Wednesday, May 12, 2010

A TRUE ENIGMA by Pixel Patriot

by Pixel Patriot

[Reprinted here with a hat tip for the graphics to the]

On the one hand it would appear as though Barack Hussein Obama was swept to victory in the 2008 presidential election carried by the optimistic auspices of change with 365 electoral votes, a margin of 52.9%; while on the other hand the apparent victory is illusory.

For even though he is occupying the White House and performing the duties of the President of the United States, he can never erase the fact that he was ineligible for the position to begin with.

Take for example….


H20 and gravity are not concepts; they exist within the "Laws of Nature". H20 exists in nature as 3 common states of matter; water, ice and vapor. You might find yourself parched with thirst and desiring a drink of water; yet the "Laws of Nature" say NO, because it is below 32 degrees Fahrenheit / 0 degrees Celsius and the glass frozen to your hand is full of ice. Therefore, the fulfillment of your desire is predicated on the fundamental properties as they exist, which are existential, defined…LAW.

The universal constructs governing gravity where every particle of matter attracts every other particle with a force that is directly proportional to the product of the masses of the particles and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them is not a fanciful concept; it is a "Law of Nature". You can't see gravity, but you know it exists because its effects can be quantified, measured and observed. And gravity existed before mathematicians created the symbols for the equations used to express the nature of its law.

The "Laws of Nature" were in effect before their definitions were constituted. Just as the planets have always orbited the sun, mankind previously believed our solar system orbited the earth until we were enlightened with the knowledge of the TRUTH which is empirical.

The bedrock of our society is that the Founding Fathers codified the precept of the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" (LONANG) into our nation's founding documents. It is in the very first paragraph of THE Declaration of Independence:

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
Just as the Founding Fathers declared certain rights endowed by the Creator to be unalienable, so too they also proclaimed and set forth as self-evident the "Laws of Nature" are immutable.

It is therefore of no consequence that the Founding Fathers would draw upon Emmerich de Vattel's treatise "The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)"

At the time of their writing the Constitution in 1787, the founders were not so quick to forget the bloody revolution this nation endured so as to sever the bonds of a tyrannical government that they would not institute a safeguard to prevent a subject of England from once again enslaving them. It is with great foresight that the Framers affixed a three-tiered security measure to thwart such an occurrence. They looked to Vattel's "The Law of Nations" when they set forth the limitations reserved for the sole position of the leader of the nation and commander in chief of the military forces. In Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, only a "natural born Citizen" is eligible to be President of 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, 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.
This precaution precluded dual allegiance. It is not a discretionary right.


And lest you dismiss Vattel as just some ol' Swiss philosopher:

Article 1, section 8 defines the powers of Congress…

"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;"

Barack Hussein Obama by his own admission was a British subject at birth.

"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom's dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.'s children."
Patrimonial lineage was not a quaint notion at the time the founders wrote into law the protections of the nation. It was well established, and evidence for such discourse can also be found as early as 1640 in Thomas Hobbes' "The Elements of Law Natural and Politic" where Hobbes states:
". . . every man by the law of nature, hath right or propriety to his own body, the child ought rather to be the propriety of the mother (of whose body it is part, till the time of separation)than of the father . . ."
Vattel unequivocally defines "natural born Citizen" as:

{those born in the country, of parents who are citizens}

Book 1, Chapter XIX
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
"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."

John Jay, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, President of the Continental Congress from 1778 to 1779 and, from 1789 to 1795, the first Chief Justice of the United States so poignantly acknowledges the singular point which lies at the heart of this issue in his letter to George Washington, the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention on July 25, 1787.
Jay wrote:
"Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."
In the writings of another great jurist, Chief Justice John Marshall, we find the nexus of the natural born Citizen issue incontrovertibly answered. As Chief Justice for 34 years, John Marshall had a profound impact on the Supreme Court and its balance of power with the other two branches of government whereby judicial review was a recognized instrument used to strike down laws that violate the Constitution.

Chief Justice John Marshall writes:
"Naturalization, under the laws of the United States, confers upon the subject of it all the rights and privileges of a native citizen, excepting that of becoming president of the United States."
"A naturalized citizen is indeed made a citizen under an act of Congress, but the act does not proceed to give, to regulate, or to prescribe his capacities. He becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national Legislature, is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual. The constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the Courts of the United States, precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue. He is [*828] distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen, except so far as the constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none."
- Osborn v. President, Directors & Co. of Bank, 22 U.S. 738, 828 (U.S. 1824)
The significance of the fact that Marshall issues the warning that {the constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights} cannot be understated. Secondly, the opinion lays the foundation for subsequent cases addressing "natural born Citizen" status including United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) where the 14th Amendment confers "citizenship" status while never granting "natural born Citizen" status. And thirdly, the opinion is important because it reminds Congress that they must not breach the explicit boundaries set forth in the Tenth Amendment.


On Thursday April 15th, 2010; U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas told a House subcommittee that when it comes to determining whether a person born outside the 50 states can serve as U.S. president, the high court is "evading" the issue.

