from official sources, not gossip and rumor), 1603 RUCKER Rd., Apharetta, Ga. 30009, is, and has been for a long time, a "safe house" for a very dangerous and well financed radical Islamic group. The "safe house" is very close to the recently established five acre "Islamic Center of North Fulton", 1255 RUCKER Rd., Alpharetta, GA 30009 (see road map on "Google Earth" and note proximity). As a former resident of Alpharetta and "insider", I was aware of the "safe house" long ago, but I never knew until today that there is/was a Usurper connection. Everyone in this nation should be shocked and angered to the core. This info proves "0" is DEFINITELY up to no good and he's a direct threat to national security, that's a FACT! He's dirtier than the nastiest pit under any outhouse! We the People shall not fail!

Incredulous said...

The bots mock in sarcasm, "gee these PIs are so much more talented than the FBI, they should go tell this to the FBI immediately lol"...etc...

So Obama's former address was a terrorist cell safe house and so do you think if the FBI knew they'd care? Holder certainly wouldn't, and he already does know.

When I heard Farrakhan boast about putting Obama in to"orbit" sacrificing himself as the rocket launcher, I knew I was right about this whole stinky mess from 2008 when Obama campaigned for Odinga who'd met with Qadaffi---as had Wright and Farrakhan---their BIG GOAL is something called Islamic USAfrica and also to impose marxism and sharia in the USA and just as it says in Black Liberation Theology, an al taqiya Christian front to steal black American Christians into Islam---they justify the killing of white people as righteous. Especially white christians. Obama got Odinga installed and Rice never said a word about the genocide...she and Powell put race over principle. Now Odinga is working to tear down the Kenyan constitution and impose sharia there and Obama's pushing for abortion currently outlawed in doubt for Kenyan Christians.
Obama is slime puss and I cannot believe the deafening silence from Washington's GOP over this!!

Incredulous said...
Leaked memo: Democrats plan to push through voter amnesty in 30 weeks time, Northrup Grumman is contractor...they don't care about what anyone says/thinks and they will not stop because they know otherwise they'll be voted out in November.
Once this genie is out of the bottle there's no putting it back.

Spaulding said...

As we accumulate and absorb historical evidence of the relevance of Law of Nations, rsxid at Free Republic has provided an amazing source from an essay written in 1904 about William and Mary professors.

Established in 1692 William and Mary followed the Oxford model, teaching classics, Greek and Latin. When James Madison became its President in 1779, he and Thomas Jefferson changed its charter, perhaps to better prepare graduates for leadership. That was when Jefferson eliminated the divinity schools and created a law school, medical curriculum and modern languages department. The law school curriculum was built around Wealth of Nations and Vattel's Law of Nations, taught by George Wythe to John Marshall and James Munroe, among many others.

Read for yourself before Google scrubs it:

Robert said...

A letter from Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas.

Dear Friend:

Thank you for contacting me regarding federal elections. I welcome your thoughts and comments.

Expressing our choice for President and Vice President is one of our most important rights as citizens of a free society. Voters like you who educate themselves on the issues and participate through voting and activism are vital to a robust democracy. Your continued participation in elections helps ensure that our nation’s Founding Fathers’ intentions for a self-governing people are fulfilled, and that America remains a beacon of liberty in the world.

In the run-up to the 2008 federal election and in its aftermath, many Texans have written to express their thoughts and concerns about the electoral process. Some have even raised concerns about the eligibility of candidates to serve in elected office under the Constitution. The courts and the Federal Elections Commission play a central role in determining the eligibility of candidates to serve in the offices they seek. You can be certain that I will continue to be vigilant in making sure that these institutions perform their critical role in overseeing fair and transparent elections.

Thank you for sharing your opinions, and for your participation in the electoral process. I hope you will not hesitate to keep in touch on any issue of concern to you.

Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator

284 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-5922 (tel)
202-224-0776 (fax)

It's great to know that Senator Hutchison will be vigilant in her attention to the courts and the Federal Elections Commission. I just wonder who on her staff is going to be vigilant towards her own responsibilities.

Senator Hutchison, like all of our Senators and Representatives, is fully informed of Mr. Obama's failure to meet constitutional standards. Their combined failure to respond in faith to their oath of office is a choice. I would like to know the reasons for the choice(s) they appear to have made.

It's about time we started to research exactly who has been in contact with all of these people behind the scenes. We need to discover exactly how they have been so thoroughly influenced to shirk their duty and betray the constitution and us.

In the meantime we need to become very active in removing from office all incumbents from both parties at every opportunity and replacing them with citizens loyal to the constitution.

Larry said...

