The Obama Hustle

The Rediscovered Truth About Barack H Obama

Posts Tagged ‘Natural-born-citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution

Kansas State Officials Considering Obama Citizenship

with 2 comments


President Barack Obama addresses the House Dem...

President Barack Obama addresses the House Democratic Caucus Issues Conference in Williamsburg, Virginia. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Kansas officials plan to hold a hearing Thursday afternoon to weigh whether President Barack Obama is a citizen and should appear on the state’s November ballot.

The Kansas Objections Board will be considering a challenge filed by Joe Montgomery, a Manhattan resident, who Monday objected to Obama being on the ballot. He claims the president is not an American citizen since his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Kenya. The all-Republican board — which consists of Secretary of State Kris Kobach, Lt. Gov. Jeff Colyer and Attorney General Derek Schmidt — has the power to remove Obama from the ballot in his mother’s home state.

Montgomery, the communications coordinator for the College of Veterinary Medicine at Kansas State University, said in his filing that he does not believe Obama meets the criteria for citizenship because of his father’s citizenship. He cites several Supreme Court rulings in the filing, which he says validate his argument. In the filing, Montgomery said that the rulings show a “natural born citizen” is a person born of two American citizens.

Montgomery wrote:

Barack Obama, according to multiple sources, was not born to a citizen father. His father was never even admitted to this country as a resident alien. Barack Obama Sr. retained his British and Kenyan citizenship and passed them onto his son, which Mr. Obama has publicly claimed on his Fight the Smears website. The Supreme Court specified that natural-born citizenship inherently excludes dual citizenship through a citation in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (which was citing U.S. v Rhodes, noting that one could only be a British subject or a natural-born citizen, and not hold both citizenships): All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Montgomery also claimed that Obama has failed to justify his citizenship and said that the birth certificate provided by the White House is “doctored.” Hawaii officials, including former Gov. Linda Lingle (R), have said Obama was born in Honolulu and his birth certificate is real.

“Despite several lawsuits challenging Mr. Obama’s constitutional eligibility and place of birth, Mr. Obama has failed to provide any valid, certified documentary evidence to legally establish birth in this country, much less to citizen parents. Further there is substantial evidence showing that much of Mr. Obama’s alleged birth certificates have been forged or doctored, and have not been confirmed as legally valid, true and accurate,” Montgomery wrote. “In terms of the legal precedent expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court, this doesn’t matter, we have a longstanding legal precedent through the U.S. Supreme Court, which is our nation’s highest judicial authority. Under the court’s definition, Barack Obama is not Constitutionally eligible for the office of president.”

Montgomery reached by phone at his Kansas State office, confirmed that he did file the objection, but said he did not have time “to talk to the press.” The email filing to Kobach’s office was sent from Montgomery’s personal email address.

The Kansas Objections Board previously tossed out an objection to Obama that was filed in April, saying that the board could not consider the objection on technical grounds, since Obama had not been submitted as a candidate for the general election. Obama became a general election candidate during last week’s Democratic National Convention. Other states via courts or elections boards have dismissed objections to Obama’s citizenship and ballot placement.

Kobach, a Tea Party favorite who wrote Arizona’s controversial immigration law, said in 2010 that Obama should release his birth certificate and in 2009 joked at a state GOP event that neither Obama nor God have birth certificates.

State Democratic Party officials dismissed Montgomery’s objection and said they would not be attending today’s hearing in Topeka. “This is a fictitious and baseless suit,” state Democratic Party spokesman Dakota Loomis said. “It should be cleaned up by the end of the day.”

Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, and maternal grandparents, Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, are Kansas natives

Natural Born Defined: Natural Born Citizen vs. British “Common Law”

leave a comment »


Wong Kim Ark, in a photograph taken from a 190...

Wong Kim Ark, in a photograph taken from a 1904 U.S. immigration document.

Natural Born Defined:
Natural Born Citizen vs. British “Common Law” Natural Born Subject
By T.J. McCann, III

