Obama May Be a Naturalized Born Citizen but Not a Natural Born Citizen

 Obama May Be a Naturalized Born
Citizen but Not a Natural Born Citizen

by: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

"The Constitution of the United States recognizes the division of the people into the two classes named by William Blackstone - natural born and naturalized citizens." Rep. Wilson Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 1116 (1866). The Constitution calls these two types of citizens, "Citizens of the United States."  All the "Citizens of the United States" are therefore comprised of either those who Article II calls "natural born Citizens" (are not naturalized) or those which the Constitution, treaties, and Congressional Acts call “Citizens of the United States” (not being natural born must be naturalized).  The "natural born Citizen" clause is nothing more than the people of the United States expressing their power of self-preservation.  Hence, only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be President under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. A naturalized citizen, whether naturalized "at birth" or after birth, is not so eligible. 

To better understand these two types of U.S. citizens (the natural born and the naturalized), I will call them "natural born Citizen of the United States, "naturalized born Citizen of the United States" (naturalized "at birth"), and "naturalized after-born Citizen of the United States" (naturalized after birth). Article I and II use the upper case "C" when writing "Citizen" and the 14th Amendment, Congressional Acts, and treaties use the lower case "c."  There is no significance to the capitalization.  I will use the "C" when writing the word. 

The first type, a naturalized "Citizen of the United States," whether "at birth" or after birth, is made, except for the first "Citizens of the United States," by positive law, to wit, the 14th Amendment, which makes "naturalized born Citizens of the United States" and which recognizes "naturalized after-born Citizens of the United States," and treaties and acts of Congress, which make "naturalized born Citizens of the United States" and "naturalized after-born Citizens of the United States" under Congress's Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 power to make uniform the laws of naturalization.

The second type is a "natural born Citizen of the United States." The Framers wrote “natural born” and not just “born,” and we have to give meaning to such an additional word. By using the word “natural,” the Framers told us that this type of citizen is made by nature and not by any positive law such as the 14th Amendment, treaties, or Congressional Acts which can declare someone to be a “born” “Citizen of the United States” by law. The overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens are "natural born Citizens of the United States." If a person needs the 14th Amendment, a treaty, or Congressional act to make him or her a "Citizen of the United States," then that person cannot be a "natural born Citizen of the United States."

Also, Congress could for some social or political reason attempt to enact some law denying a "natural born Citizen of the United States" that very status or attempt as it has several times already to redefine the meaning of a "natural born Citizen of the United States," but to do so would be contrary to natural law, the law of nations, and also unconstitutional. Any change to the "natural born Citizen" eligibility clause can be done only through constitutional amendment. 

Examples of a naturalized "Citizen of the United States" are:

1. A naturalized "Citizen of the United States" so created by electing and adhering to the American Revolution. This person is among the early Presidents who were born before July 4, 1776 in the British colonies to British subject parents and therefore were born British subjects. This person is also among those who were born out of the British colonies but who either naturalized there or simply inhabited them. He or she naturalized through the effects of the Declaration of Independence and by electing to adhere to the American Revolution and by so doing the Constitution in Article I and II called him or her a “Citizen of the United States.” He or she was the first and original American citizen and he or she gained that status by transferring his or her allegiance for one foreign power to the United States during the revolution. This person was born before July 4, 1776 either in the British colonies or out of them and therefore out of the United States which had not yet existed.

2. A "naturalized born Citizen of the United States" under a Congressional Act or treaty which it calls a “citizen of the United States.” In Article I, Section 8, Section 4, the Framers gave Congress the power to naturalize persons. Hence, this citizen is created directly by the power of Congress to naturalize persons. This person, like a "naturalized born Citizen of the United States" under the 14th Amendment, is naturalized "at birth" and needs no further naturalization. This person is born abroad and has one or two U.S. citizen parents. Under a treaty, there could be other factual scenarios. Except for a naturalization act it passed in 1790 which read “natural born citizen,” but which it changed in 1795 to read “citizen of the United States, Congress has always used this power to create naturalized citizens or who it has called “citizens of the United States” “at birth” but never a "natural born Citizen of the United States."  Again, this person is born out of the United States.

3. A "naturalized born Citizen of the United States" under the 14th Amendment and Congressional Act which they both call a “citizen of the United States.” This citizen is created indirectly by the power of Congress to naturalize persons which it expressed in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and then which it constitutionalized by way of the 14th Amendment. This person is born in the United States to one or two alien parents and is born "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." This person is naturalized at birth and needs no further naturalization.

The explicit text of the Fourteenth Amendment declares these persons to be "citizens of the United States," not "natural born Citizens.” The text of the amendment itself tells us that its purpose is not to create “natural born Citizens,” but rather “citizens of the United States” which we know from other articles of the Constitution and Congressional Acts include naturalized citizens either at birth or after birth. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, through the grandfather clause, explicitly tells us that just being a “citizen of the United States” is no longer sufficient to be eligible to be President for those children born after adoption of the Constitution. The only reason that the Framers could have had for this disqualification is that they considered those "citizens of the United States" who were not "natural born Citizens" to be naturalized either at birth or after birth.

Every constitutional amendment has its own meaning and value and must be interpreted and understood in light of the purpose for which it was passed. The 14th Amendment was not passed to amend the meaning of an Article II "natural born Citizen." Rather, it was passed to allow those who were born in the United States subject to its jurisdiction and who could not become "natural born Citizens" or even "citizens of the United States"-- because having been born to parents who were themselves not considered to be "natural born Citizens" or even "citizens of the United States" even though born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction or who under our naturalization laws could not even become naturalized citizens of the United States--to become "citizens of the United States."

We recognize that persons can be naturalized at birth by treaties and Congressional Acts. There is no legal impediment in concluding that a constitutional amendment can have the same naturalizing effect as a treaty or Congressional Act in matters of citizenship.  We have evidence in the Congressional debates on the Civil Rights Act that the Act's intended effect was to naturalize persons "born in this country." In the Congressional debates on the Civil Rights Act, Senator Edgar Cowan "ask[ed] whether [the Act] will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country?" Senator Lyman Trumbull replied: "Undoubtedly. . . . [T]he children of an Asiatic is just as much a citizen as the child of a European." Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 498. Indeed, Congress proposed the 14th Amendment and it was passed to ensure the Act's validity and indefinite survival. That this Congressional Act was elevated to constitutional status by the 14th Amendment does not change the fact that this type of citizenship is granted by operation of positive law rather than by nature. After all, the Constitution did not make the citizens. Rather, the citizens made the Constitution. The 14th Amendment, regarding children born in the United States, and given current interpretation of the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause, did nothing more than amend our naturalization laws and extend naturalization at birth to children born in the United States to alien parents. Congress has even confirmed its power to naturalizing one born in the United States through 8 U.S.C. Section 1401(a) and (b). Hence, the amendment did no more than allow these persons to become members of American society by naturalizing them at birth.  Vattel recognized this type of “at birth” naturalized citizen when he stated:  “Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner.”  Emer de Vattel’s  The Law of Nations, or Principles of the Laws of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, bk. 1, c. 19, sec. 214 (original French in 1758 and first English in 1759, and other subsequent French and English editions). 

Minor v. Happersett, said: "Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,’ and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization" (footnotes omitted). Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 166-168 (1874).

Minor told us that “a natural-born citizen” was a child born in the country to citizen parents. It said that there were doubts whether a child born in the country to alien parents was even a “citizen.” Id. According to Minor, if one did not qualify for citizenship by birth, then he or she would have to get it by naturalization. Neither the 14th Amendment nor any Congressional Act nor any treaty declares anyone a "natural born Citizen." Hence, the only other logical choice is that the 14th Amendment makes naturalized citizen "at birth" and Congressional Acts and treaties make naturalized citizens either “at birth” or after birth. So, all those who get citizenship "at birth" who are not "natural born Citizens" as defined by Minor are naturalized citizens "at birth." So if someone gets "at birth" "citizen of the United States" status through the 14th Amendment, Congressional Act, or treaty, that person is a "naturalized born Citizen of the United States" and not a “natural born Citizen of the United States.”     

It also does not matter that one is considered a "naturalized born Citizen of the United States" under the Fourteenth Amendment or an Article II “natural born Citizen of the United States,” for these citizens enjoy equal rights, except that only the latter has the privilege of being eligible to be President.

The Constitution, including the presidential eligibility grandfather clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, and the Congressional eligibility clauses of Article I, Section 2 and 3; Congressional Acts; and treaties call these naturalized citizens, whether citizens “at birth” or “after birth” and whether born in or out of the United States, “citizens of the United States.”

This person could be putative President Obama, who was born to a U.S. citizen mother and a British father, if he was born in Hawaii, a fact which he has yet to conclusively prove. This is also Governor Bobby Jindal, who was born in the United States to a non-U.S. citizen father and mother. He was naturalized at birth under the 14th Amendment and needed no further naturalization. Again, this person is born in the United States.

4. A "naturalized after-born Citizen of the United States" under a Congressional Act or treaty which the 14th Amendment in 1868 confirmed to be a “citizen of the United States.” This citizen is created directly by the power of Congress to naturalize persons. This person is born out of the United States to two alien parents and is naturalized in the United States after birth. Before the 14th Amendment was passed, this person was also born in the United States to alien parents and also naturalized after birth. Hence, before the 14th Amendment, this person was born either in the United States or out of it. If born in the United States and a minor, he or she naturalized when his or her father naturalized, or on his or her own right if an adult. Since the 14th Amendment, this person is born out of the United States. Since this person is not naturalized at birth, he or she needs naturalization after birth. This type of citizen includes Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who was born in Austria to a non-U.S. citizen father and mother and who naturalized in the United States after birth under a Congressional Act.

An Article II “natural born Citizen" is:

There is only one definition of a "natural born Citizen of the United States."  This definition has never changed since the writing of the Constitution.  This definition is a child born in the United States (or its equivalent) to a father and mother who are both either “natural born Citizens of the United States” or naturalized “citizens of the United States.” Emer de Vattel’s The Law of Nations, or Principles of the Laws of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, bk. 1, c. 19, sec. 212 (original French in 1758 and first English in 1759, and other subsequent French and English editions) (“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”); David Ramsay, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789) (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; “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; 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); The Naturalization Act of 1790 and 1795 (in both acts early Congresses provided that, regardless of whether the child was born in or out of the United States, any child born to alien parents who later naturalized before the child reached twenty-one years of age was derivatively naturalized at the time of their parents' naturalization and thus "considered as "citizens of the United States," and thereby left out of such need for naturalization only children born in the United States to citizen parents); The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Chief Justice John Marshall, concurring and dissenting for other reasons, cited Vattel and provided his definition of natural born citizens, stated “The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”); Speaker of the House of Representatives, Langdon Cheves (1814) (“The children have a natural attachment to the society in which they are born: being obliged to acknowledge the protection it has granted to their fathers, they are obliged to it in a great measure for their birth and education. … We have just observed that they have a right to enter into the society of which their fathers were members. But every man born free, the son of a citizen, arrived at years of discretion, may examine whether it be convenient for him to join in the society for which he was destined by his birth); Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99, 3 Pet. 99, 7 L.Ed. 617 (1830) (a majority of the Court which included Chief Justice John Marshall found on principles consistent with Vattel’s jus sanguinis and not on the English common law rule of jus soli, that simply being born in New York, after July 4, 1776 and before September 15, 1776, when the British took possession of New York, was not sufficient to establish one’s status as an American citizen, for a child of minor years is incapacitated from making any citizenship election but rather followed the citizenship held or chosen by the father); Massachusetts and South Carolina, The New Englander, Vol. III, 413-414, 434-435 (1845). ("The expression 'citizen of the United States' occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term ' natural born citizen' is used, and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states; in the other cases, the word 'citizen' is used without the adjective, and excludes persons owing allegiance to foreign states, unless naturalized under our laws. The discussions in the convention furnish no indication that there was any other distinction present in the minds of its members. (*Judge Washington, See 4 Wash. Circuit Court Reports, 516). . . . It is the very essence of the condition of a natural born citizen, of one who is a member of the state by birth within and under it, that his rights are not derived from the mere will of the state. For the state and the citizen spring at once and together from the ordinance of nature, and from this natural relation between them result the essential rights and essential duties of both. The highest and most solemn enactment, even the fundamental, organic law of a state, does not by its proper force as positive law create, but only acknowledges this relationship”);  Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857) (Daniels, J. concurring) (cited and quoted Vattel and said: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (provided the same Vattel definition without citing Vattel, stated: “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners”); Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879) (provided the same Vattelian definition and cited Vattel); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (provided the same Vattelian definition and cited Vattel); and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (quoted the same definition of “natural born Citizen” as did Minor v. Happersett); Alexander Porter Morse, Natural-Born Citizen Of The United States: Eligibility For The Office Of President, Albany Law Journal Vol. 66 (1904-1905) (“Those resident in the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted were made citizens. Thereafter the president must be taken from the natural-born citizens. If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, “no person, except a native-born citizen”; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth”); Breckenridge Long, Is Mr. Charles Evans Hughes a “Natural Born Citizen” Within the Meaning of the Constitution?” Chicago Legal News, Vol. 146, p. 220 (1916) (there is a distinction between a “native born” and “natural born;” a “citizen of the United States” is not the same as a “natural born Citizen;” a “natural born Citizen” is one made by the laws of nature and not by operation of law and from the moment of birth owes allegiance exclusively to the United States; a person who is born with dual or conflicting allegiances and citizenships, naturally caused by being born in the country to an alien father which causes the person to acquire one allegiance and citizenship by jus soli and the other by jus sanguinis, respectively, which birth circumstance causes a foreign power to be able to lay a claim of allegiance or jurisdiction over that person, cannot be a “natural born Citizen;” a child born in the United States to an alien father may become a “citizen of the United States” by becoming a citizen by naturalization either upon his father naturalizing before the child reaches majority or through his own naturalization application thereafter); and Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) (the Supreme Court declared a child who was born in the United States to citizen parents a “natural born citizen”).

If one satisfies the definition of a “natural born Citizen of the United States,” that person will have natural unity of citizenship and sole allegiance to the United States. The overwhelming majority of citizens are "natural born Citizens of the United States."  One cannot be a "natural born Citizen of the United States" if he or she at most falls into one of the naturalized categories listed above (naturalized at birth or after birth) and therefore fails to meet the definition of a "natural born Citizen of the United States."  In fact, the text of the Amendment itself uses the phrase “citizen of the United States” and not “natural born Citizen.”  We know from the grandfather clause in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 that a “Citizen of the United States” who was not a “natural born Citizen” was a naturalized citizen and only eligible to be President if born before the adoption of the Constitution.  For births after the adoption of the Constitution, the Framers did not allow a naturalized citizen to be eligible to be President. Hence, one is required to be a “natural born Citizen” under the Constitution only if one is born after the adoption of the Constitution and one wants to be President or Vice President.

Congress only has the power to naturalize. The Constitution does not give Congress any power to create a "natural born Citizen of the United States."  Under the Constitution, Congress has no power over this person's citizenship status because he or she is born in the country to citizen parents all of which makes him or her a "natural born Citizen of the United States."  If we accept that natural law and the law of nations prescribe that being born in a foreign country to U.S. citizen parents (who were “natural born Citizens of the United States” or “naturalized Citizens of the United States”) serving the armies of the state is the equivalent to being born in the United States, this is John McCain because he was born to a U.S. citizen father and mother who were in Panama serving the armies of the United States. Emer de Vattel’s  The Law of Nations, or Principles of the Laws of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, bk. 1, c. 19, sec. 217. This cannot be Mr. Obama because even though he might be born in Hawaii (which he has yet to conclusively prove), he was born to a British father who by right of descent under the British Nationality Act of 1948 passed his British citizenship to his son, Mr. Obama, who consequently was also born a British citizen. So Obama’s foreign natural birth allegiance is compounded by his father being a British subject when Obama was born and he also being born a British citizen. At age 2, Mr. Obama even became a citizen of Kenya whose citizenship he retained to at least the age of 23. The Founders and Framers simply would not accept a person born with such foreign natural allegiance to be an Article II “natural born Citizen” and eligible to occupy the singular and all-powerful Office of the President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

Finally, as we have seen, Obama’s ineligibility to be President is dictated not by foreign law but rather by U.S. common law grounded on natural law and the law of nations.   If Obama were born in the U.S. to citizen parents, U.S. common law--natural law and the law of nations which several U.S. Supreme Court cases have made a part of the law of the land and controlling on the question of national citizenship--would apply to the fullest extent, making him a "natural born Citizen of the United States." If Obama were born in the U.S. to a non-citizen father and U.S. citizen mother, U.S. law would again apply, making him a "naturalized born Citizen of the United States" under the 14th Amendment and Congressional Act. He cannot be an Article II "natural born Citizen of the United States" under U.S. common law because his father was not a U.S. citizen but rather a British citizen under the British Nationality Act of 1948, and Obama himself was born a British citizen under that same act. Given his birth circumstances (assuming he was born in the U.S.), Obama can only rely upon the 14th Amendment, an expression of Congress's naturalization power incorporated into the Constitution (like Wong Kim Ark), or a Congressional Act for U.S. citizenship which means that he is a "naturalized born Citizen of the United States" (a "Citizen of the United States" who is naturalized "at birth") but not a "natural born Citizen of the United States" which needs no law to create.  Not being a "natural born Citizen of the United States," Obama is not and cannot be eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. 

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
November 30, 2010
Amended December 13, 2010
Amended February 5, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
###

A Statement from CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) about the U.S. Supreme Court Decision on Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al

For Immediate Release - 29 November 2010 2:30 p.m. EST

A Statement from CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) about the U.S. Supreme Court Decision on Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al

The "Roberts Court" of the U.S. Supreme Court in my opinion will be known in history as the "Neville Chamberlain Supreme Court", the great Obama appeaser court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain

Appeasement due to fear that some immediate small amount of veiled and threatened violence from the far left socialists and Saul Alinsky goons, tyrants and bullies, and thus not doing the right thing early on to support the rule of law and the Constitution, ultimately leads to much bigger problems later. History has shown us that over and over. The Obama eligibility matter should have been fully and thoroughly addressed and openly investigated by the investigative reporters in the major media and political parties early in the spring of 2008 during the primaries to get all of Obama's documents released to the public as part of the vetting process. It wasn't done. Congress should have addressed this when asked by 100s of thousands of constituent letters and petitions sent to them and when constitutionally it was required to so under the 20th Amendment. It didn't. The courts should have addressed the merits of the questions when appealed to early on. They didn't. Everyone in our system of government chose ignoring the problem and appeasement over confrontation and punted the ball to someone else. Now it is far worse. The Supreme Court has chosen appeasement and inaction over action and dealing with the issue and questions openly in a court of law under the rules of evidence and law. Our constitutional republic and legal system is now compromised and broken top to bottom and bottom to top. And it will only get worse as our legal system and constitutional republic further deteriorates and the rule of law gives way more and more to appeasement of bullies and tyrants in waiting such as Obama and his far left Marxist cronies and puppet masters. Appeasement of the constitutional usurpers will not make it go away. It will only delay the inevitable and fester and grow and in the end be a far worse situation to deal with when the real nature of the tyrant reveals himself in a much bolder way and attempts to take away all our protections to our unalienable rights and liberty. Neville Chamberlain tactics never work with bullies, alinskyites, tyrants, and national socialists.

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

10-446
KERCHNER, CHARLES, ET AL. V. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL.
The motion of Western Center for Journalism for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44359775/U-S-Supreme-Court-Order-List-562-U-S-dated-2010-11-29-Kerchner-v-Obama-Petition-Decison-on-Pg-15

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner et al v Obama et al
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

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

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

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

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

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

10-446
KERCHNER, CHARLES, ET AL. V. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL.
The motion of Western Center for Journalism for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/112910zor.pdf
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt.aspx

My Statement on the Decision by the U.S. Supreme Court
http://radiopatriot.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/the-supreme-court-has-chosen-appeasement-cmdr-charles-kerchner/

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

Some of Stanley Ann (Dunham) Obama Soetoro's Passport Application Records Are Released due to Strunk FOIA Filing

Some of Stanley Ann (Dunham) Obama Soetoro's
Passport Application Records Are Released due to Strunk FOIA Filing

Passport file analysis, comments, and more new questions

Posted By: CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Posted: 31 Jul 2010 - Last Update: 01 Aug 2010 11 p.m.

Some Stanley Ann Dunham passport file documents are finally released after over a year and a half of Mr. Christopher Earl Strunk requesting and then suing to get the information released in the Strunk vs Dept of State FOIA case. This information should have been been released long ago per his initial FOIA request filed back in Oct 2008. But as with everything with Mr. Obama and his early life, the cover up is maintained as long as possible and then when the files are released things that should be there are missing. It required a federal lawsuit to even get them to release even these documents.

The passport services official says in the cover letter that the some earlier passport application records noted in subsequent filings could not be found. Any possible 1960/1961 passport application paper work information that has been postulated by researchers studying Obama's early life narrative is missing from this released information. The link to any earlier passport application filed in the early 60s would have been shown in the passport application filed in 1965. But conveniently, the 1965 passport application paper work for a known passport issued on July 19, 1965 is missing. How convenient that key pieces of information about Obama and his family's early life always turns up missing! This reminds me of the missing page in the Stanley Ann (Dunham) Obama 1964 divorce file.

Why I believe the July 19, 1965 issued passport was issued pursuant to a passport renewal application filed in 1965 for a prior passport that was expiring and that it was not the first passport that Stanley Ann Dunham had. The issue date in July 19, 1965 is four months after her marriage to Lolo Soetoro on March 15, 1965. If she had applied for her first passport in the late spring or early summer of 1965 she would have had to legally apply for it in her married name, Stanley Ann Soetoro. The July 19, 1965 issued passport was not in her married name since she had to AMEND it in 1967 and show her marriage license to get her married name put on her passport at that time. That is what the 1967 document states. And secondly, I believe it was a passport renewal application in 1965, because Obama's family in Kenya says Stanley Ann (Dunham) Obama was there when Obama was born and government officials in Kenya state Obama was born there. Stanley Ann would have needed a passport in 1961 to get to Kenya and back to the USA. Since the 1965 passport was not in her 2nd marriage name when it was issued 4 months after her marriage to Lolo Soetoro, it is obvious to me she simply renewed her previously issued circa early 1961 original passport which was in either her maiden name or in the name of her first marriage name of Stanley Ann Obama, if issued after Feb 1961 when she is said to have married Barack Hussein Obama Sr.

The copies of documents in what was released per the FOIA request are numbered but not in chronological order. This makes reading the file and the flow of events over time more difficult unless one prints out the file and rearranges the docs in chronological order, which I did.

There is a document numbered P3 which is an application for amendment of her existing passport. This amendment request was apparently done in 1967 (per a handwritten clerk's name and date note on it since the date is not filled in below Stanley Ann's signature on the form). This handwritten annotated note and date was apparently done by a clerk seeing a marriage license in order to process the request to amend a passport issued on July 19, 1965. But the copy of that 1965 passport application is not provided in this FOIA request. The passport officials say it could not be found. Why? That 1965 passport was issued several months after she married Lolo Soetoro. She filed the amendment apparently in 1967 allegedly to have it reflect her married name due to her name change after marrying Lolo Soetoro at Molokai Hawaii on March 15, 1965 per page marked P3 of the released documents. Thus the conveniently missing application records for this 1965 passport implies to me that that there was something indicated in it that the powers to be did not want the public to see, i.e., that she had a passport prior to 1965 and the 1965 records indicated it was a Renewal application. So someone made the 1965 application records disappear. The carefully worded cover letter with the FOIA release implies to me that earlier years records have been purged by someone at sometime for some reason since they could not find a record that should be there based on records they did find. Was the 1965 passport issued done per a renewal request for a prior issued passport? As to the implication in the cover letter that early year data may have been cleaned out due to some records retention cut off date. I don't buy that. Since passport records are filed in files by name and not in boxes or files by year, this does not make sense. I was under the impression that passport records kept and filed by name were kept virtually forever. That wording sounded to me like bureaucratic obfuscation. It sounds to me like HI officials (or whoever controls them) are now instructing the U.S. Passport Office how to obfuscate and parse sentences in cover letters to allow them to not provide what one asks for and yet not be lying. In my opinion, there was probably a passport issued to Stanley Ann (whatever name she used to get it) prior to 1965. The 1965 passport application record pointed to that. So someone made the 1965 application records disappear.

Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro-Passport Application File-Strunk v Dept of State-FOIA Release-FINAL-7-29-10. This file indicates via the 1967 passport amendment application (document marked P3) that Stanley Ann (Dunham) Obama had a passport for certain issued to her 1965 and she was applying to amend it. Thus she had one for sure in 1965. Since her originally issued passport was good for up to 5 years, that means if the 1965 issued passport was a reissue of a passport to replace the original one that she had, but which was expiring, then she likely got her first passport possibly as early as late 1960 or early 1961.

How does all this fit the narrative to explain the information coming out of Africa and Kenya that Obama was born there? Why would she need a passport at age 18? She would not need it to have a baby in Hawaii or to go to college in Seattle Washington and back and forth to home in Hawaii. What was the real reason this pregnant 18 year old teenager got a passport in late 1960 or early in 1961? I believe it was likely to be able to travel to Kenya to have the baby over there where it was her intent to leave the baby there to be raised by the paternal family in Kenya. She was to then return to re-start her life as a young teenager going to college in Seattle Washington. And then when Stanley Ann did not follow the plan because maternal instincts kicked in and she returned to college in Seattle WITH the new baby, grandma Dunham had to take action and filed the fraudulent action in Hawaii to falsely register the baby as born at home there in Hawaii, with no witnesses, to get her newborn grandson U.S. Citizenship ... because it was very easy to do this in Hawaii in 1961. Listen to the Bill Cunningham Radio Show for how it was likely done: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmZpwcRf3FQ

Also in this passport applications file is revealed the exact date of Stanley Ann's marriage (two different exact dates and locations?) to Lolo Soetoro. But as is typical for everything with this family, nothing is consistent. In the 1967 amendment filing marked P3 she says she married Lolo Soetoro on March 15, 1965 in Molokai Hawaii. But in a later passport renewal application marked P5 filed in 1981 she states she married him on March 5, 1964 in Maui, Hawaii. Which is true? Either way, said marriage dates could have allowed for Obama to have been legally adopted by Lolo Soetoro in Hawaii at age 5 or under, given either of these marriage dates. And in addition, his falsified birth records in Hawaii, fraudulently created by grandma Dunham in 1961, could have been amended to show the new legal name of Barry Soetoro. Obama was mentioned as a son over age 18 in the Soetoro 1980 Divorce file as a dependent of Lolo Soetoro and still receiving financial aid from Lolo Soetoro to attend college. And then later in life as an adult Obama could have amended his vital record in Hawaii again and changed his name back to Barack Hussein Obama II when at that time in his life that name suited him. Obama is a life narrative chameleon. He changes names and citizenship at will during his life to suit his current needs and plans.

Also on document P1 signed in 1968, the second page of that document, she wrote in the block named "Amend to Include (Exclude) Children" the name of her son Barack Hussein Obama and then right below it a weird name or phrase spelled and in parenthesis as (Soebarkah). This entry then has 5 diagonal line strike-through lines across the entry. Another mysterious new tidbit and question as to the meaning of that entry to research.

When the original and complete birth records file for Obama in Hawaii going back to and including Aug 1961, and all subsequent amendments are released, it will likely be very damning to Obama's self created nativity narrative and other stories of his early life. Children legally adopted at age 5 and under have their new citizenship governed by the international Hague Convention Treaty on adopting children. The United States is a signatory to that treaty. That is another likely reason why Obama alludes to his being age 6 when those Indonesian records are discussed in regards to when his step-father "adopted" him and saying that the adoption occurred in Indonesia. I think that story is more false direction and misinformation type data put out by Obama and his handlers to throw one off the true trail.

See the records that have been released per the Strunk FOIA request and court order at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/35161730/Stanley-Ann-Dunham-Obama-Soetoro-Passport-Application-File-Strunk-v-Dept-of-State-FOIA-Release-FINAL-7-29-10

Posted by:

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al
Please visit this website and help the cause if you can:
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

P.S. Also released via another FOIA request were the U.S. records of her second husband Lolo Seotoro (parts of this file have been redacted/blacked out). This file contains a very poor quality copy of the March 1965 marriage license of Stanley Ann (Dunham) Obama to Lolo Soetoro, her 2nd husband, and Obama's step-father in Indonesia. http://www.scribd.com/doc/35189898/Lolo-Soetoro-U-S-Records-Allen-v-DHS-State-and-Allen-v-USCIS-FOIA-Releases-Final-7-29-10

P.P.S. Close reading of the marriage license of Stanley Ann (Dunham) Obama to Lolo Soetoro in March 1965 reveals that they were married in the state of Hawaii in Molokai in the county of Maui on the 15th of March, 1965. http://www.scribd.com/doc/35197608/Stanley-Ann-Dunham-Obama-Lolo-Soetoro-Marriage-License-Mar-1965-From-Soetoro-FOIA-Released-Docs

P.P.P.S. See this link sent to me about passport records retention:
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/96122.pdf
####

02 Aug 2010: An interesting observation to note about that new name for Barack Hussein Obama found written on the 2nd page of document numbered P1 is that the first three letters of that name Soebarkah, i.e., 'Soe' are also the first three letters of Lolo Soetoro's last name, i.e., 'Soe'. Lolo Soetore allegedly legally adopted Barack and changed Barack's name to Barry Soetoro after Lolo married Obama's mother Stanley Ann (Dunham) Obama on 15 March 1965 in Hawaii. Where and exactly when did the legal adoption and name change occur, in Hawaii under U.S. law or in Indonesian under their laws, no one knows for certain at this point? More questions to answer about the mystery man in the Oval Office.
####