The Wisdom King

While the future now is that which be our destiny,

Things of the past continue to last.

How one is born will shape one’s years,

For where and how one goes in great degree

Doth make its path whence one did spring.

I do implore the vision yet for all to see.

May the Wisdom King give the living now for all the living come

That simple but great truth.

Whence did Obama first the shining light did see?

And finally please do speak of how the future course shall Biden be.

Copyright © Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Where Is the Conspiracy?

A commentator recently stated:
"B]ut uh, until there is a link to some primary record of his mom being Kenya [sic] at or around the time of his birth then it's just a whack conspiracy theory."

The conspiracy motivation is also constantly repeated on various pro-Obama blogs, mainsteam media reports, political discourse at all levels, and even in at least one Federal Court decision dismissing a case filed against Obama. A conspiracy theory is fed by "facts" that are in dispute. That is why it is called a theory.

But these facts are not in dispute: under the British Nationality Act 1948(BNA 1948), Obama’s father was a British citizen/subject when he was born in the English colony of Kenya. Obama’s father continued to be such and not a U.S. citizen when Obama was born in 1961. Under the same BNA 1948, at birth, regardless of where he was born, Obama also became a British citizen/subject by descent from his British father.

As applicable only to a Presidential Article II "natural born Citizen" (not an Article II grandfathered "Citizen [which of course has long expired]," not an Article I "Citizen" [for Representatives and Senators who are eligible even if naturalized], not a 14th Amendment "citizen" [who is one either born on U.S. soil with U.S. jurisdiction or naturalized], not a U.S. Code born "citizen" [born on U.S. soil with U.S. jurisdiction or in U.S. outlying possessions or foreign countries to one or two U.S. citizen parents or being of unknown parentage is found in the U.S. while under the age of 5], and not a Wong Kim Ark 14th Amendment "citizen" [born on U.S. soil to alien parents who are legal U.S. residents]), the individual must be born in the United States to a mother and father who are themselves United States citizens (by birth or naturalization). This is to assure that a would-be, all powerful President and Commander in Chief of the Military has sole allegiance and loyalty to the United States from the time of birth, for the sources of citizenship (jus soli and jus sanguinis) are all united at birth to give the child only U.S. citizenship from birth and thereby forever prevent any other nation from claiming that child's citizenship, allegiance, loyalty and demanding military service or political favors. Such unity of U.S. citizenship also prevents a would-be President from feeling conflicted as to his allegiance and loyalty between the United States and some other foreign country, whether done consciously or unconsciously. Finally, such unity of U.S. citizenship allows the American people to fully trust their President with protecting their nation and their and their families' very lives. The American people expect their President to make very tough decisions in a moment of crisis and they cannot risk that their President may be ambivalent about taking the proper course of action because of some allegiance and loyalty conflict acquired from birth and nurtured throughout his or her life.

It is public knowledge that Obama has admitted in his writings and otherwise that when he was born, his father was a British citizen/subject and not a United States citizen and that at that time he himself also became such. In fact, his father was not even a permanent resident of the United States, but rather only a student who would probably have been here only on a temporary student visa. Hence, not only was Obama's father not a United States citizen but Obama himself was born a British subject/citizen. Hence, clearly, Obama is not and cannot be an Article II "natural born Citizen," regardless of where he may have been born, regardless of what his original long-form Birth Certificate may say, regardless of to which countries he may have travelled, regardless of how many passports he may have acquired and used, regardless of whether or not he registered for the military service, regardless of what any of his school or medical documents say, regardless of what foreign schools he attended, and regardless of whether he was ever adopted by some foreign national. The real operative facts are not in dispute. I fail to see where the conspiracy is.

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

Obama, the President of the U.S., Is Currently Also a British Citizen

See 29 July 2009 major update to this essay at this link:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/obama-president-of-us-is-currently-also_29.html

Assuming that Obama was born in the United States, he was not only born a dual national of the United States and Great Britain, but at present he continues to be such. Some maintain that American law on citizenship cannot be subjected to any foreign law. But such an argument does not resolve the question of Obama’s dual nationality, for each nation has the sovereign right to make its own citizenship laws and one nation cannot deny another nation that right. This point can be better understood when we consider that McCain was born in Panama to U.S. citizen parents and U.S. citizenship law declared him a U.S. citizen even though he was born in Panama and Panamanian law may have declared him a citizen of Panama. Neither Panama nor any other nation questioned the United States' right to pass a law that gave McCain U.S. citizenship by descent from his parents even though he was born in Panama. Great Britain, being a sovereign nation, has the same right as does the United States to pass such citizenship laws. Now let us examine the British law that applies to Obama and his father and which makes Obama a British citizen not only at the time of his birth in 1961 but still today.