Natural Born Citizen vs. British “Common Law” Natural Born Subject:
Many reference British Common Law in search for a definitive answer as to the meaning of natural born, and resolve, by that Common Law, the definition of natural born to result from birth on the native soil of a country. Justice Gray does a thorough job of delving into British history in the landmark case of U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), even going back to Lord Coke and Calvin‟s case (1608), some 180 years before this nation‟s founding, and preceding the Ark decision by 290 years.
However, in truth, Lord Coke‟s decision in Calvin‟s case is as fundamentally alien to these United States‟ founding principles as the rest of British Common Law citizenship. Calvin‟s case was landmark in its day, and the early modern common-law mind, for being the first to articulate a theoretical basis for territorial birthright citizenship. Calvin‟s Case was not only influential in establishing the citizenship right of American colonials, but also was much later argued as the basis common-law rule for U.S. birthright citizenship. Calvin’s Case is the earliest, most influential theoretical articulation by an English court of what came to be the common-law rule that a person’s status was vested at birth, and based upon place of birth.
However this recognition of British common law also ignores the inherent conflicts with the fundamental tenets of our Constitution, conflicts so profound philosophically that they were causal in the Revolutionary War and War of 1812. In Lord Coke‟s decision, the law of the Creator is conflated with the law of England and being lain down via edict to the common man from that divine Crown through the judiciary. Even as described by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark, the Coke decision involves feudal concepts of “ ‘ligealty,’ ‘obedience,’ ‘faith,‘ or ‘power’ of the ‘King’”. This feudal oblige and extension of the dominion of the Crown to ANY territory held by the King, even making “natural born subjects” of those born in America, contributed to British settlers leaving Britain in the first place and ultimately became a primary factor in the “Declaration of Independence”, with colonists declaring themselves free of such an involuntary burden of the Crown while having no protection and no representation.
In 1765 the British Jurist William Blackstone recognized the mandate of the Crown having changed the inherent meaning of “natural-born Subject”, progressively over time, to be anyone born in British territory, regardless of the parents’ allegiance or citizenship. Initially a child was born a natural-born subject if born on British soil, even if the child’s parents were aliens.
However, Blackstone later wrote in his 1765 Commentaries, the following:

To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.

This passage indicates that even those not born on British territory are to be thenceforth considered “natural born” because of blood lineage no less, and for the purpose of trade (as well as the Treasury), showing that this is not a static understanding of “natural born”, but one evolved over time and by “executive” mandate of the Crown – hardly any sort of “common law.”
What Gray has represented as British “common law” natural born subject, was not static and was the evolution of Crown dictate over time, expressed in statutory law. This statutory definition is far removed from any sort of natural, ‘self-evident’ term employed by the United States in its Constitution.
Only 30 years prior to Blackstone‟s writings, in 1736, British scholar Matthew Bacon recognized the fundamental meaning of “natural-born Subject” to be:

“All those are natural-born Subjects whose Parents, at the Time of their Birth, were under the actual Obedience of our King, and whose Place of Birth was within his dominions.” (Matthew Bacon, A New Abridgement of the Law, 1736, Vol 1, pg 77)

Not only does this indicate that the place of birth must be within the “dominion (British territory) itself, but it also indicates that the parents must be under the “actual obedience” of the King. The emphasis on “actual Obedience” seems to strongly differentiate that from a presumed obedience resulting from mere happenstance of birth within the dominion. Given this, those who had foreign allegiance did not give birth on British soil to British natural born subjects. This is definition by Bacon is the same as our own “Natural Law” definition today, involving (1) the allegiance (citizenship) of both parents and (2) birth within the U.S. territory (dominion).
In Gray‟s majority opinion for Wong Kim Ark, Gray makes two references to natural born citizen which directly conflict with his British common law approach. The first is a reference to Justice Waite‟s opinion from Minor vs. Happersett, in which Waite refers to a Vattel‟s definition of natural born citizen as birth to two citizen parents on country‟s soil.
In the second, Justice Gray quotes from a pamphlet entitled “Alienigenae of the United States”, by Horace Binney, which used the term “natural born” in connection with a child of a citizen, but not in connection with a child of an alien parent.:

The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. (Binney‟s statement, as cited by Gray U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898))

While Binney references both children as citizens, only the child born of a citizen is referenced as “natural born”.
Justice Gray‟s articulation of British Common Law in Wong Kim Ark regarding U.S. citizenship should be considered nothing short of an abomination, because it is truly runs contrary to the very origins and hard-won principles of this country. While Gray‟s argument in Wong Kim Ark has had deleterious effect on citizenship, the case did not affect natural born citizen because Gray never pronounced that a natural born citizen was equivalent to a natural born Subject, despite obviously desiring to do so, and Gray never at all undermined the definition provided by Justice Waite from Minor vs. Happersett. While Wong Kim Ark was pronounced a citizen of the United States, Ark was never declared to be a natural born citizen of the United States.
George Mason, called the “Father of the Bill of Rights” and considered one of the “Founding Fathers” of the United States, is widely quoted as saying:

The common law of England is not the common law of these states. ( Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention, 19 June 1788)

More recently Justice Antonin Scalia confirmed the irrelevancy of British Common Law:

The common law is gone. The federal courts never applied the common law and even in the state courts it’s codified now. (Audio/Video: Justice Scalia speech, Nov 22, 2008)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/104741948/Natural-Born-Defined-Natural-Born-Citizen-vs-British-%E2%80%9CCommon-Law%E2%80%9D-Natural-Born-Subject

Justice Scalia flummoxed about natural born citizenship!

with 3 comments


CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)