@ Incredulous - The F.B.I. has known about the Alpharetta "safe house" for at least fifteen years. In 2000, "H. Rap Brown", aka "Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin" murdered a Fulton County Sheriff's deputy and seriously wounded another in Atlanta (both deputies were black). He first fled to the Alpharetta "safe house", but even though the F.B.I. found out he was there, they made no effort to apprehend him, they only kept watch on the house because he had used a .223 rifle (Ruger "Mini-14") with military armor piercing ammo to commit the murder and they didn't want to endanger the residents of the crowded neighborhood or the children in the VERY nearby parks. Without the F.B.I. noticing, he fled to Alabama and was soon thereafter apprehended (they believe he escaped by hiding in the trunk of a car that had been parked inside the garage). He was closely affiliated with a Sunni militant network known as 'Dar ul-Islam', "a group of mostly African-American converts to Islam, which seeks to establish a separate Sharia-law-governed state within the United States", according to F.B.I. reports. That house has a long history of harboring dangerous Muslim fugitives and it seems the F.B.I. could care less. If people only knew what evil lurks unnoticed right in their own neighborhoods, many would die of fright. The metro Atlanta area is FULL of evil militant Muslim groups.

cfkerchner said...

A Book Review - For Immediate Release - 14 May 2010

I have read Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. But if anyone wishes to learn more about Obama's use of the Alinsky Model for radical revolution from within, you should read David Horowitz's booklet. I just finished it. Only 51 pages but filled with eye opening insight into Obama from a former member of the far left, David Horowitz. Once a radical leftist he now works to reveal the truth about the Progressives goal to destroy the American system of government using Alinsky's tactics of "boring from within" ( Those 100,000 or so radical student SDS members of the 60s in colleges did not just disappear and give up. They are now inside ALL the systems of our nation ... academia, the media, government ... trying to destroy our Constitutional Republic from within ... like termites eating away at the foundation of a building. It's a vast network of radical student who stayed in touch with each other and that has now matriculated up the ladder and now has the power they so sought in the 60s to bring down the system. And using Alinsky's tactics and the Cloward-Piven Strategy they will. And they will succeed unless we wake up. This booklet is a real eye opener, even for one who had already previously read Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. This is a MUST READ for anyone who wants to understand Obama and why he does the things he does that seem to defy common sense to those not "in the know" of what he is up to. Read this short booklet and you will be "in the know" too. It only costs $3.00 and you can order it at this site:

Barack Obama's Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model | by David Horowitz

Please pass this along and post it in blogs that you frequent. This is a must read booklet for all concerned Americans.

CDR Charles Kerchner
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress

Squeeky said...

What I want to know is are we 100% sure about this? I need to know before I put it on my blog. I think Obama was born in Kenya, and that way he isn't a naturally born citizen.

But I asked my mother's lawyer about this when I was at his office and he said if Obama was born in Hawaii he was probably a natural citizen. I trust him, but it doesn't sound right, that somebody whose parents or maybe just one of them isn't an American is OK to be a president, but are we sure?

Dr. Taitz has it on her website too, and Ed Hale and the Post and E Mail. So I am probably going to go ahead and put it on my blog, too if everybody is sure?

Girl Reporter

Larry said...

@ Robert - Forget it, I can't believe anyone would put an ounce of faith in what Senators or Congressmen say. Senator Hutchison's letter may as well be a promise from a department store Santa Claus. The politicians will promise anything to get your vote and your money, but they'll never fulfill those promises. On Christmas morning, you'll awaken expecting to see the shiny new "Harley Davidson" "election process" Hutchison promised you sitting next to the tree, but instead, you'll find an old rusty bicycle with two flat tires. Don't believe one word the politicians tell you and NEVER vote for ANY incumbent! Have one of your friends write her regarding the same topic, I GUARANTEE your friend will receive a letter worded EXACTLY the same as the one you have - they're form letters that APPEAR to be replies written "just for you". In the late 90's, former Georgia Congressman Ben "Cooter" Jones (from the original "Dukes of Hazzard") called and asked me to meet him for breakfast near North Point Mall on a Saturday to discuss supporting him for Congress again. He'd had a taste of Washington, then he was voted out - he was just drooling for more. He smiled, shook my hand, leaned forward, then said "can you please help me go back to Congress?". I looked him dead in the eyes and loudly said "BEN JONES, you never kept ONE, NOT EVEN ONE, promise you made to me the first time you went to Congress, you can't be trusted. All I received out of the deal was one cheap plastic Congressional drinking cup. As far as I'm concerned, you're just an unemployed liar. You're already drinking and you haven't even had breakfast yet - don't you EVER call me again!" (my first wife used to just hate the way I fearlessly speak the truth to anyone and everyone, it embarrassed and frightened her. She thought it was "impolite" of me, I told her "telling the truth is NEVER 'impolite', it's just very uncomfortable for some folks to hear"). I thought Ben Jones was going to knock the door off the hinges running out of that restaurant. He was much better at acting than being a Congressman.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

This comment to my essay appeared at Free Republic:

"To: Red Steel
Mr. Smith, like so many television, radio, and print media commentators, editors, and journalist, is also ignorant of the fact that place of birth is only one part of the “natural born Citizen” test for Presidential eligibility

“Ignorant”?? Huh? I don’t think so! Mr. Smith is **knowingly** spreading DOJ disinformation. Mr.Smith is a willing operative in the process of TREASON!