The British Nationality Act of 1948 provides in pertinent part as follows:

"4. Subject to the provisions of this section, every person born within the United Kingdom and Colonies after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by birth:

Provided that a person shall not be such a citizen by virtue of this section if at the time of his birth—
(a) his father possesses such immunity from suit and legal process as is accorded to an envoy of a foreign sovereign power accredited to His Majesty, and is not a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies; or
(b) his father is an enemy alien and the birth occurs in a place then under occupation by the enemy.

5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth ...."

Under the British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama's father became a British citizen under Section 4 by being born on the soil of an English Colony, Kenya. Under Section 5, when Obama was born in 1961 in Hawaii or some other place, he automatically became a British citizen by descent from his father who was a British citizen under Section 4.

Obama has deflected attention to his British citizenship by focusing the public’s attention on his former Kenyan citizenship. Notwithstanding what Obama may lead the public to believe, this British citizenship is not a type of citizenship that he has since lost. Moreover, this citizenship did not expire with Obama's 21st birthday nor is it one that had to be registered in any specified period of time.

Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that: “1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya. [sic] is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall. [sic] if his father becomes. [sic] . . . a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subjection (1). [sic] become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December. [sic] 1963.” These provisions made Obama’s father and Obama citizens of Kenya, respectively. But neither Kenya’s independence from Great Britain nor the Kenyan Constitution caused Obama to lose his British citizenship with which he was born. Obama concedes that his citizenship converted from British to Kenyan but he adds that he then lost this Kenyan citizenship when he did not confirm it upon reaching the age of 21. There are no known statements from either Obama or his campaign contending that he eventually lost his British citizenship. Rather, the statements have been that his British citizenship converted to Kenyan citizenship when Kenya obtained its independence from Great Britain in 1963 and that he then lost Kenyan citizenship under the Kenyan constitution and laws when he did not renounce U.S. citizenship at age 21. But since Obama never lost his British citizenship, it does not matter that Obama may have lost his Kenyan citizenship as he contends.

Let us now see how Obama did not lose his British citizenship. The Kenyan Constitution which came into effect in 1963 at Article 97 provides the following:

"97. Dual citizenship

1. A person who, upon the attainment of the age of twenty-one years, is a citizen of Kenya and also a citizen of some country other than Kenya shall, subject to subsection (7), cease to be a citizen of Kenya upon the specified date unless he has renounced his citizenship of that other country, taken the oath of allegiance and, in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament."

Hence, while the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults, it allows dual citizenship for children. Kenya’s Constitution does, however, specify that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possess citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship, swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya, and in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament. It may be true that Obama did not take any action to preserve his Kenyan citizenship as was required by the Kenyan constitution. But there is no evidence that Obama ever renounced his British citizenship which he originally acquired at his birth under Section 5 of the British Nationality Act of 1948. Whatever his father may have done regarding his Kenyan and/or British citizenship did not affect Obama’s British citizenship with which Obama was born. Hence, under the Kenyan Constitution, Obama presumably lost his Kenyan citizenship by not renouncing his U.S. (assuming he was born in the U.S.) and British citizenships, by not taking an oath of allegiance to Kenya, and by not registering his declaration to take up residence in Kenya. But under British law, he did not lose his British citizenship because he never renounced that citizenship.

The fact that Obama still has British citizenship is further supported by the following:

"Under United Kingdom law as it has been since the British Nationality Act, 1948, the acquisition of another nationality by a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, of whatever age, makes no difference whatever to his status as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and, therefore, he remains a British subject.

Moreover, it is not possible, under United Kingdom law, for the nationality of a child who is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies to be changed by the decision of his parents. Only the child, when he reaches the age of 21, can renounce his citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies if he is then in possession of another nationality, but during the child's minority neither the child nor his parents can do anything to forfeit his birthright of British nationality."

Children Bill [Lords], HC Deb 27 June 1958 vol 590 cc743-830.

"It is now the law that all persons born in the United Kingdom or its Colonies, or in countries which were Colonies at the time when they were born, have British nationality whether they are legitimate or illegitimate. . . .

Also, it is part of our law that children of a British male born abroad can have British nationality."

British Nationality, HC Deb 16 July 1963 vol 681 cc341-3.