My comment and open letter to Justice Scalia — Dear Justice Scalia: If you don’t know enough about the history and original intent of the “natural born Citizen” legal term of art in our Constitution, click on your picture for a refresher course! Or were you just feigning ignorance when put on the spot by answering Attorney Larry Klayman’s question with a question? I suggest you re-read the preeminent legal treatise on natural law of the founding era, used by the founders and framers, The Law of Nations or Principle of Natural Law, Vol.1 Chapter 19, Section 212. Also the Federalist Papers and refresh your memory about the framers great concerns about foreign influence on a future president and their original intent to protect that office as much as possible from foreign influence and their assuring the public that they have taken precautions in the new Constitution to prevent that.
You may remember that back in November of 2008 I sent you and all the other members of the court a copy of the Federalist Papers and suggested you all re-read it over the Thanksgiving break. You may wish to re-read John Jay’s letter to George Washington, the President of the Constitutional Convention, with Jay’s specific hint/suggestion to Washington that only a “natural born Citizen” be allowed to be President since he would be in command of our armies. John Jay wanted a strong check against foreign influence. Being simply born a Citizen as Hamilton suggested was not enough. They wanted a “natural born Citizen”. The adjective natural in that legal term means that this legal term of art comes from natural law. A citizen at birth created by the laws of nature, not the laws of men. A person born in the country to parents who are both citizens of that country. A person with unity of citizenship and sole allegiance to only one country at birth. The convention adopted Jay’s suggestion. John Jay was an ardent user of Vattel’s Law of Nations and as you probably know became the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Think hard.
I’m sure you remember reading that letter from Jay to Washington. Or if you wish, Attorney Apuzzo and I can come visit you and give you a short brief in private on the Who, What, When, Where, WHY, and How the “natural born Citizen” clause was put into Article II Section 1 Clause 5, the presidential eligibility clause, of the U.S. Constitution . But really, somehow I think you already know all this but are quite nervous and afraid to face the question and answer with what you know the true answer is due to your fear of Obama and media criticism and Chicago style Saul Alinsky tactics and threats of dire consequences to silence the opposition. We the People know you and the rest of the court have been ducking the question. Justice Thomas, the only brave soul on the court, told us as much. You ducked the question and abrogated your responsibility to support and defend the U.S. Constitution. The truth will come out some day. It always does. You sir will be judged by God, We the People, and history. And the record you and the rest of the Roberts court have shown on this subject and matter will not be held in high esteem. Of that you can be certain.

Mitt Romney is a Natural Born Citizen – Ancestry-Ahnentafel Genealogy Chart for Mitt Romney – by CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)

with 4 comments


Mitt Romney is a Natural Born Citizen

See and download Mitt’s genealogy chart and citizenship status analysis for him and his parents at this link:  http://www.scribd.com/doc/77518311/Ancestry-Ahnentafel-Genealogy-Chart-for-Mitt-Romney-by-CDR-Charles-Kerchner-Ret

The 1940 Census of the United States lists George Romney, the father of Mitt Romney, as an “American Citizen Born Abroad”. Lenore Romney, the mother of Mitt Romney, was born in UT and thus was a citizen too.  See this report from Ancestry.com: http://www.scribd.com/doc/104590149/1940-Census-George-Romney-father-of-Mitt-George-Romney-American-Citizen-Born-Abroad

Mitt Romney was born in the USA in 1947 in Detroit MI to a U.S. citizen father and mother and thus is a “natural born Citizen of the United States” and is constitutionally eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of our military. He was born in the USA to two U.S. Citizen parents.

Barack Hussein Obama is NOT a “natural born Citizen of the United States” and is NOT constitutionally eligible to be the President and Commander in Chief of our military.   Obama’s father was a foreign national who was never a U.S. Citizen, not even an immigrant to the USA, not even a permanent resident of the USA.  The major media refuses to talk about this and many other buried topics and history regarding Obama.  Barack Obama’s father was a total foreign national and thus Obama was born with foreign citizenship via his father, i.e., Barack Hussein Obama II was born a British Subject via his British Subject, foreign national father.  Despite claims by Obama’s supporter and enablers otherwise, Obama to this day is still a British Subject and/or British Protected Person covered by the British Nationality Act of 1948 which covered his birth status under a treaty between the U.S. and England regarding citizenship status of children born of their respective citizens in the others country.  Born a Brit, always a Brit.  Barack Obama II was “born a Brit” and “thus not legit” to be the President. Barack Hussein Obama II is NOT a “natural born Citizen of the United States” to constitutional standards since his father was not a U.S. Citizen.  For more on natural born Citizenship see:  http://www.art2superpac.com

# # # #

Barack Obama is NOT a “natural born Citizen of the United States” and is thus constitutionally ineligible to be the President and Commander in Chief of our military. Obama was born to a FOREIGN NATIONAL FATHER who was NEVER a U.S. Citizen nor was Obama’s father even an immigrant to the USA or even a permanent resident in the USA.  For no other U.S. President in the history of the nation since the founding generation (who were exempt from the natural born Citizen clause in the U.S.  Constitution via a grandfather clause in Article II Section 1) was that the case, i.e., having a foreign national father who was never a U.S. Citizen or even an immigrant to this country. Obama being seated as the putative president is an outrageous violation of Article II Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, the presidential eligibility clause.  Obama was not born with sole allegiance to the USA. Sole allegiance and unity of Citizenship at birth was the goal and purpose for putting the natural born Citizen clause into Article II Section 1 of the Constitution as to who could serve as president once the founding generation has passed away.  Obama (II) was born a British Subject via his foreign national father Obama (Sr.) who was a British Subject.   Obama is not a “natural born Citizen of the United States” to constitutional standards since he was born with dual allegiance and citizenship.  The founders and framers did not want anyone with foreign allegiance to ever get command of our military, i.e., be the president. Obama is constitutionally not eligible to be president and commander in chief of our military.