To suggest that Mr. Smith is “ignorant” is being far far too kind!

7 posted on Friday, May 14, 2010 6:45:46 PM by wintertime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

I have therefore amended my essay to read:

"Mr. Smith, like so many television, radio, and print media commentators, editors, and journalist, is also probably deliberately failing to report the well-known fact that there is a valid constitutional argument that place of birth is only one part of the “natural born Citizen” test for Presidential eligibility."

Thank you wintertime.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Greg Goss said...

Also at FreeP

Meandering through my 1928 Edition of Bouvier's Law Dictionary on page 833, Native, Native Citizen is defined:

Those born in a country, of parents who are citizens.

If Obama does not meet the standards of a native citizen how can he be a natural born citizen.

jayjay said...

jSqueeky, Girl Reporter:

I suggest you get off your duff and read the many fine essays on why a nbC must be born of 2 US citizen parents on US soil along with the references to the several SCOTUS decisions saying the same thing.

Several of the essays by Mario Apuzzo and Charles Kerchner are both thorough AND informative snf there is sufficvient information for you there to amake up your own mind based upon factual information rather then relying on the MSM attacks.

Dixhistory said...

Mario and Charles the stuff by By Skylar Smith at the Daily Titan as Opinion Editor Published: May 09, 2010 is GARBAGE. He is brain dead or a troll. Since he can use a computer I think he is just trolling. As JayJay says anyone that wants to know the facts and can read can get the facts.

Below is what I posted. Late as I am upgrading to Win7

DixHistory says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

May 15, 2010 at 3:32 pm
Article. II. section I. clause 5. To be eligible for President; The United States: No person except a natural born Citizen or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, (grandfather clause) shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

Has the SCOTUS = Supreme Court of The United States, ever said what a natural born Citizen is, Yes they have!

SCOTUS 88 U.S. 162 Minor vs. Happersett Argued: February 9, 1875 — Decided: March 29, 1875 “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 it’s Citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or Natural Born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Off site to source record, clause 9.

President of the United States = POTUS You have to be A Constitutional Natural Born Citizen = NBC to be POTUS. Quick read on Obama being a dual citizen at best! Obama is ineligible to hold the office of president based solely on the fact that at best he only had dual citizenship at his birth. A fact which obama has admitted on his campaign website and in his book. He also described himself as “native citizen not the same as when the founders used Natives”( Obama means if he was born in HI then he is a native of that state.) rather than the natural born Citizen required by the US Constitution to be eligible for the office of President of these United States. He plainly states his citizenship at the time of his birth was that of his father, British! Obama Sr. was British at the time Obama was born where ever that was. Once he ponys up real records to a court of standing then he has a right to say native born if he was born in HI as he says.

Yet Obama II says Obama Sr. was never any type of US Citizen. Obama II states his own citizenship was that of his father Obama Sr. as does the Law both here in the States and in England. These are Obama’s facts and the law. You look and read these source records. No way is obama II a legal POTUS. Obama the Dual Citizen at best then lacks legal authority to be POTUS! This is not about a Birth Certificate or a born citizen! We know he is not eligible. It is about our U. S. Constitution being selectively enforced or not being enforced at all. The problem is how do we make those now in power yield to the rule of our just laws?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Ross Dolan of The Daily Republic on Friday, May 15, 2010, interviewed Eleanor Nordyke. The interview may be read at Mrs. Nordyke makes some outlandish statements, accusing “birthers” of being motivated by racism and money in pursuing the Obama eligibility issue. On the birth certificate numbers, she said: “‘My daughters’ birth certificates were 10637 and 10638, and Obama’s was 10641, so his mother must have come in after I did,’ Nordyke said, though she never met Obama’s mother.” This statement clearly shows her bias for Obama. It makes no sense to believe that birth certificates would have been issued before a baby was born and that the numbers were even issued at the hospital. Nevertheless, Mrs. Nordyke did make some important concessions. She admitted that she would have been in the same maternity ward as Obama’s mother if she was there at Kapi’olani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital (now called Kapi’olani Medical Center) on Friday, August 4, 1961; while one would not reasonably expect her to remember who was with her in the maternity ward, she did say that she never saw Obama’s mother in the maternity ward while she was there; and that even though there were only five obstetricians at the time of Obama’s birth and that her late husband, Dr. Robert Nordyke, was an internal medicine specialist at Honolulu’s Straub Clinic, she does not know the name of the doctor who allegedly delivered Obama in that hospital at that time. One would think that the doctor who delivered the President of the United States would be very famous and would be well-known within the families of doctors in Honolulu. I cannot think of any reason why the name of the doctor who delivered a President of the United States should be a secret and not even known by the medical community. Yet, Mrs. Nordyke states she does not know who the doctor is. What is also telling about this interview is that our nation’s so-called journalists have to resort to relying on the memory of a clearly biased and probably coached person to prove that Obama was born in Kapi’olani Medical Center rather than a simple contemporaneous birth certificate from 1961.