Let us take JUDICIAL NOTICE on how Chief Justice Marshall weighs in on this one:
"It is most true that this court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be TREASON to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one."
- Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821)

It looks as though there is plenty of blame to go around. While it appears that no one wants to address the issue of Obama's ineligibility, Congress actually already has. Numerous attempts have been made to redefine the term natural born Citizen with a flurry in just the last few years, as outlined below or here.



Ignorantia juris non excusat or Ignorantia legis neminem excusat

Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses no one", which is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because he or she was unaware of its content.

When Nancy Pelosi signed the OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION OF NOMINATION's for the DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, she became party to conspiracy to commit fraud. In the state of Hawaii the certification explicitly proclaims that the candidates were "legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution" yet simultaneously on the same day before the same signed witnesses, Pelosi signed certifications for the other states that merely say the candidates were "duly nominated". Which is it Nancy? Either they are…or they're not.

A copy of the certification issued from the office of the Federal Election Commission in the State of Georgia can be viewed below or here.

2008 DNC Presidential nomination certificate without constitutionally eligible provision - Georgia
2008 DNC Presidential nomination certificate with constitutionally eligible provision - Hawaii
Therefore, Nancy either knows Barack Obama was not eligible and had the wording "eligible" removed from the certifications in states where it legally wasn't required in order to mitigate her liability (fraud), or she intended all along to swear under oath if necessary that she "can't recall" ceremoniously signing the candidates were actually vetted. You be the judge.

OBOTS & JINO (Journalists In Name Only)

For Anderson Cooper, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck and all of you OBOTS, the musings of Thomas Hobbes eloquently illustrates your syndrome:
"There is a fault of the mind called by the Greeks Amathia, which is INDOCIBILITY, or difficulty of being taught; the which must needs arise from a false opinion that they know already the truth of that which is called in question. For certainly men are not otherwise so unequal in capacity as the evidence is unequal of what is taught by the mathematicians, and what is commonly discoursed of in other books: and therefore if the minds of men were all of white paper, they would almost equally be disposed to acknowledge whatsoever should be in right method, and right ratiocination delivered unto them. But when men have once acquiesced in untrue opinions, and registered them as authentical records in their minds; it is no less impossible to speak intelligibly to such men, than to write legibly upon a paper already scribbled over. The immediate cause therefore of indocibility, is prejudice; and of prejudice, false opinion of our own knowledge."

It takes uncommon valor to disobey unlawful orders originating at the very top of the chain of command…the Commander-in-Chief.

These are true American heroes not soon to be forgotten:

Cmdr. Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., USNR (Ret.)
Lt. Cmdr.Walt Fitzpatrick III USN (Ret.)
Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin
Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook
Capt. Connie Rhodes
1st Lt. Scott Easterling

They swore a solemn oath:
"I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."
(DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
These patriots have remained true to their loyalty.


Because Barack Hussein Obama has refused to validate his authority to hold the office of the President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief, all laws he has signed will one day be overturned and become null and void. The epic saga comprising the period of Obama's presidency will forever be overshadowed by the unprecedented legal struggles he beset upon this country.


On April 23, 1775 King George III of Great Britain declared, "The die is now cast. The colonies must either submit or triumph". A defining moment seen as a turning point for the fate of a nation because the King would refuse to negotiate compromises that might have averted, or at least forestalled, the American Revolution.

Lo the die has been cast … either the Constitution is the law of the land, or it is not. As more and more Patriots hear the words "All Rise" and then do so only to be told we have no standing, a reckoning will assuredly occur. The citizens beholden to this "unchecked power known as tyranny" will one day Rise Up en masse and the courts will see that "We The People" truly do have "Standing".

Pixel Patriot


Mick said...

That is one of the best summations that I have seen. Of course the JINO will completely ignore and ridicule it. We are being taught a very big lesson about becoming to complacent with our liberty. There has never been a more treasonous 3 headed dog of Politicians, Media, and Wallstreet to operate within our borders. I cry for my country and my children, and I rage against the dying of the Light.

Dixhistory said...



Squeeky said...

This is a good article! It answers my question about whether everything is NULL AND VOID or not.

Girl Reporter

Incredulous said...

Mr. Apuzzo, what if someone challenged something from Chester Arthur's era? I think I'd read a long time ago that there was some Indian tribe that had done something like that, because Chester Arthur made a lot of land designations in his time as usurper, and this tribe was challenging these dictates today. I will try to see if I can find the basis for this tidbit. But really, every appointee/law emanating from Arthur's tenure...aren't those open for challenge today? And if nothing is challenged does that set precedent?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


The question of what is valid or not of what a President acted upon during his illegitimate tenure should that President be subsequently declared constitutionally illegitimate is very complex. Each presidential action item would have to be analyzed. It is too complex to make a sweeping statement at this point.

Unknown said...

This example with water does not defy LAWS of NATURE. Does anyone know that H 2 O is a property that that must be balance and in doing so ITS VERY NATURE leaches to correct itself. Be it as it may, which is GLORY to GOD.

Good to Men

cfkerchner said...


You made a statement about the water analogy.

But what is your opinion on Obama's constitutional eligibility to be the President and Commander in Chief of the U.S. Military?

I say Obama is a Usurper. What do you say about his eligibility to be Pres?

CDR Kerchner

cfkerchner said...

An announcement regarding the LTC Lakin case.

Dear Supporter of LTC Terry Lakin,

The Army has now officially scheduled a formal hearing its case against Terry, who is being court-martialled by the Army for refusing to obey orders to deploy to Afghanistan because the President refuses --even in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary-- to prove his eligibility under the Constitution to hold office.

The hearing will be held on June 11, 2010 at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C. at 9:00 a.m. in room 134 of Building T-2. All proceedings are open to the media and public.

The court martial process, which begins with the military's equivalent of a preliminary hearing in a civilian criminal court, known as an "Article 32 Investigation" (referring to the provision found in that section in the Uniform Code of Military Justice) was commenced on May 3, 2010, when LTC Lakin was notified that the Art. 32 hearing would take place May 6, 2010. Lakin's civilian lawyer, Paul Rolf Jensen, immediately requested a continuance to June 11, 2010, and this request has been granted. Assisting Jensen in his defense of Lakin is a very experienced senior member of the Army's Judge Advocate General's corps.

Your past generosity had enabled us to hire counsel and to prepare for the hearing, and we thank you so very much for your support. But you need to know that we continue to need your help to pay for witnesses to travel to Washington for this hearing (one of whom will be retired Major General Paul Vallely, who has spoken out publicly in support of Lakin!)

We implore you to again stand with LTC Lakin who has put his very freedom on the line by inviting his own court martial in order to expose the corruption in our political system which has allowed our Constitution to be ignored, debased and disrespected.

LTC Lakin, if convicted, will go to prison at Ft. Leavenworth for a very long time. You can continue to help prevent that by sending your most generous tax-deductible contribution to the American Patriot Foundation's Legal Defense Fund. You can do so by either visiting our website at, or by mailing your check, payable "American Patriot Foundation" to us at 1101 Thirtieth Street, N.W., Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20007.

If you saw the interview last week that LTC Lakin and his civilian counsel, Paul Jensen, gave to CNN, then you are in good company. More than 200,000 people have watched it on youtube alone! While it was tough to go on a program where the questions were as hostile as we expected them to be, LTC Lakin was completely unafraid, and if anything, this helped prepare him for the cross examination he will face at trial.

Once again, we are so grateful to you for standing with LTC Lakin both in the past and going forward; thanks and God bless.


Larry said...

I truly appreciate the information concerning the U.C.M.J. hearing scheduled for LTC Terry Lakin. I plan to attend and bring along several friends, including an active duty Command Sergeant Major and a retired "bird" Colonel. How strict do you suppose Walter Reed will be about allowing active duty and retired military and affiliated agency individuals access to the hearing area? Will this actually be a U.C.M.J. hearing that is open to non press civilians? I'm certain no cameras or recording devices will be allowed, the truth could leak out and all the world would discover Obama IS a Usurper.

Incredulous said...

medical: Mrs. Rondeau at Post & Email confirms Lakin's atty has no plans to intro the dual citizenship issue or definition of NBC, and that Lakin has even entertained (gasp) ANDY MARTIN the charletain self-aggrandizer constant self-fund-raiser who wants to bring FMD into the equation.
I fear Lakin will go to jail if he does not have more competent representation. Has he contacted Apuzzo?

Larry said...

@ Incredulous : If what Mrs. Rondeau is saying is factual, LTC Lakin's case is a very obvious setup. WE NEED TO END THIS B/S NOW! LTC Lakin NEEDS competent and intelligent counsel, not some witless freak, to represent him! THIS DIRTY WRONG SHALL NOT GO UNANSWERED! We the People must arise!

Mick said...

Attorney Jensen's objective is to further muddy the issue. Lakin is being duped. How did Lt. Col. Lakin hire this charletan is the question that should be asked. I have not seen the answer anywhere.

A pen said...

The LAW;

§ 842. Proscription of Communist Party, its successors, and subsidiary organizations
§ 783. Offenses

(b) Receipt of, or attempt to receive, by foreign agent or member of Communist organization, classified information

Elenor Kagan's thesis exposes and confirmas the meanings of words used to avoid the laws which were repealed in 1983 but left intact the above laws which apply to anyone under the "progressive" party as communist assigns. The Wokers Party, Socialist Party and Communist Party are all currently united as the "progressive" Party.

Having the white house take control of private business', banks etc as well as Obama sharing intel with the world is as open a statement that communists are in control of the government as one can expect to hear. What will follow shortly will not be the upholding of the constitution, it will be the attempted founding of law and autocratic governance by proxy. At least until the historic infighting between the radicals begins again and jailings and murder become the order of the day for the most powerful socialist among them.