Adjectives mean something.  A “Citizen at Birth” is not logically identically equal to a “natural born Citizen at Birth”. Barack Obama may be a ‘Citizen of the United States’  but he is not a ‘natural born Citizen of the United States’ and does not meet the constitutional standards as to who can be the President and Commander in Chief of our military: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-maybe-citizen-of-united-states.html

The natural born Citizen clause in our Constitution is a national security clause inserted into our Constitution by John Jay and George Washington.  Read why the natural born Citizen clause is still important and worth protecting.

Five Citizenship Terms Mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-US-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same

Of Trees and Plants and Basic Logic and Citizenship Types: http://www.scribd.com/doc/44814496/Of-Trees-and-Plants-and-Basic-Logic-Citizen-at-Birth-NOT-Identical-to-Natural-Born-Citizen

See evidence Obama forged the birth certificate posted on White House servers 27 Apr 2011: http://www.scribd.com/collections/3166684

See evidence Obama is using a SSN 042-68-4425 not legally issued to him: http://www.scribd.com/collections/3260742

See evidence of Obama’s forged and back dated draft registration here: http://www.debbieschlussel.com/4428/exclusive-did-next-commander-in-chief-falsify-selective-service-registration-never-actually-register-obamas-draft-registration-raises-serious-questions/

This is not a fringe issue!  South Carolina Poll Results – A poll done by Public Policy Polling (PPP) shows that almost 2/3 of GOP voters want Obama’s constitutional eligibility and true legal identity investigated. This is not a fringe issue: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=340805

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) Lehigh Valley PA USA http://www.protectourliberty.org/ http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/

“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened.” Ronald Reagan alerting us to Norman Thomas’ and the socialist/progressive’s long-term stealth agenda to transform the USA from a constitutional republic into a top-down, central controlled, socialist form of government

P.S.  16 Jan 2012 update by WorldNetDaily.com: http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/mitt-romney-not-a-natural-born-citizen/

The Mysterious Case of Obama’s Identity

with 3 comments


Barack Obama

Barack Obama (Photo credit: jamesomalley)

Thursday, 30 August 2012 10:00 Diana West

On one level, the answer is easy given the absence of verifiable bona fides attesting to Obama’s life story, from every college record to every travel document, from every medical record to every legal writing to every law practice billing record to every record of his tenure as an Illinois state senator – and more. But the story has had to penetrate the American psyche in spite of a deep freeze on the topic in conventional channels. The Obama identity story, burning at the grass-roots-level for more than four years now, is consistently snuffed out and ignored by American journalists and the political class, from elected leaders to party officials. This silence is strictly non-partisan, and spans the political spectrum.

An investigation, undertaken by a so-called cold case posse working for Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Maricopa County, Arizona, has now concluded that not one but two Obama basic identity documents are, without a doubt, forgeries: 1) the computer file (pdf) of the 1961 birth certificate that appears on the White House website; and 2) the president’s 1980 military draft registration card released by the U.S. Selective Service Administration shortly before the 2008 election. These investigators maintain they can prove this in court.

The story of how they might do so is verboten, too. But somehow the saga doesn’t end up in George Orwell’s “memory hole”. This is due mainly to the irrepressible nature of the Internet.

It is here, for example, and not in the mainstream media, where, following the White House online release of Obama’s 1961 ”long-form” birth certificate on April 27, 2011, a small army of private individuals with varying degrees of technology expertise downloaded the document file and delved into the unexpectedly “unflattened” graphic composition “layers”. They submitted a series of computer forensics analyses to this online public square, arguing that the White House pdf had been fraudulently manipulated. Since that time, similar evidence has been methodically amassed and repeatedly tested under the auspices of Sheriff Arpaio’s cold case team.

Sheriff Arpaio formed this cold case posse after 250 local citizens asked him to determine whether Obama was eligible to appear on the Arizona presidential ballot in 2012.

On two occasions in 2012, the posse presented findings to the public. They concluded that the birth certificate on the White House website didn’t originate on a piece of paper but rather was created, or, more precisely, forged as an electronic file on a computer. As one Adobe expert and posse consultant put it: “The only time Obama’s long-form birth certificate image exists as a paper document is when a computer user selects Print from the File menu.”