Incredulous said...*Ljbc8CSnje0MYM2Bdg3xAjFurOjcXzPV7pdQyu86pzavbZClRETvRvUcYbqWITRQeZeUYTixy9X61f/ObameBirthCert.jpg?width=715&height=600

Regarding this birth certificate, and the COLB on fightthesmears...Hawaii is not respecting its own laws to "verify" "any record" under section 338.

So how do you get them to comply when they just ignore? Can you copy these walk in with your $5 and say "does Hawaii verify either one of these?" Will they chase you out with German Shepards?

cfkerchner said...

Ten Mental Mistakes of Obamatons

CDR Kerchner

cfkerchner said...

Enemies within the Patriot Movement

CDR Kerchner

Jonah said...

Barack Obama's half brother, Mark Ndesandjo, who is an American citizen, spent most of his childhood in Kenya before moving to the U.S. to go to college and work in telecommunications and marketing. He has a bachelor's degree from Brown University in physics and a master's degree in the same subject from Stanford University. He also earned an MBA from Emory University in Atlanta.

Alpharetta is a suburb of Atlanta, GA.

If you can't access the AOL article

Try and search Mark Ndesandjo.

Addresses include.....

Mountain View, CA
Palo Alto, CA
San Francisco, CA
Orlando, FL
Alpharetta, GA***
Atlanta, GA
Bayonne, NJ
Sussex, NJ

Larry said...

@ Jonah - If everyone knew all the facts about the Usurper and his family, the revolution would begin within an hour.

Incredulous said...

Jonah, I've always thought that Mark was his OLDER brother since he looks older and hides his birthdate, and he looks like Obama so much...I think Ruth was his this is just speculation but can you find Mark's graduation dates?

Mr. Apuzzo: Is there a way to force Hawaii to abide its own laws?

Jonah said...

You can find some info here.

search for
Mark Ndesandjo

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Our genius media mocks the so-called "birthers," saying that Obama has alrady produced his "birth certificate" for the world to see. They add that the Hawaii Department of Health has also confirmed the authenticity of Obama's "birth certificate" and claim.

Anyone who is knowledgeable with this issue knows that Obama only "produced" in 2008 a computer image of a 2007Certification of Live Birth (COLB). They also know that the problem is not with what Hawaii's health officials have said but with what they have not told us.

Anyone who is only relying on the fact that Hawaii officials do not say that Obama was born in any place other than Hawaii is missing the point which is what sufficient and credible proof exists that Obama was born in Hawaii. Fukino's statements and even an authenticated COLB are legally insufficient for proving that Obama was born in Hawaii, for they merely represent that Obama's alleged birth record is on file in the state of Hawaii. They are insufficient to confirm that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii. Neither Fukino's statements nor the COLB offer any information regarding who supplied the information that is the basis of any alleged birth certificate nor do they confirm the authenticity of the information provided by that unknown person. Again, Fukino's statements and the COLB merely indicate that birth information is “on file," but we do not know who provided the information or whether that information is authentic. In short, we do not know what evidence Hawaii is relying on to simply say that he was born in Hawaii. If the underlying root "evidence" is fraudulent, then anything Hawaii says is of no value and surely not evidence that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii. In other words, in such a case, Hawaii would be picking fruit from a poisonous tree.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Additionally, Fukino, as the Director of a state's health department, has no legal authority or competence to be declaring Obama an Article II "natural born Citizen." Given that Congress refused to address this question despite its constitutional duty to qualify the President under the Twentieth Amendment, this is now a constitutional question which only a court of competent jurisdiction and eventully the United States Supreme Court can answer.

Georgetown said...

BO was born in Kenya, Even his grandmother has testified to this fact:

“This is a show of blessing from God, since I have always dedicated my time to tend to the orphans. Even the US president passed through my hands,”

Grandmother was not in Hawaii when Bo was born, passing through her hands.

Larry said...

Mr. Apuzzo, If you should find the time, will you please edit and clarify the "natural born Citizen" page for Wikipedia? It does not appear to be correct and it is definitely a confusing mess. Thank you, Sir.

Incredulous said...

medical, even if he corrects it, it will get deleted/censored by the bots that haunt that. The only changes that I've been able to get into Wikipedia are surreptitiously planted in not-obvious links, but anything about matter your link or argument or reference, it does not matter, they will out-persevere you on it!! Wiki is crap! Another of their censorship efforts is against candidates (in particular Allen West) they will not allow any depiction of this man's true facts.

Greg Goss said...

I chase these blogs around the internet and try to educate but this one came into my email this afternoon and when I read it I just shock my head and said to myself, This one is not worth the effort.

As a great old talk show host use to say after a weird call..."Their out there"

Larry said...