Additionally, if one examines the British Nationality Act of 1981, there is nothing there which shows that Obama, once having the British citizenship that he acquired by descent from his father at the time of his birth, automatically lost it at age 21. On the other hand, the act contains provisions concerning "declaration of renunciation" at Section 10, 12, and 13. Not that doing so would make Obama an Article II “natural born Citizen,” there is no evidence that Obama ever filed any "declaration of renunciation" of his British citizenship.

What does this mean? Under the Kenyan Constitution, Obama is presumably no longer a Kenyan citizen because he did not renounce at age 21 his British citizenship and his U.S. citizenship (assuming he was born in the U.S.). Obama is still however a British citizen not only under English common law (in the words of Coke and Blackstone, a natural-born subject of the United Kingdom) but also under British citizenship statutes. Neither Kenya's 1963 constitution nor any statute erased the consequences of the British common law and nationality statutes that were in effect at the time of Obama’s and his father’s birth. Obama’s continuing British citizenship is further confirmed by English law which provides that persons born in countries which were Colonies at the time when they were born are still British citizens. Hence, Obama continues to be a British citizen despite Kenya’s independence and new constitution.

This all leads to the question of how can Obama be an Article II “natural born Citizen” if he was at birth both a U.S. citizen (assuming he was born in the U.S.) and a British citizen which alone disqualifies him from having that status? But to make matters worse, Obama continues to be a British citizen at a time that he is currently the President of the United States. Can we reasonably conclude that the Founding Fathers, who had just fought a war with Great Britain and who did not want a foreigner to occupy the Office of President, would have allowed a British citizen, who carries that status not only from birth but also to the time he occupies the Office, to be President of the United States and Commander in Chief of its Military? Another question is how can a would-be President and Commander in Chief of the Military with current dual citizenship obtain a security clearance which he would need to access classified U.S. government information needed by him to carry out the sensitive functions of that Office?

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

####

Read Atty Apuzzo's 29 July 2009 major update to this essay at this link:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/obama-president-of-us-is-currently-also_29.html

####

On the People’s Unalienable Right to Safety and the Pursuit of Happiness

In the words of the Declaration of Independence:

"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.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

From these fundamental truths we can see that safety and happiness are the essence of life and liberty. If life and liberty are themselves unalienable rights, so must be its essence, safety and happiness. It is also clear from these truths that government obtains its power to govern from the consent of the governed and that the people consent to give that power to a government for the sole purpose of having that government protect their safety and happiness. It is also a fundamental truth that when the people give their consent to the government to govern them, they have entrusted that government with the protection of their safety and happiness.



The people spoke when THEY drafted the Constitution. Among other things, in Article II they proclaimed what will be the qualifications to be President. One of these qualifications is that the President be a “natural born Citizen.” The people therefore gave to a would-be President their consent that he govern and protect them, provided that, among other things, the President meets that necessary qualification for the office, all this so that once in power that President can protect the people’s safety and happiness. Our Constitution shows that the people would not give their consent to govern to any would-be President if that President is not so qualified and therefore constituted so as to protect their safety and happiness.

A putative President who would desire to sit in the Office of President without the trust and consent of the people surely cannot reasonably claim that the people have given that trust and consent to him to govern and protect them, for if the putative President has not met the people’s Constitutional qualification test, how can he claim that he has the people’s trust and consent to govern and protect them? If the sole purpose of the people’s government is to protect their safety and happiness, and if the people have not given that government their trust and consent to govern them, then it only follows that the people have not put their trust in that government to protect their safety and happiness. A government which does not have the people’s trust and consent to govern them cannot continue to do so, for it does not have the people’s permission or warrant to protect their safety and happiness. The people have a right to remove that putative President from power if they have not given him their trust and consent which he needs to claim that he is legitimately protecting their safety and happiness. If the people are compelled to live with a putative President in power who has not received their trust and consent to govern and protect them, then that would-be President and government that would allow that usurper President to illegitimately stay in power have violated the people’s unalienable rights to safety and the pursuit of happiness.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

P.S. Please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####

DEFINING WHAT AN ARTICLE II “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” IS

Many have argued that a would-be President in order to be a “natural born Citizen” under Article II of the Constitution has to be born on U.S. soil to two parents who were U.S. citizens (by birth or naturalization) at the time of his/her birth. These same individuals have argued that Obama cannot be a natural born citizen even if he was born in Hawaii because, while he was born to a mother who was a U.S. citizen, his father was a British subject/citizen at the time of his birth. In disagreeing with this argument, one commentator said the following:

"Yes. He is a natural born citizen. He was born in the USA, Hawaii. There are a few who comment on the Web that in their OPINION "natural born" where Article II is concerned requires that both parents be US citizens as well as the candidate being born in the USA. But most Constitutional experts hold that the Supreme Court will accept the definition of a "citizen at birth," which is defined in US law, which is Title 8 of the US Code.

After all, the Constitution does not specifically say: "A natural born citizen must have two parents who were citizens at the time of birth,” and it does not say "no dual national persons", and it does not say "no persons with divided loyalties at the instant of birth."

In other words, the really strict constructionist justices on the Supreme Court (two of whose fathers were born in Italy) will not accept that the definition of "natural born" means more than what US citizenship law requires. After all, does it actually say “the President of the USA must be born in the USA of two parents both of whom are citizens,” or does it say “in Article II the standards are higher than US citizens at birth”? No, it just says “a natural born citizen.’”

http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/two-reasons-why-obama-will-neither.html.

I do not agree with the commentator for this reason. In defining what is a "natural born Citizen" under Article II, we are attempting to define what the standard to be President of the United States is as envisioned by the Founders of our nation and the Framers of the Constitution who had just fought a revolutionary war against a foreign power. That standard has to be an exacting one. We are not talking about the requirements to hold any other political office, to be a judge, or to be an ordinary citizen. The President alone has great power which is not the case for any Senator, Representative, or Judge who may not act alone. These later individuals are part of a collegial body. The President may act alone, despite his surrounding himself with a Cabinet and other political advisors.

Hence, the question of what is a "natural born Citizen" must be answered not only with the thought of what is "fair" and "politically correct" in our immigrant America, but also with what makes sense from a self-survival standpoint. When analyzing the national self-survival factor, we have to assume the most extreme examples, existing not only in today's world but also that of the future. When one puts these factors on the scale of justice, which way does the scale tip?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

January 7, 2009

THE TWO REASONS WHY OBAMA WILL NEITHER PUBLICLY SPEAK ABOUT WHERE HE WAS BORN NOR PRODUCE HIS ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE

Statements have been made in the public domain that if Obama was not born in Hawaii but rather in Kenya, that he actually committed a crime involving fraud. That leads me to think that if that were true, then Obama has a Constitutional and state common law right to avoid further self-incrimination and to remain silent. That could explain why he has neither talked publicly nor wants to talk in any court of law about where he was born. But his right to remain silent would not extend to withholding his original Certificate of Live Birth. Disclosure of documents is not testimonial (coming from a person's mouth) and his 5th Amendment and state common law right to remain silent and to not incriminate himself would not prevent such disclosure. This leads me to the main point.

Obama at present finds himself in a trilemma: (1) Does he state publicly that he was born in Hawaii if he knows he was not and thereby "perjure" himself in the court of public opinion should the truth be eventually discovered? If he so swore under oath before Congress or any court of law, it would be actual perjury. (2) Will he produce his original birth certificate which may show and will he tell the public the truth that he was not born in Hawaii but rather Kenya and thereby betray his natural instinct of self-preservation and his life-long ambition to be President of the United States? or (3) Does he remain silent as to where he was born and continue to refuse to release his original birth certificate and thereby earn the contempt of those in the public who believe that he has not convincingly proven that he is a "natural born Citizen" and eligible to be President? I submit that Obama has made the third choice.

The consequences for Obama are the least drastic and he gains the most benefits under the choice involving remaining silent and not producing his original birth certificate which is exactly what he has done to date. There are at least two reasons for this:

(1) To date, no court of law has been willing to accept any case challenging his "natural born Citizen" status. The courts have dismissed law suits against him for reasons of jurisdiction, standing, political question, justiciability, and for reasons unknown. These procedural obstacles have allowed him to escape having to defend the underlying merits of the claims against him which would necessarily involve his having to make declarations under oath as part of legal discovery and before the court itself in case of a trial. He will simply continue to pursue this procedural strategy, for being so successful will allow him to maintain his silence and not produce his original birth certificate with the cost to him personally of only having to pay his team of lawyers. This strategy explains why he is willing to spend enormous amounts of his own money and resources for his legal defense (maybe not even his own money if he can make a case that he can use his campaign contributions to meet the costs involved) and cause private individual plaintiffs and public institutions (courts and public entity defendants) to spend theirs with no end in sight. This strategy also provides great impetus to the sales of his past and future books, thereby further filling up his coffers. This strategy also explains why he is not willing to simply spend less than $100.00 and produce his original birth certificate for the benefit of those Americans who want to see it. Lastly, this strategy provides an answer to the question of, assuming that Obama in the end simply produces his original birth certificate which shows he was born in Hawaii, why would Obama risk the public then perceiving him as one who played a dirty little game for the sake of aggrandizing his own image and increasing his profits.