At this point, the posse would like to turn over all of its evidence to Congress for a formal investigation. Like a hand grenade that could go off at any moment, however, such an investigation has no takers. And so the fuse burns on not one, but two potential constitutional crises.

One involves the biggest unsolved mystery in American history: If Arpaio’s findings are correct, who did it? The other potential crisis, while linked to the first, is much more transparent. The U.S. Constitution lays out three criteria for president and vice president. Article II, Section 1, requires that the president be at least 35 years of age, have lived 14 years in the United States, and be a “natural-born” citizen.

Natural born” citizens are distinct from citizens who are native-born (born in the country) or naturalized. While native-born or naturalized citizen may hold any other office, only “natural born” citizens are eligible for the presidency, the idea being that America’s founders wanted to ensure that the chief executive had allegiance only to the American republic.

The Constitution doesn’t define “natural born”, but according to common law at the time and, later, the 1875 U.S. Supreme Court case “Minor v. Happersett”, a “natural born” citizen is understood to be someone born in the U.S. to citizen parents (plural). “Minor” spelled out this definition and is thus the signal case. It is remarkable that in mid-2008, as Barack Obama was clinching the presidential nomination, references to the “Minor” case inexplicably disappeared from 25 related U.S. Supreme Court decisions archived at Justia.com, a leading legal search engine popular with journalists and legal bloggers. Coincidence? When attorney and blogger Leo Donofrio, whose Obama eligibility challenge went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in December 2008 (dismissed), discovered this apparent tampering in 2011, Justia called it a “programming error”. The blogosphere called it “Justiagate”. The media, of course, said nothing at all.

So where does this leave the president, the son of a white American teen mother and a black British subject from Kenya? (Kenya became independent in 1963.)

According to his own story, Baby Obama came into the world with dual American-British citizenship. At the same time, however, there is, to date, zero verifiable evidence to be found of his Hawaiian birth; meanwhile there is circumstantial evidence of alternative nativities. For example, the personal biography Obama’s former literary agent used to promote Obama described him as “born in Kenya”. This biography, written in 1991, remained on the agency website until April 2007 – two months after then-Senator Obama announced his presidential run.

Other oddities include a missing week of immigration cards tracking American arrivals into Hawaii from abroad that should be in the national archives. Obama’s birthday in August 1961 falls in this missing week. In light of unexplained facts such as these, in light of the Obama documents that remain sealed, it’s really not so hard to see where a foreign nativity story comes from – or at least why a number of Americans are confused.

Many have heard about the two 1961 newspapers that published announcements of Obama’s birth. Posse investigators discovered that foreign-born children were similarly announced as Hawaiian births in these same papers, while they also found a set of adopted twins who were several years old before their “birth” announcements appeared.

Further complicating Obama’s citizenship story is an undisputed school record from Jakarta which identifies young Obama as a citizen of Indonesia. With all of this in mind, it’s hard to stamp Obama “natural-born”. Still, no challenger to date has managed to convince an American court of this. Of course, almost every single case has been dismissed before trial.

Also worth noting is that almost every single case sought the same thing: the release of the Obama birth “long-form” birth certificate. This is the very document the White House website put on display in April 2011. Obama spent an estimated one to three million dollars to fight previous attempts to compel him to release this same document. What happened to make the president change his mind?

Two senior White House officials presided over the birth certificate’s unveiling at a pen-and-paper, off-camera, no audio-recording, press conference. One journalist in the pack pointed out, “some people are going to remain unconvinced”. He continued: “They’re going to say that this is just a photocopy of a piece of paper. You could have typed anything in there. Will the actual birth certificate be on display or viewable at any …”

The White House transcript breaks off with the word: “(laughter)”.

Who will get the last laugh? Barack Obama? Sheriff Arpaio? The politicians who keep their heads down, or the citizens who take their Constitution seriously? Whoever laughs last, it seems safe to say that the Obama birth certificate is a very funny document.

Diana West is the author of The Death of the Grown-Up: How America’s Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization. Her arttcle archive and blog are here.

OBAMA LAWYER ADMITS FORGERY BUT DISREGARDS “IMAGE” AS INDICATION OF OBAMA’S INELIGIBILITY

with 13 comments


OBAMA LAWYER ADMITS FORGERY BUT DISREGARDS “IMAGE” AS INDICATION OF OBAMA’S INELIGIBILITY

This is the long form birth certificate showin...

This is the forged long form birth certificate showing that the supposed 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born at 7:24 pm, on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii, United States.