My blood has soaked this Earth many times in support of my precious nation. I bear physical and emotional wounds which shall never heal. For the Usurper to threaten all that so many have fought and died to build and defend and to see arrogant, fat, and lazy Congressmen resting upon their fluffy satin pillows while ignoring the eligibility issue defies all logic and reason. Many of my closest friends are now stars on a wall above the "Book of Honor" - and to what purpose? So a Kenyan Usurper could undermine and destroy our nation? He shall never succeed, so help me God! God bless all the "Stars", I miss each and every one of you TRUE American Heroes, your word was your bond, your hearts were forever true to the red white and blue! Though the Earth has swallowed you up, you live on in the hearts and minds of many. How many times I have heard the mournful sound of "Taps" played by a bugler? How many thousands of tears have poured down my face and soaked my clothing? How many times have I wondered "why him and not me"? How many United States flags folded into triangles have I seen ceremoniously passed to grieving mothers, wives, or children who have lost so much? Those who do not courageously stand and fight the Usurper and his lies are not patriots, they are merely freeloading and joyriding upon the blood of patriots! GOD BLESS AMERICA, WE SHALL PREVAIL!

jayjay said...


Well said ...

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Here is more nonsense reporting by our nation’s newspaper editors on the question of Obama’s birthplace:

“Proving the power of the Internet, mistaken belief and conspiracy theorists in every ZIP code, “birthers” believe Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii. This even though Hawaiian officials repeatedly have confirmed the president’s citizenship; his birth certificate has been made public; and two Honolulu newspapers published his birth announcement.

The New York Times, the country’s “newspaper of record,” on Friday published a copy of Obama’s “Certification of Live Birth” from Aug. 4, 1961, naming Honolulu as his hometown, his parents and that he was born at 7:24 p.m.”


“ ‘Enough is enough; the state of Hawaii is saying ‘no’ to birthers,’ ” said one state official. “ ‘We have more pressing demands of our workers’ time. The question has been answered,’ ” said Dr. Chiyonne Fukino, the state’s health director. “ ‘Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born American citizen.’ ”

Montrose Daily Press, May 20, 2010

This editorial raises a much more important message which lies hidden. This is an editorial and one would think that the editor would mount an all-out attack to prove his or her point. What is important to ponder is that after almost two years of public trashing of the Obama birthplace issue, the 2008 alleged electronic on-line image of an alleged 2007 Certification of Live Birth (a COLB which is not a Certificate of Live Birth that contains the name of the birth hospital and delivery doctor), the two 1961 newspaper announcements, and what some Hawaii officials say in 2009 and 2010 is the only evidence provided by our nation’s editors and political leaders on the question of where Obama was born. So let us review. What evidence do we currently have which sufficiently proves where Obama was born? We have an unconfirmed 2008 computer image of an inconclusive COLB which some experts maintain is a forgery, two unsubstantiated 1961 newspaper announcements which do not tell us the source of the birth information stated therein, and some hearsay statements made by Hawaii officials in 2009 and 2010 which all together and by themselves do not conclusively prove that Obama was born in Hawaii. We also have a desperate appeal to the authority of the New York Times thrown in as “evidence” to boot.

What our editors and many political leaders fail to understand (unwittingly or intentionally) is that this evidence does not tell us who with personal knowledge and/or what (some physical piece of evidence) existing in 1961 (called contemporaneous evidence) says or shows that Obama was born in Hawaii at that time. What makes matters worse is that these same leaders have not taken Obama to task for his hiding his personal papers from the American public (original 1961 birth certifiate and travel, work, and education documents). That is a lot to think about. What ever happened to America’s intelligence? The manner in which our nation’s leaders have addressed the Obama birthplace issue is shocking given that we are supposed to be concerned with properly vetting and identifying the to-be President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Military before we entrust him or her with the survival and preservation of our nation and the free world.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
May 20, 2010

cfkerchner said...

A Must Read Book about Obama & Backers Disinformation, Misinformation, and Ideological Indoctrination "techniques" being used to control the American people with an enabling lame stream media. This is the next level of mind control of the American People beyond Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals as taught by the KGB and other intelligence covert operations organizations:

White House Special Handbook, or How to Rule the World in the 21st Century | by Mikhail Kryzhanovsky (former KGB agent)

CDR Kerchner

cfkerchner said...

Re-posted here on behalf of ConstitutionallySpeaking. This had to be cut into parts/pieces due to its length. The Editor.

Part I

The following correspondence will explain the reason of the changes recently made by the Secretary of State in the diplomatic instructions in reference to the law of citizenship, domicile and marriage:

Law Bureau, May 1, 1885.

To the Honorable the Secretary of State:

Sir: I beg to call your attention to two sections in oar Consular Regulations and in our Diplomatic Instructions, which call for grave consideration. In our Consular Regulations we have the following: __________________________________________________

In reference to the first point of change, distinctly set forth in page 4 of Dr. Wharton's report, and in further support of it you will find that Vattel, in his Law of Nations, book 1, ch. 19, p. 101, fully sustains it; and further, in book 2, ch. 8, p. 17-'!. Our own Supreme Court has of late years announced the same doctrine, with a clearness and force that cannot be misunderstood. Carlisle v. United States, 10 Wall. 147; and still more recently in the case of Radich v. Hutching, 95 U. S. 210.

The other change suggested by Dr. Wharton in these regulations as stated in his report, p. 7, touching "the domicile of children of citizens of the United States born abroad," is based upon principles that are as universally recognized and established as the first ohange already discussed ; and I call your attention to Savigny on Private International Law, pp. 50-7. Our Supreme Court at a very early date, before the case in 3 Peters referred to by Dr. Wharton recognized this principle, and quoted all the leading authorities then known to the profession in the case of McJlvaine v. Coxe's Lessee, 4 Cranch, 209 (1808). Again, in the year 1817, in the case of The Dos Hermanos, 2 Wheat. 76; and in 1852, in Ennis v. Smith, 14 How. 400; in Jones v. Afo-Waster, 20 id. 8; in White v. llurnley, id. 235; in Mitchell v. United Slates, 21 Wall. 350; and in Desinare v. United Slates, 93 U. 8. 605; but more recently, and yet with more emphasis if possible, in the case of Lamar v. Mieou, 112 id.
continued ...

cfkerchner said...

Re-posted here on behalf of ConstitutionallySpeaking. This had to be cut into parts/pieces due to its length. The Editor.

Part II
Authorities as to domicile of children bom abroad to Americans.

Mr. Dicey, an authoritative English cotemporary writer and a member of the Institute of International Law, in a treatise on the Law of Domicil, published in London iu 1879, thus speaks:

" Every person received at (or as from) birth a domicil of origin. (1) In the case of a legitimate infant born during his father's life-time, the domicil of origin of the infant is the domicil of the father at tbe time of his birth. * * * The domicil of every deprudent, person is the same as, and changes (if at all) with the domioil of the person on whom he is, as regards his domioil, legally dependent." Pp. 4, 5.

"A domicil cannot be acquired by a dependent person through his own act. P. 106."

Mr. Westlake, a leading English author on Private International Law, in the 2d ed. of his work on Private International law, says:

" Section 233. The original domicil of a child born in wedlock to a living father is the domicil of its father at the time of its birth.

"Section 237. The domicil of a legitimate or legitimated unmarried minor follows that of his or her father."

Mr. Hall (International Law, Oxford, 1880, p. 188) after a recapitulation of the law of different countries (in which he gives an erroneous statement of the law in the United States), says:

"From the foregoing sketch of the various laws of nationality, it may be concluded that the more important States reoognize, with a very near approach to unanimity, that the child of a foreigner ought to be allowed to be himself a foreigner, unless he manifests a wish to assume or retain the nationality of the State in which he has been born."

"La definition la plus exacte,d noire avis,a ite, donnee par lejuge des Etats-unis Hush, lorsqu'il dit que la domicile est ime residence dans un lieu particnlier accompagnee de preuves positives ou presutnees de Vintention de s'y fixer pendant un temps illimiti.

"Le domicile de V enfant est celui de ses parents on de ceux qui les remplacent suivant la loi." Manuel de Droit International Public et Pi-ive. JPtir M. Charles Calvo. Paris, 1882, pp. 211, 212.

The late Professor Blunschll, in an article in the " Revue de droit int." for 1870, p. 107, states the rule as follows:

"Legitimate children acquire by their birth the nationality of their father; nor does it matter whether they were born at home or abroad."

Sir It. Phillimore (International Law, IV, 589, p. 73), thus speaks:

"XC. (a) The domioil of the legitimate uuemancipated minor who is notsui juris, and whose will therefore cannot conour with the fact of his residence, is the domicil of the father, or of the mother during widowhood, or—though it will be seen this is a disputed point—of the legally appointed guardian.

"XCI. It is an undisputed position of all jurists,that of his own accord, proprio morte (to borrow the expressionof Bynkershock), theminor cannot change his domicil. In our own country this maxim was enunciated by Lord Alvanley, master of the rolls, in the case of Somerville v. Somerville, and in America, in the oase of Outer v. 0'Daniel.

"It should seem, from all analogy, to follow that such change may be effected by the parents or guardians of the minor."
continued ...

cfkerchner said...

Re-posted here on behalf of ConstitutionallySpeaking. This had to be cut into parts/pieces due to its length. The Editor.

Part III
To the same effect is Morse on Citizenship, 13, 141.

Iu Udny v. Udny, L. It., 1 Sc. App. 444, it was held that the Hiatus of a child as to legitimacy is determined by the laws of his father's domicil at the time of the child's birth. The distinction between civil status and political status is thus put iu this case by Lord Westbury:

"The law of England, and of almost all civilized countries, ascribes to each individual at his birth two distinct legal states or conditions; one by virtue of which he becomes the subjeot of some particular country, binding him by the tie of natural allegiance, and whioh may bo called his politioal status; another, by virtue of whioh he has ascribed to him the character of a citizen of some particular country; and as such is

possessed of certain municipal rights, and subject to certain obligations, which latter charaoter is the civil status or oondition of the individual, and may be quite different from his political status. The political status may be dependent on different laws in different countries; whereas the civil status is governed universally by one single principle, namely, that of domicil, which is the criterion established by law for the purpose of determining civil stains. For it is on this basis that tho personal rights of the party, that is to say, the law which determines his majority or minority, his marriage, succession, testaoy, or intestacy, must depend. International law depends on rules which, being in great measure derived from the Roman law, are common to the jurisprudence of all civilized nations. It is a settled principle that no man shall be without a domicil, and to secure this result, the law attributes to every individual as soon as he is born the domicil of his father, if
the child be legitimate, and the domicil of the mother if illegitimate. This has been called the domicil of origin, and is involuntary. Other domicils including domicil by operation of law, as ou marriage, are domicils of choice. For as soon as an individual is sui juris it is competent to elect and assume another domicil, the continuance of him to which depends upon his will and act. When another domicil is put ou, the domicil of origin is for that purpose relinquished, and remains in obeyance during the continuance of the domicil of choice; but as the domicil of origiu is the creature of law, and independent of the will of the party, it would be inconsistent with the principles on which it is by law created and ascribed, to suppose that it is capable of being by the act of the party entirely obliterated and extinguished. It revives and exists whenever there is no other domicil, and it does not require to be regained or reconstituted animo et facto, in the manner which is necessary
for the acquisition of a domicil of choice.

• ♦ • •
continued ...

cfkerchner said...

Re-posted here on behalf of ConstitutionallySpeaking. This had to be cut into parts/pieces due to its length. The Editor.

Part IV
In Ludlam v. Lntllam, 26 N. Y. 356 (1883), it appeared that Richard L. Ludlam, a citizen of the United States domiciled in New York, went at the age of eighteen to Peru for business purposes, but took no steps toward naturalization iu Peru, or toward a permanent change of domicil. He remained iu Peru fourteen years and when in Peru married a Peruvian woman, who also was a native of that country. A child was born to him iu Peru. This child was held by the Court of Appeals to be a citizen of the United States, domiciled in New York. From the opinion of the court which was delivered by Selden, J., the following passages are extracted.

"It seems to me to result of necessity from these principles, that the children of English parents, though born abroad, are nevertheless regarded by the common law as natural born citizens of England. The decision upon the plea in Calvin's case, which was merely repeating what was decided in Cobbledike's case, as early as the reign of Edw.I, see Calvin's case, p. 9 b., necessarily implies that a child may owe allegiance to the king (f. e., not merely local or temporary, but natural and permanent allegiance), although born out of the king's dominions; nnd also that this was a broad general rule, not confined to a few exceptional cases, because if this was an exception the plea could not have been held bad on demurrer, as it was in both Cobbledike's and Calvin s cases; but the exception must have been pleaded."

"Now, upon what ground cau allegiances in such cases be olaimed ? If natural allegiance or allegiance by birth, does not depend upon boundaries or place, as Calvin's case asserts, upon what does it depend? There cau be but one answer to the question. It is impossible to suggest auy other ground for the obligatiou than that of parentage. It must, I apprehend, be transmitted from the parents to the child, or it could not exist. This being then the nature of permanent allegiance, it follows that the king of England may properly claim allegiance from the children of his subjects, wherever born. If then the child of English parents, though born abroad, is subditus natus a born subject of the king, he must also be a born citizen of the kingdom. Allegiance and citizenship are as we have seen, correlative terms, the one being the consideration of the other. So long therefore as the parents continue to owe allegiance to the crown of England, so long will their children, by the rules of the
common law, whether born within or without the kingdom, owe similar allegiance, and be entitled to the corresponding rights of citizenship.
continued ...

cfkerchner said...

Re-posted here on behalf of ConstitutionallySpeaking. This had to be cut into parts/pieces due to its length. The Editor.

Part V
* * * *

" I suppose the doctrine that ohildren, if legitimate, follow in regard to their political rights and duties,the condition of their fathers, to be found in natural law, and to be substantially the same in most, if not all, civilized countries. Vattel says: " Society not being able to subsist and perpetuate itself, but by the children of its citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers and succeed to all their rights." B. 1, ch. 19, S 212. In a subsequent action the same author says: " It is asked whether the ohildren born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens, the laws have deoided this question in several countries, and it is neoessary to follow their regulatious. By the. law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights. The place of birth produces no change in this particular, and canuot of itselt furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given, him. 1 say of itself, for the
civil law, or politics, may order oUierwise from particular views. Id., § 215.

" It is shown by Vice Chancellor Sandford, in Lynch v. Clark, 1 Saudf. Ch. 583, 675, that the law of France, Spain, and Portugal is in accordance with this doctrine, by express enactment it is true, as it is now in England and in this country. But the uniformity goes to show that it is founded upon a law of nature, and of course prevails in every country, unless, as Vattel says, it is changed from the municipal law'from particular views.' ______________________________________________________

State v. Adams, 45 Iowa, 99 (1876), was a suit brought to determine whether Adams, the defendant, was a citizen of the United States and of the State of Iowa, the object being to test his right to hold the office of the mayor of the town of Avoca. The following passages are extracted from the opinion of Seevers, C. J.: " The right of the defendant to hold the office in question depends upon the fact, whether or not he was a citizen of the United States and State of Iowa. The Circuit Court made the following finding of facts:

" 1st. That the defendant's paternal grandfather was born in Connecticut in the year 1764, and from there emigrated to Canada, in the year 1790, with the intention of making Canada his permanent domioil, and that he remained in Canada until his death in the year 1838.

"2d. That the defendant's father was born in Canada in the year 1795, and resided there until the year 1834.

"3d. That the defendant was born in Canada in the year 1834, and during the same year came with his father to the United States, where tbey have ever since resided.

"4th. The defendant has resided in the State of Iowa over sinoe its admission into the Union, and in the town of Avoca, for the two years last past.

"5th. That the defendant's father, while a resident iii Canada, served in the Canada militia in the war of 1812, but that such services were involuntary on his part.

"6th. That in the year 1875, the defendant's father received of the Canadian government a bounty of f20 for such services.

"7th. That neither tho defendant nor his father has ever been naturalized under the laws of the United States for the naturalization of aliens.

* * » *
continued ...

cfkerchner said...

Re-posted here on behalf of ConstitutionallySpeaking. This had to be cut into parts/pieces due to its length. The Editor.

Part VI
* * » *

"We are of the opinion that defendant's grandfather, at the time he removed to Canada, in 1790, was and had been for several years a citizen of this country, and that he remained such notwithstanding his removal to and subsequent death in Canada. In this conclusion we are sustained,we the following authorities: Calais v. Marshfield, 30 Me. 411; Peck v. Young, 26 Wend. 612; Inalisv. Trustees Sailor's Snug Ilarbor, 3 Pet. 99. "The father of plaintiff was born in Canada, in 1795,at which time his father, as we have seen, was a citizen of this country. Ordinarily the citizenship of the child at its birth is determined by that of the father. If there be a doubt as to this principle, it must be regarded as removed by the act of Congress passed in 1802, which provides, * * * 'children of persons who now are, or havo been citizens of the United States shall, though bom out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens thereof.' Rev. Stat. U. S., §
2172. "This language clearly aud unmistakably includes the plaintiff's father, and he thereby (if not otherwise) became entitled to all the [rights of oitizenship.

END of Re-post on behalf of ConstitutionallySpeaking

Brianroy said...

CF Kerchner,
You may wish to review the US Supreme Court audio arguments in
2001's Nguyen v. INS:

"Justice Ginsburg: Mr. Kneedler, if Congress went back to the way it when was everything was determined by the father's citizenship, go back before 1934, suppose Congress accepts your argument or we accept your argument and say plenary power, they can do whatever they damn please, so they say children born abroad of fathers who are U.S. citizens can become U.S. citizens, but not children who are born abroad of U.S. citizen mothers where the father is an alien.

That's the way it used to be in the bad old days.

I take it from your argument if Congress wanted to go back to that, it would not offend anything in the U.S. Constitution to do so."

The transcript and tape is available at:

And don't forget to read the Nguyen v. INS decision @ 54 and 62.

Obama Sr.'s paternity was allegedly validated in divorce proceedings by Ann Dunham-Obama when Barack Jr. was but an infant (allegedly). The Divorce records are currently missing any Birth Certificate or bona fide Citizenship establishment of Barack Jr.

In the two passages of US Supreme Court Nguyen v. INS decision @ 54 and 62, we see that Obama is
(in my opinion and belief) required by Supreme Court Law to produce his Long Form Birth Certification showing WITNESSES to the birth, and the computer fraud his campaign produced is ILLEGAL and UNACCEPTABLE based on Supreme Court Law.

@ 62: "The mother's status is documented in most instances by the birth certificate or hospital records AND THE WITNESSES who attest to her having given birth." [emphasis mine]

Those pro-Obama editors, like that in the Primary Article we are commenting my opinion, are primarily either intentionally illiterate or intentionally idealogues pursuing
the ostentacious promulgation of
dishonesty with all the fervor of an archilochean thespian dreaming of winning some kind of a recognition award from their profession, and all the adulations, notoriety, and prestige that accompanies such within their profession by those mobs who have lost their senses of reality in favor of the fictional re-concept that has been newly created for the masses as escapism.

In effect, believing Obama is an US NBC, is a form of insanity that accompanies those who envelop themselves in escapisms to define their differently than some overly zealous Trekkies and what have you.