(2) Obama wants (i) people who simply voted for him, (ii) people who are apathetic to the eligibility issue or because of ignorance, fear, or self-ambition refuse to address it; and (iii) people who in good faith believe he is eligible to be President (these categories may overlap), to believe that all the law suits and internet chatter questioning eligibility to be President is political sour grapes, racism, or "tinfoil hat" conspiracy nonsense. These "explanations" for this outcry against him provide great camouflage for his silence and refusal to release his original birth certificate. This strategy limits any contempt backlash to only those who oppose him on the eligibility issue and to no one else, thereby greatly reducing the price associated with the public contempt component.

The benefits Obama gains from stonewalling compared to the price he has to pay for complete disclosure makes the choice to refuse to speak about where he was born and to produce his original birth certificate most attractive for Obama. The stakes are high in this game for the Office of President. Obama has shown that he has the arrogance and audacity to play the game any which way he wants simply to win that Office and greatly profit thereby. The question for many concerned Americans who doubt whether he is eligible to be President is what they can do to get the nation’s political, legal, and social institutions to adequately and honestly investigate and decide whether he is indeed qualified to be President. Obama’s strategy is now preventing these Americans from learning the truth about whether he is eligible to be President. The ball is in the court of those who challenge Him.

© Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Jamesburg, New Jersey

How the Public Can Gain Access to Obama's Original Birth Records

I have said this before and I will say it again. There is a Constitutional requirement that a would-be President must be a "natural born Citizen." Someone running for President knows that this requirement exists and knows that he/she must satisfy this Constitutional requirement. This is a CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT. An individual running for President therefore knows two things: he/she wants to hold a public position and he/she must prove that he/she is a "natural born Citizen." I cannot imagine under any circumstance how that same individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his/her birth certificate and/or adoption records (if they exist) if those same documents must be relied upon to adequately prove that he/she meets the Constitutional requirements for the Office of President. No state law or even Federal law on privacy can trump the American public's need to know whether a Presidential candidate is a "natural born Citizen," a need that has its origins in the Constitution itself. Given this Constitutional requirement, a court could order that the private documents be released under seal and in camera (to the judge's chambers) for inspection by the court and the attorneys only, with an order that neither the court nor attorneys can reveal what the documents say without further order of the court. Once the documents are inspected and the relevant information is learned, the court could issue an appropriate order and the case would then proceed to its conclusion.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

December 29, 2008

Was Obama Properly Vetted for the Office of President?

Why do we currently have the massive debate over the question of whether Obama is constitutionally qualified to be President? On properly vetting Obama, our own political leaders, institutions, political parties, and main stream media have failed the people miserably and they should be taken to task after this is all said and done. One example of this failure can be seen from the August 12, 2008 interview by Hannity & Comes of Howard Wolfson, FOX News contributor and former Clinton communications director. Hannity asked: “Do you regret not vetting, you know, Senator Obama the way he should have been?” Wolfson responded: “No, I mean the media is tasked with the responsibility of vetting candidates. . . .” As we can see, all the players involved will simply point the finger at the other on the question of who was suppose to properly vet Obama. Another question that we need to ask is why was Obama not vetted properly?

Some concerned and well-informed Americans realize that our leaders have failed us in this regard and so have themselves demanded some straight answers-call it a vetting by We the People. These concerned Americans, in this time of crisis, have petitioned their government and political and legal institutions for help in resolving the question of whether Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President. Their efforts have so far been in vain. Fortunately, these Americans have exercised their First Amendment right of free speech and have not had to rely on their government and these other institutions to have their grievance heard.

The internet has revolutionized society by giving individuals greater ability to guide their own destinies by participating in and benefiting from collective intelligence. Hence, concerned Americans have used the internet to bring to the fore the issue of Obama's eligibility to be President and have placed their hope in the U.S. Supreme Court to decide that issue. Some brave attorneys and pro se litigants, who have had the courage to put their necks on the line, have helped these concerned Americans. We the people should be forever grateful to them, regardless of what the Supreme Court decides. This whole process shows that we the people will not be fooled so easily. We will and must stand up and fight until we get a straight answer.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

December 28, 2008