DAMAGE CONTROL: A recent ballot challenge hearing in New Jersey exposes a desperate strategy by Obama to distance himself from his forged certificate and induce the contrived value of his transient political popularity as the only “legitimate qualification” needed to hold the office of the presidency. By Dan Crosby of THE DAILY PEN

NEW YORK, NY – After a Maricopa County law enforcement agency conducted a six-month forensic examination which determined that the image of Obama’s alleged 1961 Certificate of Live Birth posted to a government website in April, 2011 is a digital fabrication and that it did not originate from a genuine paper document, arguments from an Obama eligibility lawyer during a recent New Jersey ballot challenge hearing reveals the image was not only a fabrication, but that it was likely part of a contrived plot by counterfeiters to endow Obama with mere political support while simultaneously making the image intentionally appear absurd and, therefore, invalid as evidence toward proving Obama’s ineligibility in a court of law.
Taking an audacious and shocking angle against the constitutional eligibility mandate, Obama’s lawyer, Alexandra Hill, admitted that the image of Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery and made the absurd claim that, therefore, it cannot be used as evidence to confirm his lack of natural born citizenship status. Therefore, she argued, it is “irrelevant to his placement on the ballot”.
Hill went on to contort reasoning by implying that Obama needs only invoke his political popularity, not legal qualifications, in order to be a candidate.  At the hearing, attorney for the plaintiffs, Mario Apuzzo, correctly argued that Obama, under the Constitution, has to be a “natural born Citizen” and that he has not met his burden of showing that he is eligible to be on the New Jersey primary ballot by showing that he is indeed a “natural born Citizen.”
He argued that Obama has shown no authenticate evidence to the New Jersey Secretary of State demonstrating who he is and that he was born in the United States. Apuzzo also argued that as a matter of law, Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” because he was born to a father who was not a U.S. citizen.
As Obama’s legal argument becomes more contorted, he is being forced to avoid an ever shrinking legal space, and an increasing weight, of his failure to meet constitutional eligibility requirements.  Hill, of Genova, Burn & Giantomasi Attorneys in Newark, made a desperate motion to dismiss the ballot objection arguing that Obama’s lack of natural-born citizenship status was not relevant to being placed on the New Jersey presidential ballot because no law exists in New Jersey which says that a candidate’s appearance on the ballot must be supported by evidence of natural born citizenship status. Only the U.S. constitution restricts eligibility to hold the office of president to natural born citizens.
Judge Masin denied the motion to dismiss and the case proceeded to trial.
“Sadly, regardless of her moral deficiency, Hill is legally justified,” says TDP Editor, Penbrook Johannson, “Obama’s eligibility is a separate matter than the charges of forgery and fraud. Of course, we have evidence that he is not eligible. But, evidence of forgery by as yet unidentified counterfeiters working on behalf of Obama is not what legally excludes Obama from appearing on a ballot, by itself, until some authority is willing to consider this as evidence of forgery on its merit as an indication of actual ineligibility in a court of legal authority. Until some court of competent jurisdiction is willing to hear evidence of forgery and fraud, you can’t legally punish a political candidate for that crime which has not been proven that they committed. However, since Obama is not eligible because of a lack of authenticated evidence to the contrary, he could be held off the ballot for that reason.”
According to Johannson, there is an overwhelming level of moral certainty that Obama is a usurper, but until a court with jurisdiction considers this case, Obama’s status as a legitimate president is in limbo.
“He does not exist as a president except in the imagination of those who blindly support him. Whereas he is politically desired by a transient consensus, his legality is unresolved until a responsible court makes a determination. This is the essence of our crisis. Our nation exists in a state of non-authorized identity. Obama is just some guy calling himself a president and living in the White House without the confirmative authority to do so.”
Obama’s document forgery and fraudulent presidency have now forced him to flee to a “strange twilight zone” between political popularity and legal legitimacy where poorly counterfeited records are apparently allowed to be published by Obama using government media resources for political purposes, yet those same records are held by the courts as irrelevant for determining Obama’s legal eligibility status because they are, according to judges, “so poorly forged” they are obviously meant to be satirical and not to be taken seriously as evidence.
Shockingly, parting from widespread public ignorance, Hill actually acknowledged two of the three necessary components of determining natural born citizenship as being place of birth and citizenship status of both parents. However, she argued that, “No law in New Jersey obligated him (Obama) to produce any such evidence in order to get on the primary ballot.”
The third component of natural born eligibility is maintenance of natural born citizenship status from birth to election without interruption, involuntarily or voluntarily, due to expatriation, extradition, renouncement or foreign adoption.
“Obama is mocking our constitution,” says Johannson, “His position is that he never claimed the image was an indication of his natural born status, just that it was information about his birth. Whether it is forged or authentic is irrelevant to Obama because plausible deniability affords him the security in knowing that no legal authority is willing to hang him with it.”
Of course, Johannson adds that it makes Obama look like a willing accomplice and a liar, but, he says, “…show me a politician who cares about being seen as a liar by the public. If people who support him want to vote for a person like that, it reveals more about the reprobate character of Obama supporters than competency of any legal determination about his lack of constitutional eligibility. Degenerates will vote for a degenerate while patriots will exhaust all civil means to remove him…until those civil means are exhausted. Then things get ugly for government.”
“However, Hill is also essentially admitting that Obama is not a legitimate president and that Obama believes that his illegitimacy does not matter to his legal ability to hold the office. Obama holds to a political tenet, not a legal one with respect to his views on his eligibility. That’s what corrupt, criminal politicians do. When the law convicts them, they run to public favorability for shelter with the hope that their supporters will apply pressure to disregard law in their case.”
Obama is now arguing that because he is politically popular, as he points to as being indicated by his so-called ‘election’, despite accusations of eligibility fraud and election fraud, the constitutional eligibility mandate is not relevant, in his view. Until a courageous authority is willing to disagree and hold Obama to an equally weighted legal standard, civil remedies for the Obama problem are limited.
Johannson adds that Obama is making the same argument on behalf of Obamacare.  “If he had the gall to actually tell the Supreme Court that they have no authority to determine the unconstitutionality of his illegitimate policies, what makes anyone think he believes they have the authority to disqualify him due to his lack of constitutional eligibility? Obama believes he holds preeminent power over all branches of government because of his delusions of political grandeur.”
He correctly points to a lifetime pattern of behavior and testimony by Obama which indicates a complete lack of regard for the U.S. Constitution when it restricts Obama’s political agenda and lust for power.
“This is a guy who illegally defaced public property when he scribed his aspirations to be ‘king’ in a concrete sidewalk at the age of ten, for God’s sake. Now, his ‘majesty’ wants to put his illegal ‘graffiti’ into American law books. However, his problem is that he has to face the fact that he is an abject failure in his capacity to meet any standard required by the 250-year-old U.S. Constitution, in everything he tries to do. The Constitution owns him and he can’t stand it. He hates it. Therefore, instead of admitting his lack of constitutionality, he simply breaks the rules and proceeds to illegally scribe his fake authority on everything until someone is willing to physically stop him. Obama is not just an illegitimate politician, he is a rogue outlaw without regard for the divine providence of American law.”
Apuzzo submitted that New Jersey law requires Obama to show evidence that he is qualified for the office he wishes to occupy and that includes showing that he is a “natural born Citizen,” which includes presenting evidence of who he is, where he was born, and that he was born to two U.S. citizen parents. Apuzzo added that the Secretary of State has a constitutional obligation not to place any ineligible candidates on the election ballot.
The account of the trial can be read at:

http://www.teapartytribune.com/2012/04/11/nj-ballot-access-challenge-hearing-update/

Senator Marco Rubio’s father was not a naturalized citizen when Marco was born in May 1971 per National Archives data.

with 8 comments


Official portrait of US Senator Marco Rubio of...

Official portrait of US Senator Marco Rubio of Florida.

2012 VP Prospects

Senator Marco Rubio’s father was not a naturalized citizen when Marco was born in May 1971 per National Archives data. His father applied for naturalization in Sep 1975. Marco Rubio not constitutionally eligible to run for President or VP, By Retired Navy Commander Charles Kerchner

A natural born Citizen of the United States is one born in the United States to two U.S. Citizens who were Citizens of the United States either by birth or naturalization at the time of the birth of the child. A natural born Citizen of the United States is a child born with sole allegiance to the United States, a person born without Citizenship in any other country other than the USA at the time of their birth. A natural born Citizen has no foreign influence or claim on them by another country at the time of their birth under U.S. law and the Law of Nations. That is why the founders and framers chose the legal term of art “natural born Citizen” for the eligibility clause for the singular most powerful office in our form of government, the President and Commander in Chief of our military. They did not wish command of our military forces to ever devolve to a person born with dual allegiances.

Senator Marco Rubio of FL has been evasive and not been forthcoming about his exact citizenship status upon his birth in the United States in May 1971. Phone calls, emails, and letters to his office by various volunteers over the last year have gone unanswered on the question of whether his parents (who were immigrants from Cuba) had become naturalized citizens of the USA by the time of Marco’s birth in the USA.

We have given Senator Rubio long enough to be voluntarily forthcoming on this information. A phone call last week by a volunteer researcher assisting my efforts to learn more about Senator Marco Rubio’s exact birth citizenship status was made to the National Archives (NARA) to learn the facts about Senator Marco Rubio and certain other individuals who are mentioned in the media as potential candidates for President or Vice President. That is, are they constitutionally eligible, i.e., “natural born Citizens of the United States” as is required in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

According to the information conveyed to the volunteer during the phone calls to NARA about Senator Marco Rubio of FL, his father did not petition to become a naturalized citizen of the United States until Sep 1975, a full four years after Marco Rubio was born. A natural born Citizen of the United States is one born in the United States to two U.S. Citizens at the time of the birth. Thus Senator Marco Rubio is NOT a natural born Citizen of the United States. He is a native born Citizen under the 14th Amendment and/or the Wong Kim Ark (1898) Supreme Court decision which grants basic citizenship to individuals born in the USA. But Senator Marco Rubio is NOT a natural born Citizen under Article II, Section 1. Thus Senator Marco Rubio is NOT constitutionally eligible to serve as President or Vice President of the United States per Article II, Section 1, and the last sentence of the 12th Amendment to the Constitution. Senator Marco Rubio has obviously known this for a long time. His silence in response to the American electorate and avoidance to answering the questions put to him over the last year about this issue says a lot about Marco Rubio and indicates that when it comes to his own personal political objectives he is in the progressive school of thought about following the fundamental law of the land, our U.S. Constitution. To people of the progressive school of thinking the Constitution says and means whatever one wants it to mean to allow one to achieve their personal political power and goals, i.e., what John McCain did in the 2008 presidential election cycle in making a deal with Senator Obama and the U.S. Senate so that McCain could run unmolested about questions by the Democrat Party operatives and their allies in the major media as to his natural born Citizenship status.

Senator Marco Rubio is NOT a natural born Citizen. He was born with dual allegiance. One to the USA by location of birth and the other to Cuba via gaining Cuban citizenship at birth via his father since his father had not yet naturalized to the USA and renounced his Cuban citizenship by doing so. This is similar to the situation with Obama gaining British citizenship at birth from his Kenyan British Subject father. Senator Marco Rubio should stand up for the Constitution and speak out about this and say that as much as he’d like to run someday for those offices, he is not constitutionally eligible to run for President or VP. He should be a protector of the U.S. Constitution, the document that gave his parents the freedom and liberty they sought when they naturalized in this country. He should put his personal ambitions for higher office aside. He should tell the RNC and people in the media the facts and stand up like a statesman should and support the Constitution and not allow them to continue their musing and aspirations to run him for Prez and VP some day. To allow such discussions to continue in the major media is allowing them to continue to undermine the true meaning and intent of the “natural born Citizen” clause in Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

In addition to clarifying his own constitutional citizenship status, Senator Marco Rubio of FL should also say that Obama is not eligible either and should be investigated for election fraud and criminal activities such as SSN fraud and draft registration fraud and be removed from office. We not only have a constitutionally ineligible person in the Oval Office but we also have a grifter and criminal in that office.

The leadership of the Republican Party and the RNC is also complicit in this usurpation of the founders and framers intent with the eligiblity clause in Article II Section 1. The Republican Party leadership has ENABLED Obama to get away with what he’s done to illegally usurp national power in order that the Republican Party can do the same thing too, i.e., ignore the Constitution when it suits their own political power objectives. It’s time for a change in the Republican Party leadership … a major change. We need dedicated constitutionalists to take over the party and fight the righteous battle to restore the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution to full force and effect in Washington DC and throughout our great land and to investigate Obama and have him removed for the fraud and criminal he is, and to thence begin a purge in Washington DC of all the enablers of this usurpation and cover up. We the People demand it.

Copies of the naturalization petition for U.S. Citizenship filed in Sep 1975 for Mario Rubio, the father of Senator Marco Rubio who was born in May 1971, were mailed to me from the National Archives and will be published here upon receipt.

UPDATE 27 May 2011: Copy of Sep 1975 Petition for Naturalization for Mario Rubio, father of Senator Marco Rubio who was born in May 1971, more than 4 years after his father elected to become a U.S. Citizen and renounce his Cuban citizenship: http://www.scribd.com/doc/56489970/Naturalization-Petition-Filed-in-Sep-1975-for-Mario-Rubio-the-father-of-Senator-Marco-Rubio-born-May-1971

CDR Kerchner (Ret) http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com http://www.protectourliberty.org

Naturalization Petition Filed in Sep 1975 for Mario Rubio, the father of Senator Marco Rubio born May 1971

If the NBC issue encapsulates Obama then it must also encapsulate Rubio as well.  Only a Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America may serve as President or Vice President of these United States as per Article II Section I Clause IV of the United States Constitution.

Cry and Howl

Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off. 1 Kings 20:11

YouViewed/Editorial

News , Blues and Guns ... Not Necessarily In That Order

For What It's Worth

Greenwich, Connecticut real estate, politics, etc.

Today's News 4 You

Just another WordPress.com site

Mississippi Coal

Kemper Lignite Coal Plant Connections to the United Nations' Projects

The Piratearian

Aye, It's good to be a Pirate!

Texas Tudors's Blog

We are the Texas Tudors, and this is OUR Family

The Ohio Conservative

Conservative thought and opinion from the Midwest

The Surf Report

Triangulating "Truth" in a Troubled Paradise

theconservativehillbilly

Confronting stupid people with the cold hard conservative fist of truth

Hump Day Report

It's America...We Can Get Over The Hump!

My Very Own Point of View

bits and pieces of what runs through my mind

The Daley Gator

If you are LEFT, you just ain't RIGHT

Socialism is not the Answer

Limited Government Is

2012: What's the 'real' truth?

To find out, I hold a finger in the breeze.

Sparkleplenty27's Campaign Coverage

Political News About the Campaign FACT BASED and Commentary

Old1wordpress's Blog

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Real News World Wide

News World Wide, Real News Worldwide, News World Wide, Verified News, Infowars.com, realnewsworldwide.com, world news, headline news, best news

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,986 other followers

%d bloggers like this: