Natural Born Citizen – A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers

December 14, 2009

Obama is an Unconstitutional Illegal Putative President – 21 & 14 Dec 2009 Issues of Washington Times National Weekly Edition. Obama was Born British

Obama is an Unconstitutional Illegal Putative President – 21 & 14 Dec 2009 Issues of the Washington Times National Weekly Edition – page 5 & 15 respectively. Obama was born a British Subject and is a dual-citizen to this day. Under the Constitutional meaning of “natural born Citizen”, dual-citizens are not eligible to be President and Commander-in-Chief of our military.

Obama is a usurper. Obama is an unconstitutional illegal putative president. See the above linked to issues of the Washington Times National Weekly edition. To be a “natural born Citizen” as is required in the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, the person must be born in the country to parents who both are Citizens of the country when the child was born. Obama’s father was a British Subject when Obama was born in 1961. Obama’s father was never a U.S. Citizen nor was he even an immigrant to the USA. We are a nation of immigrants but Obama Sr. was not one. And under the British Nationality Act of 1948 and international law, Obama (Jr.) was also born a British Subject and thus is a dual-citizen Citizen to this day, if he was born in Hawaii as he claims. To date, he has not conclusively proved exactly where he was born to any investigative controlling legal authority. Photoshop’d digital images and pictures of computerized summary data put on the internet proffered by Obama proves nothing. Computerized records say his birth was “registered” in the Hawaii birth system. That computer data registration record could have been based on false birth location registration testimony by a family member using a simple mail-in form available in 1961. GIGO – false location of birth registration into a data base yields false data out today on a computer print out. The original “ribbon copy” long-form birth records with the names and signatures of medical attendants and of witnesses, if any, to the alleged birth in Hawaii must be examined by experts as well as all his other hidden and sealed records of his early life. If he was born in Kenya as his relatives and news account there claim, then Obama could even be an illegal alien since his mother was not old enough under U.S. laws at that time to convey U.S. citizenship to her child born of a foreign father if the child is born in a foreign country. Obama had dual allegiance at birth if he was born in Hawaii – British via his father and U.S. via his mother. Just like John McCain is a U.S. Citizen because when he was born in Panama his father was a U.S. Citizen, Obama was a British Subject when born since his father was a British Subject.

Put emotions and progressive (anything should be allowed) ideas aside and stop and think about it. Our founders fought a Revolutionary War to get break away from Great Britain. They insisted that after their initial generation of original citizens (who were British Subjects prior to the Revolutionary War) were gone from this life that only a “natural born Citizen” of the new USA could serve in the Office of the Presidency and Commander-in-Chief of our military. After their initial original generation no one who was born subject to the King of England would ever be allowed to serve as President. How can a person born a British Subject and a dual-citizen ever be considered a “natural born Citizen” (a person born with the sole allegiance to the USA). How can a dual-citizen be allowed to be the Commander-in-Chief of our military. Having sole allegiance and unity of citizenship at birth to only the USA was the intent of our nation’s founders and framers for the office of the Presidency and command of our military, to constitutional standards? The answer is … a dual citizen at birth is not constitutionally eligible to be the President. Obama is not a natural born citizen of the USA.

If a football team scores a touch down due to an ineligible player on the field or by breaking the rules of the contest, should that touch down count? No it should not? Elections have rules too. Thus, Obama is should not be allowed to stay in the office of the President and Commander-in-Chief simply because he was able to get away with breaking the rules (The U.S. Constitution) and crossed the goal line. That fact that he has hidden his true legal identity long enough to fool a simple majority of the American people into voting for him and making it across the goal line and getting sworn in due to legions of attorneys running interference for his illegal plays does not make him legally eligible under the rules (the Constitution). Since he broke the rules (the Constitution) he is a usurper and must be removed.

See this graphic depiction of The 3 Enablers who have allowed this trampling of our Constitution and who will allow our Liberty to be destroyed if we do not put an end to this usurpation by Obama. Let others know about this. Pass this on to friends and family. Send it to your Congress person. Write letters to the editors of your newspapers. And if you personally know any federal Judge anywhere in your neighborhood, in your club, or at your church, use your 1st amendment freedom of speech while you still have it. Tell them what a disgrace the federal judicial system has become in this matter in not allowing a simple fact-finding trial on the merits of the charges and to uncover the hidden original birth record information that Obama has sealed along with all his other early life, college, passport, and travel records. What is Obama hiding and using the Department of Justice lawyers and taxpayer’s money to help him hide it? Show them the current new ad above and this quote by Chief Justice John Marshall ad too and other ads in our series. Synergy at work! If we all do a little, together we will accomplish a lot! The truth and our Constitution will win in the end if we all do our part. If not, the future of our nation is in great danger.

For more information as to why Obama is an illegal putative president, see:

~Natural born citizenship requires both your parents to be Citizens when you are born:

~Obama was a British Subject when Born and is Still a British Overseas Citizen:

~The 3 Enablers of Obama’s Usurpation of Office:

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
Do you want this ad to run again? If so, please help the cause to fund more ads to educate the People about Obama’s usurpation of his office:



  1. Benaiah has left a new comment on your post "New Ad – Obama is an Unconstitutional Illegal Puta…":"Obama is a usurper. Obama is an unconstitutional illegal putative president…"[editor's deletion]

    Comment by Puzo1 — December 14, 2009 @ 9:53 pm

  2. The new ad in the Washington Times National Weekly paper today on page 15 is being well received and is also doing very well online. Pushing towards 1000 hits at already in just a few hours of it being posted there. Help spread the word by posting this link to other blogs. you want the ad to run again in the Washington Times, please help the cause and make a donation at: http:www.protectourliberty.orgCharles KerchnerCDR USNR (Retired)Lead PlaintiffKerchner v Obama & Congress

    Comment by cfkerchner — December 15, 2009 @ 12:50 am

  3. The new ad is excellent indeed and should do well. Erica's graphics are truly noteworthy!!

    Comment by jayjay — December 15, 2009 @ 3:14 pm

  4. Hi all,This new ad is truly effective just like the Three Enablers ad was. If you all want these ads to continue so we can educate more Americans using the print media, we need your financial support. We need your help.Don't forget the gift of freedom! Make a donation today to help the cause!http://www.protectourliberty.orgCharles KerchnerCommander USNR (Retired)Lead PlaintiffKerchner v Obama & Congresshttp://puzo1.blogspot.com

    Comment by cfkerchner — December 15, 2009 @ 8:05 pm

  5. Your ad campaign, drkate has called it "relentless" and it IS having an impact, there was a cartoon I saw about the "ticking time bomb" where all of these factors are going to explode, much sooner than later. The Post and Email has had to upgrade its time estimate on the implosion.I might add that when I called Pelosi's and Frank's office and got totally verbally abused, their attitude was that if he'd gotten away with it so far it's too late!Well, what I'm seeing with many people is that it's just too big, too gargantuan, would lead to all our civil strife/war to remove him, so better just to deal policy-by-policy and get him voted out. To which I say "bunk!" we cannot let this sit as a precedent unchallenged!So, maybe some explanation as to what Viera said, we are living in a state of Constitutional Crisis, which means we effectively are nonexistent as the "united" states being the Constitution is merely a contract binding the nation states and is presently null and void.Every soldier fighting in the name of the voided USA is rogue and stateless…etc. treaties, owings, debts, contracts, appointments, everything…is nullified.Otherwise people say, "well, it's a glitch, Bush rewrote the Constitution too" and now our youth are being taught that the origins of the USA and its founding documents were from 55 old white men who are irrelevant to today! I think that educational effort (I heard about the biased program on History Channel) is meant to forestall any future young patriots from recalling the origins of the USA.Time to grab the bull by the horns!

    Comment by cajapie — December 15, 2009 @ 9:21 pm

  6. Along the Viera line of inquiry, since the Constitution is void, so is the "FEDERAL" existence of our nation as a union of nation states…Definition of Federalnational; especially in reference to the government of the United States as distinct from that of its member unitsHow can "Federal" laws be in effect when there is no legal union because the usurpation has nullified the Union as defined by the contract called the Constitution?

    Comment by cajapie — December 15, 2009 @ 10:51 pm

  7. Has anyone made an audio recording of a telephone conversation featuring an elected official's position on this issue?How about an answer to a simple question like, "What does the Congressman believe the Framer's intended by using the phrase, "Natural Born Citizen?"

    Comment by Pragmaticite — December 16, 2009 @ 1:10 am

  8. PragmaticiteAsk and you shall receive. These two clips are of two senior Senators answering the question of who is a NBC…astounding to say the least.

    Comment by Greg Goss — December 16, 2009 @ 8:44 pm

  9. I met with an agent from the FBI office here in AZ. I gave him 82 page packet of evidence showing Obama not a natural born citizen and he and others in the DNC did committ elections fraud , and since the FBI has an Elections crime division , and it's first main porpuse is to root out corruption within the government systems , I felt it my duty to report this. I was shocked when the agent assured me that the FBI had done a thorough background check on Obama and he was qualified to be president….this is laughable, I tried to get him to say that they saw the long form certificate , but he just repeated himself and when he used the term "citizen" I stopped him and gave him a quick education as to the definitions and the constitutional requirements to hold POTUS.This agent said that FBI does complete background checks on ALL candidates in all elections ….really? any one else ever heard that….not sure what will come of that meeting, but now you all know the FBI knows we are serious

    Comment by passaro — December 17, 2009 @ 9:56 am

  10. Thank you Greg Goss! I tho't Orrin Hatch was going to whiplash before our eyes from backpeddling off his original stipulation of "parents."These Senators say that any child of at least one US citizen born anywhere in the world is a natural born citizen? And how does that help maximize national secuirty?I'm not sure whether this is a lack of understanding of the Constitution – or just a lack of respect. Either way, it is very bad news for we citizens.

    Comment by Pragmaticite — December 17, 2009 @ 2:44 pm

  11. A wealth of information pertaining to the use and influence of Vattel and the founding fathers. Many quotes, resources, referrences, ect.. "The Law of Nations" and the Declaration of Independence"

    Comment by William — December 17, 2009 @ 3:56 pm

  12. Thank you passaro. Why not ask said FBI agent to define a Citizen versus a natural born citizen? Why not ask if he's willing to say that on the record (as in being recorded for youtube?).Can you post the phone number of this FBI agency we may like to call too. Thanks again for your activism (ugh that sounds so 'progressive' but I only mean that in its dictionary sense).

    Comment by cajapie — December 17, 2009 @ 6:14 pm

  13. allow me to further detail a bit more of the conversation with the FBI.The special agent I met with kept referring to Obama as a "citizen"…that was the reason for my interuptions each and every time he said "citizen" I replied,"that's not the correct term to use…we are talking about a particular type of citizen…"A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN" as required in the constituion for the office of POTUS, Article2, sect.1 paragraph 5 clearly states that no one except a "natural born"citizen may be eligible….and then i would again, give him correct definition in this manner"A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN IS ONE WHO IS BORN ON U.S. SOIL OF U.S. CITIZEN PARENTS." and there is no other way to acquire this particular type of citizenship.and for those of you who would like to contact the FBI office in your area i have included the link to the main page and a link to the specific page for their ELECTIONS CRIME INITIATIVE press release and statements from 2006.*sidebar tip*…I printed the elections crime initiative page and had it with me, and strangely enough the agent had to read it, it was as though he was not familiar with the divisions office in washington that had put this into force. I chalked it up to his young appearance and assume he is not a seasoned veteran agent as yet.

    Comment by passaro — December 17, 2009 @ 8:13 pm

  14. passaro:The FIB merely picked up THAT evasion from any Congressman … they're ALL been busily using it.A fumb-assed lie is better than none …

    Comment by jayjay — December 17, 2009 @ 10:21 pm

  15. I always thank them for using the term "CITIZEN" since Article II specifically precludes a mere CITIZEN from being POTUS!!There, now wasn't that simple?

    Comment by cajapie — December 18, 2009 @ 6:53 am

  16. cajapie, Wong Kim Ark only used the English common law to declare Wong a “citizen of the United States” under the standard that applied to the original citizens before the adoption of the Constitution. This was the same analytical approach that Lynch v. Clarke took in 1844. But since we know that the Framers in Article II grandfathered “Citizens of the United States” to be eligible for the Presidency and called for only “natural born Citizens” to be so eligible after the adoption of the Constitution, and the Third Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1795 took "natural born citizen" and made it just "citizen," we can reasonably conclude that to the Framers and Founders the two classes of citizens were not the same. Hence, the definition that defined what a “citizen of the United States” was during the Founding did not define what a future Article II “natural born Citizen” was. While the former may have been defined by English common law, the latter was defined by American common law that followed the Vattel natural law and law of nations definition. Obama is not eligible to be President because he does not and cannot meet the original definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” a definition that has been confirmed by several Supreme Court cases and which to this day has never been changed by our Supreme Court.

    Comment by Puzo1 — December 18, 2009 @ 7:59 am

  17. Lee said… passaro: Did he sign his name on the documents??? It soesn't matter if we argue whether or not thes officials are ignorant or corrupt.What we need is is an historical record of the fraud and treason.They all took oaths to uphold the organic Constitution,not the Corporate Con. alone,even if they claim that at a lter date.This is all unraveling all over the USA as to what has happened to our original form of government.It is not a wild theory that we are under an Administrtive State/Corp US.It is factual history!.Please see the shows from DEc.8th to DEc.12th on AIB and RADIOFREEANERICA. Pleas note that this is not fringe material.This blows away the Con Congress and othrer attempts to adddres this problem over the past century – [editors deletion] Mario and Charles…thank you for your work.You may not understand the form of government we are under but you are correct in going back to the organic Con that most people believe we are living under.Even Leo is lost on this one.He has been educated since last year on all this and it was hoped he would go for the jugular ,but he has a bling faith in the law,which is rigged,and ebven understanding the APA Act is futile if you don't know what is was set up to do to the people.December 18, 2009 12:25 AM

    Comment by Puzo1 — December 18, 2009 @ 2:25 pm

  18. LEE;yes he did give me a signed reciept for "property" on official FBI form ,and I am already listening to the talkshoe radio on the lawsuit from the old guy (I forget his name…) against the US CORPORATION, IRS and such…it's fascinating, isn't it?I am a charter member of the American Grand Jury…they are just another hard working group trying to reconfirm the original "citizens common law grand jury" power that is rooted in the original Constitution…and it's a long and winding road…

    Comment by passaro — December 18, 2009 @ 2:58 pm

  19. Please read follow through all links.As you see only Constitution and The Oath of Allegiance are used to proof Obama's Ineligibility.———————————–In reality just 14th Amendment is enough. I quote from the article "What 'Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof' Really Means"By P.A. Madison on September 22, 2007 Updated 8/10/09"…Therefore, it is important to discover the operational meaning behind “subject to the jurisdiction” as employed under the Fourteenth Amendment rather then assuming its meaning from other usages of the word jurisdiction alone. Both Sen. Trumbull and Sen. Howard provides the answer, with Trumbull declaring: The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means. …" (the last 2 centences are bold and underlined – btw).It means that Obama having dual allegiance at birth (because of his British father) couldn't be a citizen at birth according Constitution even if he was born in Hawaii. I'm sure that he didn't file for Naturalization. So according Constitution he isn't a citizen currently.:

    Comment by btw — December 19, 2009 @ 5:07 am

  20. Nice advertisement, lots of color.I was taught in my English history classes that there is an important aspect of English Law, and I forget what it was called, it is the right of the people to Civil Rebellion. When a government becomes intolerable, the people have the right to replace that government using civil rebellion or revolution. This has happened a few times in English history. Our government and schools conveniently seem to have forgotten this area of common and natural law. Those who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights knew it very well, as they had a revolution themselves, which resulted in those very documents. Therefore being documents bred of the people's civil right to revolution, the American people have inherited that same right.

    Comment by Edward — December 19, 2009 @ 8:09 pm

  21. There is a lot of talk on this website about owing allegiance. Since 'bama has not come clean and we asked for all of his documentation long before the election, and notified our elected representatives long before the election that this man may not have been born here or at very best is not a unique citizen to the United States, then we have no other recourse but to ignore any "law" that [he] signs and do what it takes to remove him all the while notifying our elected officials that because [he] wants to play dirty two can play at that game. When the dust settles on this matter he will be stricken from the lists of presidents as he has rendered no solution to our (the taxpayers) satisfaction. Remember this is still early in its roots. There is no where to run, no where to hide. I guess what I am saying is this may take until the year 2020 to resolve this matter but that is not a long time when you look at the history of the United States.

    Comment by roderick — December 19, 2009 @ 10:59 pm

  22. The right to revolution was enframed in the Bill of Rights. This gives the people "standing". [edited to fit]IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of AmericaWhen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, [edited] Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; [edited] But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. He has refused his Assent to Laws, [edited]He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained [edited]He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation [edited]He has called together legislative [edited]for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly [edited]He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, [edited] the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; [edited]He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people [edited]He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, [edited]For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:[edited]For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.[edited][edited for space]

    Comment by Edward — December 20, 2009 @ 1:51 am

  23. Roderick,Why to wait until 2020? We can begin to resolve this Constitutional problem already by proper voting in 2010 as it is written in an inner link (remember? I asked to follow through all deeper links) that you will find following the 1st link my previous post.Maybe there is a sense to copy here the content of that 1st link?——————————————————————Re: : New Tea Party Campaign Focusing Solely On Obama's Ineligibility It can be done! In support and preparation of this New Tea Party Campaign Focusing Solely On Obama's Ineligibility it would be very useful to disseminate (to scatter far and wide – by emailing (or printing) the "shortest" flyer:The title: To Fellow American Citizen!and just 3 lines in the body of a message: We Do It?!Hint: Yes ** ***! ——————————————————————I allow myself to copy parts of my another post:"…It seems that it's impossible to realize. But there is a slogan: "The impossible is often untried!"…""…The following was written in one of my posts:"I repeat… that I don’t believe in a success by writing letters to members of Congress, to media, to courts. Only WE THE PEOPLE can do it through a wide awareness about Obama’s Ineligibility and proper voting in 2010. Or if we can’t, we well deserve our future…"And a little more:"BUT WE MUST TAKE ACTION, NO ONE WILL DO IT FOR US." "

    Comment by btw — December 20, 2009 @ 3:08 am

  24. Congress is so corrupt and intentionally ignorant of the legal definition of "natural born Citizen" that they can no longer be considered a relevant body of "lawmakers". Members of Congress are NOT royalty, they are OUR EMPLOYEES and they need to be reminded of that fact. Call the U.S. Capitol switchboard at 202 224 3121 and the very kind operators will connect you to the proper representative for your district. The number is answered 24/7/365. 202 224 3121. Write it down, keep it handy, call often. Let YOUR EMPLOYEES know what you think on a regular basis! 202 224 3121.

    Comment by medical — December 20, 2009 @ 4:03 am

  25. I of IIIObama supporters argue that Minor v. Happersett’s discussion on the citizenship status of Mrs. Minor is dicta. Dicta is that part of a judicial case which is not necessary for the court to reach its central decision which we call the holding. Such statements or opinions are merely informative or explanatory. Being extraneous material, they do not directly address the specifics of the case. They are not authoritative or binding because of the circumstances by which a court makes those statements or gives those opinions, for the court usually offers them without having gone through a deliberative process that is characterized by reflection, argument, examination, or full consideration of an issue. As we can see from a close examination of the Court’s decision, the Court’s opinion or statements regarding Mrs. Minor being a “natural born Citizen” is not dicta. The question the court had to determine was whether Minor had a constitutional right to vote under the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV which applies only to “Citizens of each State.” Hence, the Court had to first determine whether Minor was a “citizen of the United States” which would also make her a citizen of the State of Missouri, the state wherein she resided. The Court declared that Minor was a citizen under the federal common law and being a "person" was also a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment. With regard to finding Minor a citizen without reliance upon the Fourteenth Amendment, the court resorted to American common law which had its basis in natural law and the law of nations and not in feudal and monarchial English common law. It explained that the nation was a political community made up of people who joined in political associations for their own general welfare. It said that these people were the nation’s members and therefore its citizens who received protection from the nation and in return they gave their allegiance to the nation. The Court explained that in a nation with a republican form of government, these members are called citizens and that being called a citizen connotes nothing more than being a member of the nation. The court explained that whoever was a member of one of the original States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution became “ipso facto a citizen” or a member of the nation created by the adoption of the Constitution. As one will note the court referred to the United States as a “political community” populated by members with political rights. We know that such political rights include voting which historically distinguished republican citizens from crown subjects. The Court made no mention of being born in the allegiance of any one individual which is what the English common law provided when it said that “natural born subjects” were born in the perpetual allegiance of the King. Indeed, “[s]ubjects are members of the commonwealth, under the king their head.” Jacob’s, Williams’, and Cunningham’s Law Dictionaries.Continued . . .

    Comment by Puzo1 — December 20, 2009 @ 5:53 am

  26. II of III The Court explained that the Constitution provided for three classes of citizens: “natural born citizens,” “citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution,” and naturalized citizens. Hence, it found that future citizens after the adoption of the Constitution would come about by birth or naturalization. It said that “natives, or natural-born citizens” were those children born in the country to citizen parents. It added that some authorities go further and include as “citizens” children born in the United States without reference to the citizenship of their parents. I recognize that many commentators have provided on this site many of these other authorities mentioned by Minor. It then said that as to the first class, there has never been any doubts that they were citizens. But as to the second class, there have been doubts. Let us keep in mind that this is the United States Supreme Court speaking and not a lower court or some commentator. The Court found that citizenship in the United States did not depend on the gender of the person and therefore, as Minor was born in the United States to United States citizen parents, the Court declared her without any doubt a "natural-born Citizen." These citizenship concepts as expressed by the Minor Court had their origins in natural law and only applied to a republican form of government and not to a monarchy. These natural law concepts can be easily found in Samuel Pufendorf’s, The Whole Duty of Man According to the Laws of Nature (William Tooke trans., Ian Hunter & David Saunders, eds., Liberty Fund 2003) Book II, Chapter 6 (1691) (“Moreover, Citizens are either Originally so; that is, such as are born in the Place, and upon that Account claim their Privileges: Or else Adscititious; that is, such as come from Foreign Parts. Of the first Sort, are either those who at first were present and concerned in the forming the said Society, or their Descendants, whom we call Indigenae, or Natives.”) and Vattel’s, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Sections 211-212 (1758 French edition, 1759 first English translation). The Court added that if she had been born in the United States of alien parents, there would have been a doubt if she was even a “citizen.” Note that Vattel at Section 214 stated that in England, “the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the childen of a foreigner.” Given the Court’s explanation as to who were the original citizens of the new nation, we can understand why the court had doubts on whether if Minor was born in the United States to alien parents she was even a citizen, for her parents would not have been members of the United States and by her being simply born on its territory did not carry with it any indicia of adherence and commitment to the nation and therefore did not make her a member thereof. Hence, by what the Court said regarding being born in the country to alien parents, we can see that if Minor had been born in the United States to alien parents, it had no doubt she would not have been a “natural born Citizen.” As to whether she would have been even a citizen, the Court left that question for another day. The Court concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment was neither needed to make Minor a citizen nor did it change the citizenship rules it espoused. Continued . . .

    Comment by Puzo1 — December 20, 2009 @ 5:54 am

  27. III of IIIWong Kim Ark answered the question that Minor left open for another day. It decided in 1898 that a child born in the United States to alien parents who were permanent residents and not working in a diplomatic capacity was a “citizen of the United States.” But the Wong Court only decided that under the old English common law that prevailed in the colonies Wong deserved to be a member of American society as were those persons who were, without any reference to the citizenship of their parents, simply born in the colonies during the colonial period and adhered to the Revolution. Recognizing and confirming Minor’s definition of a “native, or natural-born citizen” to be a child born in the country to United States citizen parents, it did not declare Wong to be a “natural born Citizen.” Wong also did not say that it was overruling Minor's definition of a "natural-born citizen." Wong did not say that in defining a "natural-born citizen," the citizenship of the child's parents is irrelevant.

    Comment by Puzo1 — December 20, 2009 @ 5:54 am

  28. Beth has left a new comment on your post "New Ad – Obama is an Unconstitutional Illegal Puta…":ads are good for the people but not for the courts or gove as I stated over at IO blog- They know.Both parties know the will of the people and are not there to represent them,nor do they care what we say to them.Do you recall the half million letters to SCOTUS on the usurpation of the oval office?The outcry over the first and second banker bailouts?THe 3/4 million pink slips sent to Congress? The tea parties ignored by the state run media and the senators and congressmaen?The townhall meetings met with contempt by these representatives last summer?The socialist policies implented the past year against the will of the people?THe continental congress ignored? The 100 plus lawsuits against Obama dropped for lack of standing and subject matter jurisdiction?No,I have better things to do with my time than contacting satanists moving us speedily into a fascist one world government and eco-green one world religion.I've been [editor's deletion]warning my fellow americans,not playing party politics as if we are dealing with another unamerican administration.The street to hell was paved for Obama for decades and this is the final run down the newly paved hellish road.December, 2009 2:54 AM

    Comment by Puzo1 — December 20, 2009 @ 2:47 pm

  29. The Law of Nations…..The natives or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As a society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, this child naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.The U.S. Constitution. To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations.

    Comment by margie — December 20, 2009 @ 4:39 pm

  30. are responses to frequently asked questions related to all records and documents maintained by the Hawaii State Department of Health (DOH) related to the vital records of President Barack Hussein Obama II. Frequently requested records and documents which can be released to the public are attached by electronic link below or, for those records and documents that are not available electronically, directions are provided for requesting copies.The State’s public records law, the Uniform Information Practices Act (Modified) (“UIPA”), found at chapter 92F, Hawaii Revised Statutes (“HRS”) requires that all government records be open to public inspection unless access is restricted or closed by law. Government records means information maintained by an agency in written, auditory, visual, electronic, or other physical form, see HRS §92F-3. The UIPA does not require an agency to provide access to government records that state law protects from disclosure, see, HRS §92F-13 (4), nor does it require agencies to respond to all questions asked of the agency.Unless a request for DOH records is specific enough to be understood, the request cannot be responded to by the DOH.The DOH may not have a record which is responsive to a request. The UIPA does not require an agency to compile or create information to respond to a request.State law prohibits the DOH from disclosing any vital statistics records or information contained in such records unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest in the record, or as otherwise allowed by statute or administrative rule. See HRS §338-18. Direct and tangible interest is determined by HRS §338-18(b).In light of the unprecedented number of requests for information relating to the vital records of President Barack Hussein Obama II, the DOH has reviewed the requirements of UIPA and the confidentiality provisions of HRS Chapter 338.Based upon that review, the DOH has determined that the information listed below constitutes all of the publicly available information related to requests for vital statistics records pertaining to President Barack Hussein Obama II, and the only disclosures pertaining to those records that can be made in accordance with Hawaii law. The Department of Health is providing links to copies of the records in the form that they are available to the public.1. Birth Certificate or Certificate of Live Birth[…]2. Index Data[…] 3. All past statements by the Health Director are available at:[…] 4. All records on department regulations and rules related to vital records [related to the vital records of President Barack Hussein Obama II] are at: These records consist of: Public Health Regulations Chapter 8 (Vital Records Regulations and Records) Public Health Regulations Chapter 8A (Delayed Birth Registration) Public Health Regulations Chapter 8B (Vital Statistics Regulations and Records) Hawaii Administrative Rules, Title 11 Department of Health Chapter 120 (Foreign Born Persons Adopted in Hawaii) Hawaii Administrative Rules, Title 11 Department of Health Chapter 123 (Names of Natural Parents in Birth Certificate of Adopted Person) If you would like to have a hard copy of the rules sent to you by mail or by facsimile, please send a prepayment of $10.00 along with your written request to: State Department of Health Office of Health Status Monitoring Issuance/Vital Statistics Section P.O. Box 3378 Honolulu, HI 96801

    Comment by Benaiah — December 21, 2009 @ 1:56 am

  31. are responses to frequently asked questions related to all records and documents maintained by the Hawaii State Department of Health (DOH) related to the vital records of President Barack Hussein Obama II. …[…]In light of the unprecedented number of requests for information relating to the vital records of President Barack Hussein Obama II, the DOH has reviewed the requirements of UIPA and the confidentiality provisions of HRS Chapter 338.Based upon that review, the DOH has determined that the information listed below constitutes all of the publicly available information related to requests for vital statistics records pertaining to President Barack Hussein Obama II, and the only disclosures pertaining to those records that can be made in accordance with Hawaii law. The Department of Health is providing links to copies of the records in the form that they are available to the public.1. Birth Certificate or Certificate of Live Birth[…]2. Index Data[…]3. All past statements by the Health Director are available at:[…]4. All records on department regulations and rules related to vital records [related to the vital records of President Barack Hussein Obama II] are at: records consist of:Public Health Regulations Chapter 8 (Vital Records Regulations and Records)Public Health Regulations Chapter 8A (Delayed Birth Registration)Public Health Regulations Chapter 8B (Vital Statistics Regulations and Records)Hawaii Administrative Rules, Title 11 Department of Health Chapter 120 (Foreign Born Persons Adopted in Hawaii)Hawaii Administrative Rules, Title 11 Department of Health Chapter 123 (Names of Natural Parents in Birth Certificate of Adopted Person)If you would like to have a hard copy of the rules sent to you by mail or by facsimile, please send a prepayment of $10.00 along with your written request to:State Department of HealthOffice of Health Status MonitoringIssuance/Vital Statistics SectionP.O. Box 3378Honolulu, HI 96801

    Comment by Benaiah — December 21, 2009 @ 2:15 am

  32. Mario/Charles, What is the legal process whereby the Senate or Corgress can challege a Bill to the U.S. Supreme Court? In short, what is the process, What must be done, Who can do it, how many does it take? I cannot find such answers. In my example, if the challege to a bill such as the health care bill was to come, who can do it and what does it take to bring it to the SCOTUS? I cannot find such exampled rules. I am also currious as what would it take to bring the challege to Obama. Are they similar challeges whereby it would take a certain amount for investigations?

    Comment by William — December 21, 2009 @ 7:27 pm

  33. In this season of gift giving, don't forget the gift of freedom. Help us keep it. Help support the cause. Make a donation to help keep advertisements such as this one appearing in the print media to educate the people about the constitutional issues and the lawsuit. KerchnerCDR USNR (Retired)Lead PlaintiffKerchner v Obama & Congress

    Comment by cfkerchner — December 22, 2009 @ 2:55 am

  34. I notice that most of the Obama supporters have their “common laws” confused. Wong Kim Ark (1898) rejected the notion that the common law included citizenship by descent. Clearly, such a position cannot be reconciled with Minor v. Happersett (1875) which declared that the “common law” definition of “natural born citizen” was born in the country to citizen parents. If one did not notice, this is Vattel’s natural law and law of nations definition. Furthermore, Alexander Hamilton, relying on natural law, told us and the court so ruled in Rutgers v. Waddington (1784) that the law of nations was part of the common law and that Vattel was the standard to follow when defining what the law of nations said. Even the Founders use of the word “native” to describe a citizen does not exist in English common law. Hence, we can see that during the Founding, there was English common law and American common law. The two were not the same. When it came to defining citizenship which impacted significantly the relations among nations, the Framers did not use for the new Constitutional Republic the outdated feudal and monarchial English common law which was not the standard among civilized nations. Rather, the Framers chose American common law which had its origins in natural law and the law of nations to define an Article II “natural born Citizen.” This was Vattel’s definition of a “native, or natural-born citizen.” Wong Kim Ark only used the English common law to declare Wong a “citizen of the United States” under the standard that applied to the original citizens before the adoption of the Constitution. This was the same analytical approach that Lynch v. Clarke took in 1844. But since we know that the Framers in Article II grandfathered “Citizens of the United States” to be eligible for the Presidency and called for only “natural born Citizens” to be so eligible after the adoption of the Constitution, and the Third Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1795 took “natural born citizen” and made it just “citizen,” we can reasonably conclude that to the Framers and Founders the two classes of citizens were not the same. Hence, the definition that defined what a “citizen of the United States” was during the Founding did not define what a future Article II “natural born Citizen” was. While the former may have been defined by English common law, the latter was defined by American common law that followed the Vattel natural law and law of nations definition. Obama is not eligible to be President because he does not and cannot meet the original definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” a definition that has been confirmed by several Supreme Court cases and which to this day has never been changed by our Supreme Court.

    Comment by Puzo1 — December 22, 2009 @ 4:07 am

  35. It used to be "Common Law" to escort your family to church with you shotgun in hand here in NH and wish thy neighbor "Merry Christmas"…Thank you guys and "MERRY CHRISTMAS!"

    Comment by Greg Goss — December 22, 2009 @ 6:00 pm

  36. I have left this comment for Dr. Conspiracy at his blog. "Dr. Conspiracy, You and some of your supporters here are to be commended for all the research and thinking that you have done on the Obama eligibility issue. I have tried to have a civil and intelligent debate with you and your supporters here. Many times that has not been possible. On the contrary, the personal attacks and insults continue unabated. Now some of your people even go as low as accusing me of being a White Supremacist and of working for the KKK. You know how absurd that is. Nevertheless, all of that does not change that we cannot have a person be President and Commander in Chief of the Military who is born with multiple allegiances (British/Kenyan and maybe U.S.), which carry with it the potential for divided and conflicting loyalty, foreign entanglements, military and political claims made by more than one nation, incompatibility with the obligations of American citizenship and the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military, and lack of full and absolute attachment to the United States. We are not talking about a private citizen whose potential dual allegiance problems would probably not be any serious threat to anyone. The all-powerful and singular Office of President and Commander in Chief, which is not subject to a security clearance, is too powerful and too important to the survival and safety of the nation to expose it to such risk."Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

    Comment by Puzo1 — December 22, 2009 @ 9:32 pm

  37. One adversary commentator told me that I should have a reality check and stop reading old dusty books. This is what I told him. "We cannot have a person be President and Commander in Chief of the Military who is born with multiple allegiance (British/Kenyan and maybe U.S.) which carries with it divided loyalty, foreign entanglements, claims made from more than one nation, incompatibility with the obligations of American citizenship, and lack of full attachment to America. The Office of President and Commander in Chief, which is not subject to a security clearance, is too powerful and too important to the survival and safety of the nation to expose it to such risk. That's very real and modern."

    Comment by Puzo1 — December 22, 2009 @ 11:36 pm

  38. Stop reading old dusty books? The bible is an old, dusty book. Should we stop reading it?Now here is why the NBC issues are so important. The President of the United States is one of the three branches of government. He is the Executive branch. The nation speaks to all people through one voice, the President's. The President can make treaties, grant pardons, sign and veto legislation, appoint a Cabinet, as well as Supreme Court Justices. In addition to these duties, the President knows the nation's most important and secure secrets, and as the Commander in Chief of the military, has the military's nuclear launch codes at the ready, and who can arguably, either take steps to weaken the nation or even destroy it. In the words of Vice President Dick Cheney, "The president of the United States now for 50 years is followed at all times, 24 hours a day, by a military aide carrying a football that contains the nuclear codes that he would use and be authorized to use in the event of a nuclear attack on the United States. He could launch the kind of devastating attack the world has never seen. He doesn't have to check with anybody. He doesn't have to call the Congress. He doesn't have to check with the courts. He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in."

    Comment by Robert — December 23, 2009 @ 3:34 am

  39. I just posted this comment on the pro-Obama Natural Born Citizen web site: "Greg, The only silly theory that I see is your argument that the Framers used the English common law to determine who could be President and Commander in Chief of the U.S. I must also correct you a bit. The Founders picked the term "natural born" to mean what it meant in natural law and the law of nations by which they sought to guide the new federal nation. They did not pick the English common law for that task. The Founders found the term "natural born" in the Latin classics where the exact term "natural born citizen" was found and explained. The Framers also read Pufendorf and Vattel and other classical and natural law writers and were well aware how they defined the natural law concept of a "natural born Citizen." You and your theory that the Framers used the English common law to define a "natural born Citizen" fail to recognize that the Founders were writing the Constitution after having come out of a Revolution and in their vision of creating a Republic. This historical context is critical in understanding what the Founders meant by "natural born Citizen." In this historical context, the Founders had to decide who were the present and who were going to be the future citizens of the new Republic. The monarchial and feudal English common law did not provide them with the guidance that they sought. Rather they chose to be guided by the classics and its history, religion, and the law of nature on who an original citizen was and who the future citizens were going to be. They had just broken away from the despotic King and they had no interest in using his laws to guide the new nation on the federal level. The English common law did continue to have effect in the States for local questions such as contracts, torts, property, matrimony, inheritance, criminal procedure, etc. But when it came to constituting the new federal Constitutional Republic, the Framers wrote with a tabula rasa and in doing so they chose the law of nature and the law of nations not the English common law to accomplish that task. Even in the Constitution itself the Framers gave Congress the power to punish offenses against the law of nations, not offenses against some law based on the English common law.For the Framers, a "citizen of the United States" was a citizen that fit under the old English common law model, modified by someone's right to adhere to the Revolution which in effect naturalized British or other foreign “natural born subject” into “citizens of the United States.” They chose that model for any person that was born before the adoption of the Constitution. These persons included people who were simply born in the colonies or new states or were naturalized or simply inhabited there and who adhered to the Revolution. The Framers saw these persons to be the original citizens or the first members of the new American society. But for after the Constitution was adopted, the new natural law/law of nations model took effect for national citizenship. These future citizens would be the descendents of the original citizens. These would be the children or their descendents of the original citizens. The Framers understood that the new nation with its massive territory needed people from other nations to populate it and so they gave Congress the power to over naturalization. Hence, any person that Congress made a "citizen" would in the constitutional sense be considered a naturalized citizen. In keeping with the original model, the Framers saw that the children of these future naturalized citizens would also be "natural born Citizens." I would like to have your response to my position. Mario Apuzzo, Esq."

    Comment by Puzo1 — December 23, 2009 @ 3:11 pm

  40. Obama is a British Citizen!THE FACTS, THE LAW, THE INESCAPABLE CONCLUSIONA Legal Analysis of Obama’s Citizenship status by Jane Menta

    Comment by James — December 24, 2009 @ 2:46 am

  41. As God is my witness, I'm leaving! I've become so disgusted with apathetic Citizens, the corrupt Congress, dirty government in general, and ESPECIALLY the courts that I'll emigrate from this formerly great nation even if I'm forced to construct a sailboat from scrap Styrofoam and used lumber and employ old bed sheets as sails and shelter. It is a far better fate to perish in the middle of the Atlantic while fleeing total corruption and tyranny than to remain in the U.S.A. and be treated as a lowly slave to this "government". I've done my duty and more. Only those who are delusional still believe this is a "free country", or "it may not be perfect, but we have the best judicial system ever devised", and/or "we are the greatest nation on Earth". Many whine about and discuss the misdeeds of the illegal "usurper" and our totally out of touch with reality public officials, yet those same whiners will contribute neither funds nor time to save our Constitution and our nation. Shame on those who speak much, yet do nothing but watch as our country goes 'round and 'round the vortex and heads toward the drain! How many of you have EVER telephoned, written, or visited your Congressman? NOT MANY! You can sit at home and moan to your friends and family about how the legislators are failing, but Congress can't hear you, so CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN! 202 224 3121. MERRY CHRISTMAS!

    Comment by medical — December 24, 2009 @ 6:20 am

  42. The Obama supporters vehemently attack the conclusion of my essay (The Natural Born Citizen Clause of Our U.S. Constitution Requires that Both of the Child’s Parents Be U.S. Citizens At the Time of Birth, that an Article II "natural born Citizen" needs birth in the country to two U.S. citizen parents. My conclusion is supported by the U.S. Supreme Court cases of The Venus (1814) , Shanks v. Dupont (1830), Minor v. Happersett (1875), Scott v. Sandford (1856), and Wong Kim Ark (1898). There are also several lower court cases (cited in my essay) that say the same when defining what an Article II "natural born Citizen" is. These cases show that the U.S. Supreme Court defined "natural born Citizen" under the natural law and law of nations standard and not the English common law. These cases clearly show that the "natural born Citizen" special status was tied to the child's parents (both mother and father) which means that the Court accepted jus sanguinis and not jus soli as the basis for defining an Article II "natural born Citizen." On the contrary, the Obama supporters do not have one U.S. Supreme Court case that supports their theory that the Framers used the English common law to define who under Article II could be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. Also, their constant citing of Wong Kim Ark to try to convince people that it changed the definition of an Articl II "natural born Citizen" that had already been well established by all the mentioned cases is misplaced. Wong only dealt with the question of what a "citizen of the United States" is. It said that we do not need the 14th Amendment to define one. It defined one under the English common law standard that existed during colonial America (jus soli). The case did not involve defining an Article II "natural born Citizen." The Wong case also did not say that the 14th Amendment somehow amended Article II's "natural born Citizen" clause. Wong's definition of a "citizen of the United States" is not dispositive on the question of who may be eligible to be President under Article II,” for we know that Article II grandfathered a "citizen of the United States" to be eligible to be President. The Framers then provided a different standard for children born after the adoption of the Constitution and that standard was "natural born Citizen" which we can see by subsequent Supreme Court cases became a jus sanguinis standard. Wong simply did not address this more stringent standard other than to cite from and acknowledge the Minor case and by doing also so accepted Minor's definition of a "natural born Citizen." Simply stated, as applied to the question of who is eligible to be President, Wong’s definition of what a “citizen of the United States” is only fits under Article II’s grandfather clause which today is obsolete. It does not address the “natural born Citizen” standard. What this all means is that our citizens, whether born or naturalized, are all equal under the Constitution, except that only a “natural born Citizen” has the privilege of being eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. In short, I have all the available United States Supreme Court cases on my side and the Obama supporters have none. And people such as Dr. Conspiracy and his followers have the nerve and audacity to cast all their aspersions at me (some even saying that I am a White Supremacist, that I am working for the KKK, etc.) and say that I am propounding a "fringe theory" of constitutional law, not to even mention that I am supposed to be part of some right-wing conspiracy ring. Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

    Comment by Puzo1 — December 24, 2009 @ 3:24 pm

  43. You are exactly right Mario. The courts have attempted to define "Natural-Born" citizen in terms of RIGHTS rather than in the context of its intended purpose and context – The eligiblity for someone to serve as POTUS. No Supreme Court has ever ever ruled on the Article II Section I definition of "Natural-Born" citizen in that context. People have to remember that "Natural-Born" citizen is used in only one place in our Constitution; as security check against foreign influence. Any definition of "Natural-Born" citizen has to be intrepretated under that pretense. That is why the parents rule comes into play and is relevent. If we are to believe Obots then anchor babies can serve as POTUS which is nonsense and very dangerous to allow.

    Comment by James — December 24, 2009 @ 11:49 pm

  44. KENYA INDEPENDENCE ACT 1963 3(2)“a person shallnot cease to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Coloniesunder section 2(2) of this Act if he, his father or his father’sfather-(a) was born in the United Kingdom or in a colony”both Obama’s father and grandfather were born in Kenya Colony

    Comment by cajapie — December 25, 2009 @ 2:35 am

  45. cajapie, I must respectfully advise that I do not agree with your comment. Please read the Kenya Independence Act 1963, Section 3, subsection 1. It specifically says that any reference to "colony" in subsection 2 of that section does not include "Kenya or any part thereof." Hence, that Obama's father was born in the colony of Kenya does not fall under the citizenship retention provisions of KIA 1963, Section 3. In other words, that Obama's father was born in the colony of Kenya does not save Obama and his father from losing their Kenyan citizenship when KIA 1963 passed. Based on what is known publicly, it does not appear as though either his father or Obama qualified to keep his CUKC under any of the Act's retention provision and so they would have lost that status but Obama would have continued as a citizen of Kenya. Under the Kenyan Constitution of 1963, Obama would have kept his Kenyan citizenship until age 21. Under Chapter 170-Kenyan Citizenship Act, he was able to extend his hold of Kenyan citizenship until age 23, which means that he kept that citizenship until August 4, 1984. However, please note that Section 2 and 3 of KIA 1963 were repealed by the British Nationality Act 1981 (BNA 1981). The BNA 1981 grants to those who held CUKC status "immediately" before "commencement" of the act, among other forms of citizenship, British Overseas Citizenship (BOC). The question is does the BNA 1981's repeal of Sec. 2 and 3 of the KIA 1963 have any effect on Obama's former British citizenship status? Does the repeal of Sec. 2 and 3 restore his old CUKC status? There is an argument that the repeal would not have restored Obama’s CUKC status because Obama did not have CUKC status "immediately" before commencement, for he had presumably lost that CUKC in 1963. But there is no automatic answer to this question. To answer this question properly, we must at least know what the intent of Parliament was in repealing Sec. 2 and 3. We must know why did Parliament use the word "immediately" before commencement when referring to former CUKC status? Why did Parliament care to repeal Sec. 2 and 3 when it was at the same time repealing the BNA 1948? What would have happened if Parliament only repealed the BNA 1948 and not also Sec. 2 and 3 of the KIA 1963? What did Parliament want to achieve by the simultaneous repeals of BNA 1948 and Sec. 2 and 3 of KIA 1963? Does repeal of Sec. 2 and 3 "immediately" restore prior CUCK status? If it does, then Obama would have CUKC status "immediately" prior to commencement and would be eligible for BOC. There is another interesting issue. Under the English common law, Obama was born a "natural born subject" of Great Britain and keeps that status for life. In the United States, once you are born a United States citizen either under the 14th Amendment or an Act of Congress, the government itself has no constitutional power to take away that citizenship. Rather, the person can voluntarily and intentionally give up that citizenship. We know that there is no evidence that Obama ever renounced his British citizenship.

    Comment by Puzo1 — December 25, 2009 @ 3:21 am

  46. Thomas Jefferson to J.Cartwright 1824It(Our Revolution)….presented us an album on which we were free to write what we pleased. We had no occasion to search into musty records, to hunt up royal parchments, or to investigate the laws and institutions of a semi-barbarous ancestry. We appealed to those(laws) of nature…I have shared my above posting, previously with you folks here & elsewhere , culled from a volume of Jefferson's letters collected for republication some 70 odd yrs ago However, in light of Mario's focus -in this particular comments section- on the English common law vs the Law of Nations/natural law based American common law & the Framers/Founders reliance upon the latter…I thought it(T.Jeff's own words) might merit reiteration

    Comment by avodlp — December 25, 2009 @ 7:21 am

  47. You wrote“Under the BNA 1981, Obama did not become any of the types of citizenships listed and so being a CUKC immediately before commencement by the repeal of Section 2 of the KIA 1963 he became a BOC which he continues to be to this day.”Then the British Overseas Territories Act 2002 says:“Conferral on British overseas territories citizens (1) Any person who, immediately before the commencement of this section, is a British overseas territories citizen shall, on the commencement of this section, become a British citizen. “So, isn’t he just a British Citizen?

    Comment by cajapie — December 25, 2009 @ 7:26 am

  48. Merry Christmas, Mr. Apuzzo…and to all!

    Comment by cajapie — December 25, 2009 @ 7:03 pm

  49. Here is a link to a blog someone sent to me. Check out some of the essays and the links.

    Comment by cfkerchner — December 26, 2009 @ 4:52 pm

  50. Petition to the Hawaii Government to release Obama’s Vital Records

    Comment by Benaiah — December 26, 2009 @ 9:12 pm

  51. Is a BOC now a BC per BOTA2002?

    Comment by cajapie — December 27, 2009 @ 3:38 am

  52. In reading your April essay, and the blog post by John…can you explain where things left off, i.e. is he a BOC now BC? Or something else?

    Comment by cajapie — December 28, 2009 @ 4:47 am

  53. avodlp,Your find is very good. I have the citation and quote as supporting materials to my argument that the Framers did not use English common law to guide them in constituting the new Republic but rather natural law and the law of nations. This new law would have included defining what a "natural born Citizen" was. Those who advocate that the Framers used the English common law to define new national citizenship ignore that the Framers were writing in the context of having just gone through a revolution. They were, indeed, writing on a tabula rasa. The English common law continued to have its effect in the States where it was applied to resolve state issues concerning contracts, property, inheritance, torts, criminal procedure, marriage, etc. Those who advocate the English common law position take the use of English common law on state issues and impose it upon what the Framers did on the national level. Hence, by taking such an approach they incorrectly argue that the Framers also used the English common law to define new national citizenship. But various historical evidence and U.S. Supreme Court cases which I have cited in my essays show that this is not so and that rather the Framers used natural law and the law of nations to define the new national citizenship including defining an Article II "natural born Citizen." The Jefferson quote, along with other historical materials, bears this out.

    Comment by Puzo1 — December 29, 2009 @ 4:51 am

  54. Yes, I keep this one(Jefferson letter) handy and in my, now well equipped arsenal, for ready deployment just in case I encounter an "Obot-in Overdrive".;-) You'll pardon the militaristic terminology but as you can well attest ; this struggle in which we are engaged, more often resembles a war than a civilized proceeding…. and this is before having even resorted to picking up the instruments traditionally associated with battle

    Comment by avodlp — December 29, 2009 @ 7:36 am

  55. More publicity for NBC plus I believe some new information..–Natural-Born-Citizenship

    Comment by Greg Goss — December 30, 2009 @ 5:47 pm

  56. Sorry for the link that I just realized was posted in October. It was just emailed to me and I thought it was fresh. But it still has some useful info.

    Comment by Greg Goss — December 30, 2009 @ 5:53 pm

  57. From "Fight the Smears" and "" – “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.” Obama's Kenyan citizenship did not "automatically expire on Aug. 4,1982". NO PERSON CAN LEGALLY BE "governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948", and at the same time legitimately claim to be a "natural born Citizen" of the United States. "…Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children." – the last statement proves that the same rules laid out by Vattel are the recognized authority on which Obama's OWN website relied to make their determination! Talk about "hidden in plain sight"!

    Comment by medical — January 1, 2010 @ 7:21 am

  58. FYI. Sad news about the Washington Times.A newspaper's surreal dismantling

    Comment by Erica — January 1, 2010 @ 8:20 pm

  59. medical:Indeed you're quite right about the "hidden in plain sight" comment – but nothing is "hidden" if no one in the MSM picks up on it and makes the public at large aware of the particulars of the intentional lying by the man (and his myrmidons) who has never shown himself to be legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies.It is also especially ironic (as you earlier were saying) that a great many Americans – most, even – are more than willing to whine and bitch about the overwhelming numbers of "Obama-transgressions" yet are unwilling to kick ine even, say, $29.95 or so the help support the ad and education efforts of Charles and Mario (neither of whom are benefitting financially from this legal action).Have we no more patriots except in words only …???

    Comment by jayjay — January 2, 2010 @ 5:19 pm

  60. Part 1 of 2:Recently I was trying to explain the Obama/Natural Born issue to someone, and I attempted to draw a parallel to: what if the question was about the President's age? What if a candidate was placed on the ballot who was not 35, and everyone knew it? Or what if they were told he was 35, but even though there was much conflicting information available, no one definitively pursued the issue? The reason I ask this is because of the differing opinions (I obviously agree with yours) as to what defines "natural born" citizen. There can be no difference of opinion as to how to calculate someone's age or number of years of residency in the US. What if this candidate is placed on the ballot anyway, elected by the people, and then Congress does nothing to stop it before the inauguration, or after, neglects to initiate impeachment? Would state's election officials pursue requests to follow the law or investigate (or just ignore them as they are now)? Would courts throw cases out for lack of standing or the political question doctrine? What could be done about something so flagrantly and openly illegal? Do "We, the People [who are educated in the Constitution and wish to uphold it]" have no method or right of redress?I understand that there are many citizens still trying to get the Hawaii records under FOIA, and they have all hit a wall. There is definitely something strange going on that may be worth pursuing by your firm. I didn't used to believe so, but now I am starting to wonder. The official birth certificate would be needed to prove US citizenship as well as age. Whether or not people agree with the definition of "natural born", they should agree that this document is important. And, as you stated here, an electronic image does not suffice. I know you are very busy, and I don't expect a response. I just felt that for some, the issue becomes clearer when the qualification being questioned is very clear-cut. No question about any of the three qualifications for the Presidency is "conspiracy theory". It is merely a question of Constitutional law.continued…

    Comment by Sallyven — January 4, 2010 @ 12:01 am

  61. Part 2 of 2:And perhaps therein lies the problem. In our new age of "relative" truth and “progressive” thought, many no longer hold the principles of law, truth, morality, or the Constitution in high regard. I just finished reading an excellent article by Bradley Watson in the December 31, 2009, National Review: "The Curious Constitution of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr." Watson states: "Holmes's Social Darwinism is exhibited in his view that judges express the wishes of their class at a particular historical point…The actual grounds of decision, according to Holmes, are based on the 'felt necessities' of the time; Judges decide questions first and find reasons for them ex post facto…Following in Holmes's footsteps, a long line of progressive jurists have broken with the founders Constitution–and with it, the very notion that human beings are creatures of a certain type, with transcendent purposes that do not change over time. In his rejection of natural law and natural rights–and thus of a classical liberal constitutionalism with limited state power–Holmes laid the groundwork for the contemporary era of jurisprudence, in which judges look to their visions of the future more than to the documents and doctrines of the past, and take on a new and far more active role in the constitutional order. The retrospective conception of the law–common or constitutional–hangs today by a bare thread."Recall Obama's interview where he stated that in his view the Constitution was "fundamentally flawed." And in the same issue of NR, a writer notes "The EPA's finding is an expression of the administration's contempt for the Constitution." Obama recently said in a speech pushing Health Care Reform: “[I]t’s clear we are on the precipice of achievement that’s eluded Congresses, presidents for generations — an achievement that will touch the lives of nearly every American.”According to, "precipice" means "a situation of great peril." or "the brink of a dangerous or disastrous situation."This lawsuit, this simple yet most symbolic Constitutional issue of our time, places the Constitution itself on the precipice. Will "the 3 enablers" push it over the edge? Or will "We the people" come to its rescue?This is a defining moment for our country. Godspeed.

    Comment by Sallyven — January 4, 2010 @ 12:04 am

  62. Sallyven:Quite right – and well put!!

    Comment by jayjay — January 4, 2010 @ 2:22 am

  63. Thank you for your service to our country!I've long wondered why the British government (or someone close to the information) wouldn't come forward with his citizenship status.Is there something similar to FOIR in Britain?

    Comment by Bob — January 5, 2010 @ 12:14 am

  64. Bob, I do not know about Great Britain having any FOIA type law. But I do know that any questions concerning citizenship or requests for renunciation of citizenship should be directed to the embassy address below: Embassy of the United Kingdom Embassy Telephone: 202-587-6500 Consular Section Consular Telephone: 202-588-7800** 3100 Massachusetts Avenue Fax: 202-588-7850 Washington, DC 20008 This can be a starting point. More information can be obtained directly from the Home Office UK Border Agency web site at where is states: "You can telephone direct from abroad on + 44 151 672 5626. Phone lines are open 0900 to 2100 Monday to Friday, excluding bank holidays." *** "Duplicate certificates of citizenship, registration or naturalisationThe UK Border Agency does not retain records of the grant of British citizenship (citizenship of the United Kingdom and colonies or British subject status) prior to October 1986. If you want to request a duplicate certificate for a grant made from that date, you should use the request form which you can download from the right side of this page.Duplicate certificates of registration (from January 1949 to October 1986) and of naturalisation (from 1870 to May 1969) are held by the National Archives. To find out how to obtain certified copies of these certificates, visit the National Archives website.Duplicate certificates of naturalisation between June 1969 and October 1986 are not available, as they have not been retained."I hope this helps as a starting point. Let me know what you find out.

    Comment by Puzo1 — January 5, 2010 @ 2:16 am

  65. Listen to this radio show to learn how ignorant Glen Beck and his group are on the Obama eligibility issue, an ignorance that is the only basis for their ridicule and confidence.

    Comment by Puzo1 — January 5, 2010 @ 8:43 am

  66. Hello Mario and Charles,As you know I don't usually post comments here. The Glenn Beck thing was very interesting to read and listen to. I'm really starting to believe that there is an ongoing "eligibility media black-out" conspiracy among the MSM including the syndicated conservative talkers. They usually just avoid the subject but Beck chose the Alinsky tactic of ridicule. This website appears to have been behind what it calls "Operation Flood It" which prompted Beck's ignorant comments. Just thought I'd pass it on to you and your readers in case you/they were unaware of it.

    Comment by Craig — January 6, 2010 @ 2:02 am

  67. Media threatened with violence and ruin if they mention BC or NBC issues:from 9.12 project siteIf these links do not work for you…go to and scroll down to the heading:Interview revealing allegations of threats to silence the media about Obama’s IneligibilityThere are 3 parts to this radio program recording…you might consider downloading to your ipod since most of us don’t have time to just sit down and listen to 3 parts that are about 40 minutes each…I have and believe me this is well worth listening to…you will glean a lot of info from these recordings!Douglas J. Hagmann is the founder and director of the North east Intelligence Network and CEO of a multi-state licensed private investigative agency serving many Fortune 500 clients ( Free Press working with North East Intelligence has documents and testimony of Major News anchors from MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CNN, CBS and FOX were threatened by Obama Administration staff, NOT to bring up the BC or Natural Born Citizen issue.They state that they are storing documents in the US and copies in Canada, and one other Country.part 1 2 3

    Comment by cajapie — January 6, 2010 @ 7:11 am

  68. Wow! Obama Conspiracy Theories is actually helping us! They think it a waste of time. I don't believe it is if EVERYONE starts doing it and we VIRAL with the message:

    Comment by James — January 6, 2010 @ 1:31 pm

  69. The National Archives at has a translation to spanish of the Constitution.But they did not translated it right. They said to be president you have to be citizen born in USA. Instead of natural-born citizen, which should be ciudadano nacido natural.4. Solo las personas que sean ciudadanos por nacimiento o que hayan sido ciudadanos de los Estados Unidos al tiempo de adoptarse esta Constitución, serán elegibles para el cargo de Presidente; tampoco será elegible una persona que no haya cumplido 35 años de edad y que no haya residido 14 años en los Estados Unidos. No person except a natural-born citizen, or citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.Please notice in spanish is Clause 4 while in english is Clause 5——————————————————–

    Comment by Pagina sobre el padre von Wernich — January 6, 2010 @ 8:48 pm

  70. :….If Obama supporters Don’t think the founding fathers were concerned about foreign influence? Read this quote:James Madison federalist paper #62 ………..”I. The qualifications proposed for senators, as distinguished from those of representatives, consist in a more advanced age and a longer period of citizenship. A senator must be thirty years of age at least; as a representative must be twenty-five. And the former must have been a citizen nine years; as seven years are required for the latter. The propriety of these distinctions is explained by the nature of the senatorial trust, which, requiring greater extent of information and tability of character, requires at the same time that the senator should have reached a period of life most likely to supply these advantages; and which, participating immediately in transactions with foreign nations, ought to be exercised by none who are not thoroughly weaned from the prepossessions and habits incident to foreign birth and education. The term of nine years appears to be a prudent mediocrity between a total exclusion of adopted citizens, whose merits and talents may claim a share in the public confidence, and an indiscriminate and hasty admission of them, which might create a channel for foreign influence on the national councils.”

    Comment by William — January 6, 2010 @ 10:51 pm

  71. Alexander Hamilton federalist paper #68…… Quote on the Presidency:…….”Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?”

    Comment by William — January 7, 2010 @ 12:44 am

  72. Most "regulars" here are very aware that the D.O.J.'s paid blogging team (which is paid with OUR tax dollars and which also operates in violation of "The Hatch Act") was formed for the sole purposes of viciously attacking, belittling, and attempting to misdirect anyone who dares to expose the truth regarding Obama's lack of Constitutional eligibility to hold office. We've also witnessed the fact that those same paid bloggers have fabricated one contradictory fairy tale after another in their multiple failed attempts to make people believe Obama is a "natural born Citizen" (the forever changing fairy tales have backfired on Obama and driven untold thousands of intelligent people to this site in search of the truth). What I am about to type is not a polite term, but I believe the lower than no-class folks at D.O.J. have earned the appropriately descriptive title of "keyboard whores". William Shakespeare did an excellent job of summing up Tracy Russo's illegal D.O.J. team and their childish attacks : "The lady doth protest too much, methinks".

    Comment by medical — January 7, 2010 @ 1:34 am


    Comment by William — January 9, 2010 @ 1:14 pm

  74. An interesting article addressing dual citizenship:

    Comment by Sallyven — January 9, 2010 @ 1:45 pm

  75. I just posted this comment at Dr. Conspiracy's blog: Part I of II"Dr. Conspiracy, Greg, & Company, The cases cited by tes only mention "natural born citizen" as part of the recital of the facts of the cases. The references to "natural born citizen" are not part of any legal issue in the cases. The courts in these cases were not asked to define what an Article II "natural born Citizen" is. The courts did not analyze the question of what the Framers meant by the term when they included it in Article II. These courts did not engage in any legal analysis concerning the meaning of the clause. Given that these courts simply included the reference to “natural born Citizen” as part of their recital of the facts of the case, what the courts said in reference thereto does not even rise to the level of dicta. Also, I see that you and your team are still trying to convince everyone that the Framers used English common law to define an Article II “natural born Citizen” and to therefore determine who would be eligible to be President and Commander in Chief. You have no evidence that the Framers used English common law to define nationality in the new nation. Simply presenting how the English common law defined a “natural born subject” in the colonies/states before the Constitution was adopted does not prove what the Framers meant when they wrote the “natural born Citizen” clause in Article II. On the contrary, the legal and historical evidence is that the Framers did not use English common law to define nationality and actually rejected it in that regard. Given the needs of the new Constitutional Republic, including but not limited to sole and absolute loyalty to the new nation, respect among nations, and uniformity of laws, the Framers simply would have had no reason to use the English common law for such a purpose. Nationality and citizenship were not local issues (like contracts, property, inheritance, torts, marriage, criminal procedure, etc.) tied to the individual states. Rather, they were matters that were national and international in scope. The Framers had the task of constituting a new nation after having just won a revolution against the English Crown. Having just won that revolution, the Framers would not have constitutionalized the English common law, especially as a guide on who could be President and Chief of the Military forces. Rather, they had the opportunity to and did write on a tabula rasa. The Framers were well educated in religion, the Greek and Roman classics, world history, natural law, and the law of nations. They knew that natural law and the law of nations defined nationality and citizenship. They accepted those definitions for the exact purposes that they needed. Those purposes were to define who the current members of the new society were and who were going to be the future members and guardians of the Republic and its Constitution. The law of nations served them well in this and many other regards and it became a part of and was incorporated into American common law. The Framers even went further and incorporated the law of nations into the Constitution at Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4. They did not mention the English common law anywhere in the Constitution as a set of laws that would guide the new federal system. Continued . . .

    Comment by Puzo1 — January 9, 2010 @ 10:12 pm

  76. Part II of IIAll your case citations, including your favorites of Lynch v. Clarke and United States v. Wong Kim Ark, do not prove anything as to what the Framers thought the meaning of an Article II "natural born Citizen" was. Providing without more what some authorities many years later believed was the meaning of “citizenship” does not prove what the Framers believed was the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” in the context of Presidential eligibility. You have to consider that the battle for citizenship following the adoption of the Constitution was for recognition of some classes of persons (blacks, Asians, and American Indians) as members of American society and therefore “citizens.” The issue was never whether these persons were Article II “natural born citizens.” You fail to provide any evidence linking this subsequent legal development regarding who was an American “citizen” with what the Framers believed to be an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Your reliance on the 14th Amendment is also misplaced. That Amendment in no way amended the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” as that term is used in Article II. If the framers of the 14th Amendment meant to amend Article II, they would have told us about it, especially since amending the Constitution is such a serious and solemn undertaking. Additionally, there does not exist one case which holds or even suggests that the 14th Amendment amended the “natural born Citizen” clause of Article II. Hence, treating a 14th Amendment "citizen" as though an Article II “natural born Citizen” does not exist and using those terms interchangeably as you are all so well at doing is nothing but obfuscation. Your group's constant injection of race into the question of whether Obama is a "natural born Citizen" is nothing but an attempt at avoiding having to address the issue on an intelligent and legal basis and at winning the issue by appealing to unjustified sympathy and prejudice.Finally, your attacking the wisdom and continuing relevancy today of the “natural born Citizen” clause is nothing but your feeble attempt at serving your political ends and avoiding having to address the issue of what the Founders meant by the term when they included it in Article II as one of the eligibility requirements that a would-be President and Commander in Chief of the Military such as Obama must satisfy before he may legitimately occupy and be vested with the great powers of those offices. Mario Apuzzo, Esq."

    Comment by Puzo1 — January 9, 2010 @ 10:12 pm

  77. I also comment Mario:One the problems with “Natural Born” citizen is that is just a legal theory at this point. This is not to say it is not valid but because it has never been litigated. The term “Natural Born” citizen is used only once in Constitution under Article II Section 1. This section has one purpose and one purpose only, it provides for the strong security against FOREIGN INFLUENCE of our POTUS. When birthers like Mario, Orly and others speak of “Natural Born” citizen they speak in context of Article II Section 1. Birthers have it nailed because they interpretating “Natural Born” Citizen in its proper context. Obots and it appears the courts have constitently interpretated “Natural Born” citizen in the wrong context. They attempt to intepretate in way of RIGHTS rather in the context of Presidential Eligibility and in the context of FOREIGN INFLUENCE. Obots can cite all the cases they want but they are unable to cite any case of “Natural Born” citizen in the context of Article II Section 1 (As far as SCOTUS is concerned.) This is a critical distinction because the POTUS although a citizen must be treated differently than that of ordinary citizen because of powers endowed to the POTUS such being Commander In Chief. It is critically important that the POTUS be free of foreign influence and “Natural Born” citizen be interpretated in that context.

    Comment by James — January 9, 2010 @ 10:46 pm

  78. America is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. In America, the rule of law puts a check on the majority and prevents it from trampling upon the constitutional rights of the minority. This means that in America, in order to avoid disruption of our society, we are supposed to resolve our constitutional problems in a court room wherein the predetermined process of the rule of law is applied to fairly arrive at a legal decision. We do not immediately resolve such problems in a voting booth wherein the rule of the majority however created is determined. I qualified my statement by saying “supposed to resolve” because resolving such a constitutional problem in a court room assumes that the court will accept the job of deciding the case. I also qualified my other statement by saying “immediately resolve” because if the majority is not happy with the results of how the court applied the rule of law, they can change the constitutional rule thereby created by way of a constitutional amendment or change their political leaders and eventually their judges but only at great social, political, and economic expense.

    Comment by Puzo1 — January 10, 2010 @ 8:03 am

  79. A supporter sent me the following link of Senator Chuck Schumer on video making the following statement: Interviewer: "What do you think of the relevance of John McCain's cancer is on this election?" Senator Schumer: "I do not know if there is relevancy but I will say this. When you are running for President, everything should be public, including your full medical records. I believe in a right of privacy. But when you are running for President which is such an important job, the need of the public to know supersedes it." Senator Schumer answered the question in reference to John McCain's cancer and whether he should disclose his medical records to the public. It is important to note that Senator Schumer started his answer by implying that whether McCain's cancer had any relevancy in the election was not controlling on the question whether a Presidential candidate should disclose all his private information to the American public. Rather what he was interested in was a requirement that a person running for President, "which is such an important job," disclosing all his private information including medical records to the American people regardless of any privacy right that the person may normally have in that information. He concluded by saying that "the need of the public to know" trumps any privacy that person may have in his personal information. We know that Obama has refused to release for public viewing his birth certificate, medical records, and travel, education, and work documents. The question is why did Senator Schumer and other Senators and Representatives not insist that Obama release this information to the public? Why did these elected representatives of the people not ask for Obama's birth certificate and medical records which would conclusively prove where he was born? Why did they apply one standard to McCain and another one for Obama? Does not the same standard apply to Obama? What exempts Obama from having to release his private information which did not exempt McCain? Why did Senator Schumer and other Senators and Representatives not object to Obama concealing his important documents from the American public which documents go to show his character and identity? How could Senator Schumer have acted during the January 8, 2009 Joint Session of Congress as teller and announce the votes cast by the electors for each State and count and make a list of those votes cast for Obama with such a proud face? Here is the YouTube link which you can use to listen to Senator Schumer's statement:

    Comment by Puzo1 — January 10, 2010 @ 9:20 am

  80. Here is more that I posted at Dr. Conspiracy's blog: "Dr. Conspiracy, You said: "Mario, would you concede that any person born in Hawaii in 1961 to an American mother and a British student, could take a Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth and a Driver’s License and get a US Passport that says they are a United States citizen?"My response: "Under usual and normal circumstances, I would concede the point and add that there probably would not be a need to inquire further into that person’s identity. But with Obama, we do not have a usual and normal situation. First, we have a legal question. Obama is supposed to be a legitimate President. As such, he has to have had satisfied, among other things, Article II's "natural born Citizen" clause. Satisfying the 14th Amendment's born "citizen of the United States" clause is not sufficient for Presidential eligibility. I maintain that because he was not born to a mother and father who were both citizens at the time of his birth, regardless of the place of his birth, he cannot be an Article II "natural born Citizen." I have provided my supporting legal arguments on this topic and will not repeat them here. Rather, at best and only if he was born in the United States, he can be a 14th Amendment born "citizen of the United States." If he was not born in the United States, then he has no legal status at all in the United States, for neither the 14th Amendment nor any Congressional Act applies to give him any citizenship status in the United States. Second, we have factual questions. Obama has yet to release to the public any "Certificate of Live Birth" (BC), for he only released a computer-imaged scan of a Certification of Live Birth (COLB). Obama has also not released any information as to what passports he has held and used in the past. Additionally, there are too many unanswered questions and conflicting stories regarding Obama's background on which I have already written and which I will not repeat here. Just to mention a few, Obama has refused to release his records regarding his birth, education, work, and travel. Regarding his birth certificate, he has allowed his right to privacy to prevent the hospitals in Hawaii from releasing pertinent information to the public and thereby has effectively thwarted the public from learning information which would shed a great beam of light on the issue of his place of birth.Moreover, Obama has run for and is presently sitting in the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military. Hence, with Obama, as Senator Schumer so aptly stated, we are talking about "running for the Office of President which is such an important job." As Senator Schumer again so correctly stated without qualification, "the need of the public to know supersedes" a Presidential candidate's "right to privacy." What I do not understand is why Senator Schumer sought to apply that standard to McCain but not to Obama? The double standard is also so much more blatant and shocking when we think that there was only a question of whether McCain should publicly release his medical records documenting his cancer where Obama has refused to release his records regarding his birth, education, work, and travel. Our political, media, and legal institutions’ handling of the Obama election has got to be the greatest violation of the American People’s Right to Know ever perpetrated upon them. Here is the YouTube link which you can use to listen to Senator Schumer's statement:"

    Comment by Puzo1 — January 10, 2010 @ 5:22 pm

  81. Senator Harry Reid was also asked the question as was Senator Schumer: "What is the relevance of John McCain's cancer to this election?" Echoing what Senator Schumer said, he responded: “When we are talking about the President of the United States . . . I think there should be total transparency when a person is running for President of the United States…” You can hear Senator Reid at The question is why did both Senator Schumer and Reid not apply the same standard to Obama? When they were referring to the Office of President as applying to McCain, they emphasized the critical importance of that office. While they did not articulate it, their statement includes their unspoken belief that for the sake of national security all pertinent information about the person who is running for the Office of President must be made known to the public. They were concerned about national security when it came to McCain but they were not also so concerned when it came to Obama. Why did they not also press Obama for his pertinent information? Why did they not have the same national security concern for Obama as they did for McCain? Are we to conclude that when it came to their own Obama, the two Senators were ready, willing, and able to risk the safety of the American people and the future of the nation for the sake of party politics and winning an election?

    Comment by Puzo1 — January 10, 2010 @ 6:50 pm

  82. Mario I must say you have the patience of a saint. I am having a real hard time figuring out WHY it's so difficult for people to grasp this fact of the article2 section 1 Natural-born citizen " , and when a congressman is asked about it,like Trent Franks-Az ,( and he's on the Constitution sub-committee, and the Judiciary committee ) Mr. franks said , he had his legal staff do an extensive and in depth research into the issue, and they found the "newspaper birth announcements" from the two papers in HI from 1961, and so his conclusion was that the newspaper couldn't be forged , and so he is satisfied Obama is a "citizen".I reaffirmed the Natural born citizen requirement, and his reply was "WELL, I THINK MOST PEOPLE FEEL THAT IF YOU'RE BORN HERE, YOU'RE A CITIZEN, AND CAN BE PRESIDENT"…I admit that 2 years ago, I didn't have a clue what the requirements were for POTUS, and I didn't finish high school, and flunked out last year from college algebra,but by God, I know NOW what an art.2 , sect.1, paragraph 5, natural born citizen is, and I have a 3"binder with a copy of the constitution, Bill of rights, declaration of Independence, and De'Vattels Law of Nations,notes from writings like constitutional construction, ( from the constitution society webpage)I ahve a big poster on my fence outside that syas support and defend the constitution….my point is this…if I "get it"…then why doesn't the reps in our Congress…I at least can see why the death bills, and slavery bills they all vote on now , just proves what actual stupid asses they are. with a couple of exceptions , I say we need to dissolve the entire 3 branches and scratch from scratch…it's like a cake batter recipe that goes all wrong, you gotta just dump it out,and start fresh.I would give my right arm, i think if they had a class here locally just for the teaching of the constitution , and America's REAL history…so i am very grateful to persons like you ,Mario, that take so much time with every ones, debates and questions,as it seems that many of them argue because they are too lazy to do their own research….and if I can do it, any one can.

    Comment by passaro — January 10, 2010 @ 9:30 pm

  83. mario, when speaking of our REPUBLICAN form of government..could it be that way back in time, people got confused because our voting process is considered a 'Democratic procedure"..i've become very aware when others say we are a "DEMOCRACY", it makes my skin crawl when i hear that…and i even visited a new Blog that was trying to help educate people to the constitution and the home page intro was reading very well until last sentence of the first paragraph , the blogger said " THAT IF WE ALL DON'T WAKE UP SOON OUR DEMOCRACY WOULD VANISH…."at that moment i sent him an e-mail and informed him that although I assumed he meant well, but we are a REPUBLIC form of Governemnt and that if he could not see his way fit to change that and pay closer attention to what he blogged, I would not be back to his page.He followed up, he stood corrected , thanked me and changed the text.We are making a difference, slowly, and of course if it weren't for great gentlemen as yourself, we might be sunk.Godspeed…

    Comment by passaro — January 10, 2010 @ 9:41 pm

  84. Hi Passaro,Thank you for sharing your experiences.Glad the person did not argue with you over our true form of government. If he had, or if the need arises in the future, ask the person who would disagree with you to carefully and slowly recite the Pledge of Allegiance.Also, here is a link (from the links in this blog) to a very good video about the various forms of government:America's True Form of GovernmentWe are gaining ground in this battle even if it is not going as fast as we'd like. The enablers of this usurpation and blockers of the correction of the problem are the unseeing Congress, the unwilling to hear Courts, and the unwilling to talk about it Main Stream Media.The Three EnablersCharles KerchnerCommander USNR (Retired)

    Comment by cfkerchner — January 10, 2010 @ 11:20 pm

  85. Mario,I enjoy trying to help you fight over on Dr. Conspericy. Perhaps Charles might want to come over too and add his input.

    Comment by James — January 10, 2010 @ 11:58 pm

  86. Have fun James. Mario from time to time likes to "recon" over there for his own tactical reasons of which I'm not free to share with you. But I personally have no interest in debating die hard Obama supporters whose sole purpose is to confuse the truth and general public and engage in intellectually dishonest, circular arguments and regurgitating the same old tripe misleading disingenuous arguments … and when they lose with that tactic they then just hurl ad hominem insults over and over again. The U.S. Supreme Court will decide this some day. Those are the folks that count.Charles

    Comment by cfkerchner — January 11, 2010 @ 3:15 am

  87. Mario, Be be helpful to put a posting for this: Release!!!!!!!

    Comment by James — January 12, 2010 @ 1:50 am

  88. Hi Passaro,Why won't congress act? One theory is "they" are just one organization, that 2 parties don't really exist any more and the last presidential s-election was really just a show… a form of entertainment to keep the masses (American public) happy while 'they' (the gubmint) steps up to the trough and takes all the money…. mind you, this is just a theory… Interesting site you might enjoy for a perspective of "what if" they (gubmint) have been infiltrated:

    Comment by Lisa G in NZ — January 12, 2010 @ 1:53 am

  89. I decided to research the issues for myself. What I discovered opened my eyes, so much so that I tracked down the owner of the parked domain, bought it, and then yesterday I forwarded it to my own website that has my findings.I also located federal documents that could provide the smoking gun we are all looking for. That said, I am preparing to make a FOIA request for a 3rd party and will publish my results within the next 30 days or so.

    Comment by Robert — January 12, 2010 @ 3:42 am

  90. Passaro, We often hear the claim that our nation is a democracy. That wasn't the vision of the founders. They saw democracy as another form of tyranny. If we've become a democracy, I guarantee you that the founders would be deeply disappointed by our betrayal of their vision. The founders intended, and laid out the ground rules, for our nation to be a republic.The word democracy appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution — two most fundamental documents of our nation. Instead of a democracy, the Constitution's Article IV, Section 4, guarantees "to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." Moreover, let's ask ourselves: Does our pledge of allegiance to the flag say to "the democracy for which it stands," or does it say to "the republic for which it stands"? Or do we sing "The Battle Hymn of the Democracy" or "The Battle Hymn of the Republic"?So what's the difference between republican and democratic forms of government? John Adams captured the essence of the difference when he said, "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." Nothing in our Constitution suggests that government is a grantor of rights. Instead, government is a protector of rights.In recognition that it's Congress that poses the greatest threat to our liberties, the framers used negative phrases against Congress throughout the Constitution such as: shall not abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, and shall not be violated, nor be denied. In a republican form of government, there is rule of law. All citizens, including government officials, are accountable to the same laws. Government power is limited and decentralized through a system of checks and balances. Government intervenes in civil society to protect its citizens against force and fraud but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange. Contrast the framers' vision of a republic with that of a democracy. In a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. As in a monarchy, the law is whatever the government determines it to be. Laws do not represent reason. They represent power. How about a few quotations demonstrating the disdain our founders held for democracy? James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 10: In a pure democracy, "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual." At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, " … that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy." John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Chief Justice John Marshall observed, "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos." In a word or two, the founders knew that a democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny the colonies suffered under King George III. Here's my question to those that believe we are a democracy society. Do Americans share the republican values laid out by our founders, and is it simply a matter of our being unschooled about the differences between a republic and a democracy? Do you vote in your local area on the meal to be severed for Thanksgiving, Christmas or any other day, or independently chose your meal substance? Do you vote in your local communities on the type of vehicle you may purchase as an individual? Who choose by a majority vote your career path?

    Comment by William — January 12, 2010 @ 5:55 pm

  91. Mario, As you said pertaining to Wong: …… “Wong only dealt with the question of what a "citizen of the United States" is. It said that we do not need the 14th Amendment to define one…..”Albeit this is true, I personally opinion that this is where the water became muddy, not in defining what a Natural Born Citizen is per se’, but rather the deliberate skewing of the 14th Amendment definition as a whole. Persons such as Congressman/woman, Senators and the Main Stream Media attempt to capitalize upon misrepresentation of the word “Jurisdiction” rather than research legal foundations and congressional minutes/reports during such bills being represented under its construction and intent.Having listened to such media self explanations as Geraldo Rivera and many other supporters (including Dr. Conspiracy), legal, media or otherwise, claiming “Jurisdiction” as applied to Obama being born in the U.S., Constitutes and qualifies anyone under such definition, whereby “Jurisdiction” is the meaning of Natural Born Citizenship of a “Place of Boarders”, hence qualified under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5,, is simply sensational and not wise. This is the most outrageous gross interpretation of such definition. Many on the internet and obviously our Representatives attempt to use “Jurisdiction” cases and definitions in general that have absolutely nothing to do with citizenship; and with a little wishful thinking, a slight handful of cases within a State, a quarter ounce of local district jurisdiction cases applied to illegal aliens in the past, many would ignorantly claim eureka per declination of “jurisdiction”, as their applied definition. However, the judicial system has been “warned” about such actions, most especially by Chief Justice Marshall Forewarnings of application from one legal case interpretation and applying its ruling to another in similarity. If time is allotted on your behalf, I would enjoy an essay on the this very subject by you pertaining to “Jurisdiction” as applied to “citizenship”; the different types of legal terms of “jurisdiction”, its history and how these are confused by others such as Geraldo Rivera and the Media.

    Comment by William — January 12, 2010 @ 11:18 pm

  92. An Open Videomail to Glenn Beck:Does it matter?

    Comment by Benaiah — January 13, 2010 @ 1:48 am

  93. I have a good many powerful contacts (which I shall never mention by name) in and near Washington. They all agree – in his new book, Larry Sinclair is undoubtedly telling the truth regarding his relationship with Obama and Mario Apuzzo is the only attorney following the correct legal path in challenging Obama's Constitutional qualifications to hold office. Folks are saying the pair are causing Obama to have endless nightmares and causing him to consume untold quantities of tranquilizers and anti-diarrheal medications. It is also claimed that due to the unceasing efforts of the aforementioned gentlemen, Obama has developed a compulsive involuntary affliction known as "coprolalia". Keep up the great work, gentlemen!

    Comment by medical — January 13, 2010 @ 1:51 am

  94. Benaiah,A powerful video. I have blasted it out to all the media on my list. And I have sent a copy directly to Glenn Beck. I have written to Glenn Beck repeatedly and asked for a private meeting between him and/or his staff and Mario and I to discuss the meaning of "natural born Citizen" per Constitutional standards. I have never received an answer. I have made your link a hot link. Here it is:An Open Video Letter to Glenn Beck — Does It Matter? KerchnerCommander USNR (Ret)Kerchner v Obama & CongressWe need your help to continue the ads! Please do so if you can.

    Comment by cfkerchner — January 13, 2010 @ 3:55 am

  95. Benaiah:Great vid and wonderfully done!!!Kudos – and let's hope that Glenn Beck and/or others are paying attention. Now is the time to push the envelope!!!! … and YES, it DOES matter (in spades).

    Comment by jayjay — January 13, 2010 @ 4:08 am

  96. medical:"coprolalia" … a womnderfully evocative term – and no doubt correctly used.Keep up the good work … even David Beck will need to look that one up!

    Comment by jayjay — January 13, 2010 @ 4:13 am

  97. I fully realize that what Pastor James David Manning of Atlah World Ministries states in this video regarding Obama, Al-Qaeda, and Columbia University is very shocking and it sounds outlandish, but several months ago, I heard precisely the same explanation for the mysterious sealing of Obama's Columbia University records from a highly respected and highly decorated active U.S. intelligence agent with more than forty years experience (the agent is a very serious person who has never mislead me, even in jest). If only one person makes such an allegation, it might prove to be erroneous, but when two brutally honest persons who have never met state exactly the same details, it's time to sit up and pay close attention. Pastor Manning is a rare sort of gentleman who dares to speak the absolute truth regarding an issue to all persons – he doesn't have one story for one group and a modified "politically correct" version of the story for another group. He is consistent and places the truth above all else – he deserves great respect. Obama's lackeys have succeeded in having Pastor Manning banned from YouTube and federal agents have visited and attempted to intimidate him at his office, so you know he's exposing issues which Obama wants kept quiet. Those of you who can find the time should view as many of Pastor Manning's videos about Obama as possible. I'm now willing to bet everything I own that the allegations contained in this video are 100% accurate.

    Comment by medical — January 13, 2010 @ 7:57 am

  98. Mario & Charles,I do not know if you have familiar with this work from the 1867, so forgive me if I am duplicating information. The work is from a George Yeaman who was the US Minister at Copenhagen & is choked full of the case for the Laws of Nations and all thiose other famous dead philosophers the founders relied on when drafting the constitution. It specifically makes the case against dual citizneship as a reality at our country's founding. Yeaman, George Helm, 1828-1908. [from old catalog]Subject: Draft; Dual nationality. [from old catalog]Publisher: Copenhagen, Printed by F. MøllerYear: 1867Possible copyright status: NOT_IN_COPYRIGHTLanguage: EnglishDigitizing sponsor: GoogleBook from the collections of: Harvard UniversityCollection: americana

    Comment by constitutionallyspeaking — January 13, 2010 @ 10:11 am

  99. Charles and Mario….have you heard about this????Obama was born “Steve Dunham”! — the evidence..

    Comment by Jackie Smith — January 13, 2010 @ 1:14 pm

  100. medical, First, I would like to say that I have great respect and admiration for Rev. Manning. He is a man of courage and conviction. Second, early this morning, I sent Rev. Manning the following email. I am waiting for a response. I want to share my question with Rev. Manning with the public because I am curious if anyone has any information on the question of Obama attending Columbia. As you will see from the link that I provide, there is an alleged interview with a person who is allegedly Obama's roomate at Columbia. I would appreciate receiving information from anyone on this topic. Here is my email to Rev. Manning: "Rev. Manning,This is Mario Apuzzo, the attorney handling the Kerchner case against Obama. I listened to your YouTube [probably not YouTube] on Obama not attending Columbia. Attached is an article on a Phil Boerner who the article describes as Obama's roommate at Columbia. The article also describes moments when Obama was allegedly at Columbia. Were you aware of this article? What do you make of this alleged person, Phil Boerner, and his alleged story? Apuzzo, Esq."

    Comment by Puzo1 — January 13, 2010 @ 3:46 pm

  101. Obama's roommate only testifies that Obama "said" he spent a lot of time in the library. They also did not room together that long. "After that first semester, we had to move." He then explains how they keep in touch through different living arrangements, but with no time frame attached to those comments.Then you read this "No Body Remembers Obama At Columbia." There is not person that has directly testified placing Obama in one class at Columbia, NOT ONE!

    Comment by Greg Goss — January 13, 2010 @ 7:03 pm

  102. medical:Despite my typos, I loved your use of Obama's "coprolalia" and have no doubt that exactly the case.I also agree about Dr. Mannings veracity as well as that of Larry Sinclair. As you may have noted, Larry Sinclair is intending to run for the HOuse – wouldn't that be an interesting Congressman??? Talk about coprolalia; that would drive it in spaces as Larry sent an autographed copy of his book to the First Lady but I've seen no report as to whether she has read it.As a suggestion, you might try to get some of the sources you've alluded to to directly contact Mr. Apuzzo as they might be of some real assistance in the Kerchner et al action but would not directly have to be an identified part of it.In any event, any insights you offer are appreciated – the more directed, the better.

    Comment by jayjay — January 13, 2010 @ 9:38 pm

  103. I just posted this comment as Dr. Conspiracy's blog: "Black Lion, You can at least be a little original rather than copy my arguments back to me. As far as credibility, you and this whole site [Obama Conspiracy Theories] have no credibility. Just look at the name, “Obama Conspiracy Theories.” Your claim to fame is that anything negative that is said about Obama is a “conspiracy.” Do you call that intellectual honesty? You and all your followers are nothing but political hacks, maybe even hired. You only address what you want to address. You love the easy stuff so that you can just pile it on with all your little jokes. But when you have to address something that is damaging you give the appearance as though you answered the point but you really do not address the matter and only avoid doing so. Your biggest lie is hiding behind a computer image of a Certification of Live Birth (COLB) and telling all your readers that Obama released to the public his original birth certificate knowing darn well that a computer image of a COLB is not the same thing as an original birth certificate (BC). As a subpart of that biggest lie, you add another lie and say that poor Obama just cannot release an original birth certificate because poor Hawaii just does not have one to release. Who are you kidding? Your second biggest lie is telling people that Obama has been transparent because he released his COLB to the public when you darn well know that he has not released countless other pertinent documents (birth, education, work, medical, and travel) which are relevant on the question of his character and identity. Also, since you have so much to say about me being a lawyer, why do you not tell me what kind of work you do so that I can tell you what I think about that, too? Just keep patting yourselves on the back. That might take you far on this blog but no where in the real world and in real battle."

    Comment by Puzo1 — January 13, 2010 @ 10:25 pm

  104. Isn't funny how people like Black Lion and all the other Obots use anonymity in this debate. Honest people looking for the truth are willing to put themselves out there and ask for an honest debate on the issue.

    Comment by Greg Goss — January 13, 2010 @ 11:09 pm

  105. Mario Apuzzo:Frankly, I think you're wasting your time on the mis-named "Conspiracy" blog. The guy in the Farmer's chapeau wouldn't know a conspiracy if one bit him in the butt and cannot admit that he knows NOTHING substantive about his hero's vital records. He should attack the conspiracy of the MSM in not mentioning any breath of a question of presidential Eligibility since the man residing in the Oval Office has never shown himself to eligible to hold the office he now occupies.Instead all of the Flying Monkeys over there merely take their cues from him to pile on anyone who does not slather over The One heaping endless and undeserved praise upon anything he might do. They don't even give a rat's furunculus that he's violating the Constitution (on several levels).In short, they're merely a bunch of the myrmidons that Mr. Obama so revels in … sort of like an even more ill-informed circle of the MSM.

    Comment by jayjay — January 13, 2010 @ 11:19 pm

  106. Arizona State House Rep introduces a Presidential elections Constitutional eligibility verification bill which has numerous sponsors. We are making progress.

    Comment by cfkerchner — January 15, 2010 @ 3:59 am

  107. Awesome YouTube Benaiah. Spot on. I have also posted and emailed your the video. I've emailed and tweeted GB about his ignorance on the "birther" issue for months. (Don't like the label "birther" since I really don't care where BO was born – he's not an NBC and I want to know what else he's hiding.)His staffer had written me when I protested about GB's August show calling us "birther idiots" saying "I've looked at all the FACTS and completely agree with Glenn."(who must get his talking points on this issue from O'Reilly). Lost respect for him back then. I can't wrap my head around someone who is that dense on this issue.I've believed from the start that Mario is the only atty in this issue that has the ability and the credibility to get it done right.

    Comment by Chris — January 15, 2010 @ 5:33 am

  108. Mario & Charles,My latest findings that BUST wide open & completely discredit the progressives claim that being born on US soil automatically makes one a US citizen and also their notion that the founding fathers adopted the feudal common law of England.

    Comment by constitutionallyspeaking — January 15, 2010 @ 8:07 am

  109. SEND O TO GITMO III, Section 3 – Treason against the United States, shall consist only …in adhering to their Enemies

    Comment by Benaiah — January 15, 2010 @ 7:12 pm

  110. constitutionallyspeaking, You are correct. I have argued that in our history (prior to Wong Kim Ark) the children of aliens born in the U.S. were neither plain citizens nor natural born citizens, but rather had to naturalize. The obots laughed at me. It is nice to have someone like you agree with me on this aspect of the Obama eligiblity issue.

    Comment by Puzo1 — January 15, 2010 @ 9:38 pm

  111. Do you think Beck, O'Reilly etc., are complicit or threatened? Do you think they're convinced that removing pp is so devastating it's better to pretend he's eligible? What the hell is going on? By not addressing the core issue and yet critiquing all the peripherals, they LEGITIMIZE him.

    Comment by cajapie — January 16, 2010 @ 3:12 am

  112. Mario & Charles,I have read the Marriage Act(Cable Act) of 1922 and the 2 reviosion to it in 1936 & 1940. No where in these acts does Congress change the longstanding law of decent and now allows "married" women to confer citizenship on the child. Have you looked into this further?Also, I expanded may last artice, as was my original intention to put right back in the faces of the koolaide drinkers, how deceitfully they twist the words of the early scholars to somehow justify thier argument. Part I was a teaser, here is the complete rebutle.Part II, there may be some additional information here you can pull for your case.

    Comment by constitutionallyspeaking — January 16, 2010 @ 8:44 pm

  113. Mario & Charles,I wish you had a search button for us to use to locate specific information in all your wonderful & educational articles.Any chance?

    Comment by constitutionallyspeaking — January 17, 2010 @ 3:02 am

  114. The stonewalling will continue by the international corporate federal employees until the dissolution of this erstwhile great nation as we are under Lex Fori : Barry's latest EO establishes a Council of Governors for ten regions in the USA in preparation for Martial Law,and this is biblical for the New World Order plan : The cases in DC on Corp US are in Default but are being stalled by ignring the APA Act and FRCP and Styles Manual and ignoring the motion for Clarification of language.

    Comment by mia — January 17, 2010 @ 4:33 am

  115. Constitutionallyspeaking,There is a small search field box in the upper left corner of the blog. It has a spy glass symbol next to it. This is provided by BlogSpot. Have you tried that?Charles

    Comment by cfkerchner — January 17, 2010 @ 6:06 pm

  116. Charles,I have. It only searches the titles, not the constent of the text.Regards, Linda

    Comment by constitutionallyspeaking — January 17, 2010 @ 6:12 pm

  117. Hello again Constitutionallyspeaking,I just now added a new "Google Search This Blog" gadget/widget to the features in the right frame/column. Scroll down a little bit on the right side and you should spot it. Hope this does what you want.Charles

    Comment by cfkerchner — January 17, 2010 @ 6:30 pm

  118. Charles,Thank you so much. I will go try it right away. :)Regards, Linda

    Comment by constitutionallyspeaking — January 17, 2010 @ 6:37 pm

  119. Marie & Charles:I hope and pray that you have both thjorouchly digested BOTH parts I & II of "constitutionallyspeaking"'s blog that she linked in her above comments.She absolutely nails it and (especially) Part II shows the intellectual dishonesty put forth by the opponents such as the "Constitutional expert" Laurence Tribe – he of the HR511 "justification" AND he of the hoped for SCOTUS nomination since he was BHO' "teacher" at Harvard and one of his early "pushers".The stunts of these guys cannot be overestimated as her Par II explanation of the mixing and matching of different portions of the Constitution to mis-define what it means.Would they lie??? MOST ASSUREDLY – and frequently.

    Comment by jayjay — January 17, 2010 @ 11:21 pm

  120. What happened between the CRA of 1866 and the 14th amendment of 1868 and when did statutes follow that defined "Citizen"?Why didn't CRA1866 say NBCs vs. "Citizens"?"That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States"

    Comment by cajapie — January 18, 2010 @ 12:12 am

  121. cajapie said…Why didn't CRA1866 say NBCs vs. "Citizens"?"That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States"________________________cajapie,congress was only invested with the power to make laws regarding immigration & naturalization & by the laws of nature, a natural born citizen needs no law to prove their citizenship. However, congress did define what the phrase meant & Mario & Charles have hit it many times. Do a text search on the site here for Bingham or the 39th Congress and it wll bring up many articles for you to read on the subject.use the google search button midway down on the right side of the main page.

    Comment by constitutionallyspeaking — January 18, 2010 @ 5:16 am

  122. The ever increasing numbers of non-attorneys who are creating blogs and calling themselves "recognized legal experts" ("recognized" by WHOM?!) and posting constantly changing massive walls of text, which overflow with erroneous and intentionally confusing "irrefutable legal proof" stating that the usurper is "unquestionably" a "n.b.C.", is simply amazing. "Jail house lawyers" have more credibility! The childishly written blogs, which are nothing more than attempts at misleading and confusing the public, also come complete with their own "ad hominem attack teams", which have been trained to harass and upset emotional "naysayers" into wasting precious time arguing. The Obama "n.b.C." support blogs are the most obvious paid political scams I've ever witnessed in my entire life. Where do they find most of those below no class people? Are they the same people who used to operate the con-games for traveling carnivals? I KNOW FOR A FACT that one of the blog owners is employed by a Russian intelligence agency that is pushing the U.S.A. closer and closer toward becoming a Marxist nation. He's easy to spot, just look for the angry faced old Goober who has a gray "devil beard" and wears a straw hat that belongs on a farm tractor operator.

    Comment by medical — January 18, 2010 @ 6:40 am

  123. Karl Marx is alive and well at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue!

    Comment by medical — January 18, 2010 @ 6:42 am

  124. Perhaps if a person is born of a non-citizen parent in-country, they are then subject to a foreign power SOMETIMES. Maybe some countries only consider jus soli births for their citizenship? Is that why CRA 1866 does not say NBC? Just probing.

    Comment by cajapie — January 18, 2010 @ 7:08 am

  125. cajapie, I of IIIn Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), the United States Supreme Court affirmed the ancient notion that slaves were property and that both slaves and their descendents were not members of the civil society and therefore not eligible for citizenship. The slaves were in part emancipated by President Lincoln using his powers as the Commander in Chief of the Military and issuing thereunder executive orders of 1862 and 1863. The 13th Amendment outlawing slavery was passed in 1865. But given the Dred Scott decision, there still remained the question of whether the former slaves and their descendents could be citizens of the United States. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was passed to abrogate that decision to the constitutional degree that it could. This Act in effect codified the natural law/law of nations/American federal common law definition of a "natural born Citizen." So that there could not be any constitutional challenge to the law and so that no subsequent Congress could so easily change that law, the 14th Amendment (which included the citizenship clause) was passed in 1868 to constitutionalize the 1866 act. The reason both the 1866 Act and the 14th Amendment were needed was to take race out of the definition which never existed in the law of nature definition of a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen” but because of the slave experience in which the colonists/Founders lived was included by them as a barrier to membership in the civil society (to become a “citizen”) and consequently created a situation wherein people of a different race or color not being citizens could never procreate a “natural born Citizen.” Again, both the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (born on U.S. soil and “not subject to any foreign power”) and the 14th Amendment (born on U.S. soil or naturalized there and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”) were only designed to establish the rules to be applied for initial membership into American civil society and to constitutionally confirm that born citizens (who through the years have come to be called native citizens) and naturalized citizens are equal under the law. They were neither intended nor designed to amend the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” which applied for determining eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. The 14th Amendment also made clear that either a born citizen or a naturalized citizen could procreate “natural born Citizens.” In most cases, only if a child is born in the country to a mother and father who are both citizens will that child be born "not subject to any foreign power" or "subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]." If for some chance one or both of the foreign parents were stateless or if the nation of one or both of the foreign parents did not recognize jus sanguinis, a child born on United States soil could be born to a foreign parent and not acquire any foreign citizenship and allegiance. But these latter cases will most likely be rare, for most people are not stateless and a large number of countries also recognize citizenship through jus sanguinis. But the Article II "natural born Citizen" clause goes further than just not wanting the child's parents to be foreigners. The clause affirmatively requires that the child's parents be U.S. citizens. The reason for this is that when the child meets the definition of a "natural born Citizen," the child will be reared by citizens of the United States, thereby assuring to a greater degree that the child will be instilled with American values and loyalty. Continued . . .

    Comment by Puzo1 — January 18, 2010 @ 7:44 pm

  126. II of IIOver the course of our history, our courts have opened up plain citizenship to more people. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169U. S. 649 (1898), constitutionalized the notion that a child born on U.S. soil to foreign parents who are domiciled here is a "citizen of the United States." Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162 (1874) had stated that, while there was no doubt as to who was a “natural-born citizen,” defining such a person consistently with (1) Samuel von Puffendorf, (2) Emer de Vattel, (3) Thomas Jefferson, one of our most important Founders, and (4) the then-existing Congressional naturalization laws, as anyone born in the country to parents who were citizens, it was doubtful whether children born in the United States of alien parents were “citizens” and left this question unanswered. Justice Gray in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), had explained that the persons declared to be citizens under the 14th Amendment are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." He emphasized that these last words meant that at birth the person owed “no allegiance to any alien power. . . The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized. . .” Id. But then 14 years later Justice Gray, who was appointed to the United States Supreme Court by President Chester Arthur whose father was not a United States citizen when Chester Arthur was born, in Wong, by contradicting what he said in the Elk decision and by reverting back to the outdated, outmoded, and irrelevant feudal English common law that prevailed in the colonies, gave a very loose definition to “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” By doing so, the decision allowed children born on U.S. soil to alien parents who were domiciled here to be members of American civil society and therefore “citizens of the United States.” The Wong decision only addressed the question of whether Wong could be a member of American civil society or a plain "citizen of the United States" as that phrase is written in the 14th Amendment and did not change the original definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen." On the contrary, the decision confirmed the definition of a “natural born Citizen” by citing the case of Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162 (1874) with approval. Given existing United States Supreme Court and lower court cases such as The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring) (cited Vattel and referred to the law of nations and gave Vattel’s definition of natural born citizens); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (which cited Vattel and his The Law of Nations and also took out of Vattel’s definition the reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and “person,” respectively; Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (gave the same definition without citing Vattel); Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (gave the same definition and cited Vattel); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (gave the same definition and cited Vattel), it would have been just too much for Justice Gray to justify declaring Wong to be a “natural born Citizen.” With no constitutional amendment and no U.S. Supreme Court case ever changing the original definition of a "natural born Citizen," it still prevails today and rightfully so. That office is too unique and powerful to have any lesser of a standard.Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

    Comment by Puzo1 — January 18, 2010 @ 7:49 pm

  127. Thank you.

    Comment by cajapie — January 19, 2010 @ 1:17 am

  128. It is interesting to note that when I bought the domain name, my hosting provider parked it on one of their advertising pages. The very first ad that showed up at the top of the parked site was "" This was before I added any Obama content to it whatsoever. Funny how Obama's people claim there is nothing to the birther issues, but yet they still feel compelled to buy up advertising space for the keyword birther.

    Comment by Robert — January 19, 2010 @ 2:25 am

  129. Thank you for the background/evolution of the inclusions for "citizen". As the constitution says that –NBC is not a citizen–and the 14th/US Code 1401 says a born citizen is jus soli and/or one US citizen parent (it never lists 2 US citizen parents)–and NBC is nowhere in the 14th (supported by Minor)then the only omitted possible born-citizen permutation is born in-country to 2 US citizen parentsSo isn't this irrefutable logic?

    Comment by cajapie — January 19, 2010 @ 8:23 am

  130. that is to saywe know that NBC is not a statutory citizen per Article IIwe know what born citizens can be per 14thwe know all possible permutations of a citizen per logicwe know only one permutation is omitted from statutory definitions of citizenso obviously NBC must be that remaining one, which is born in-country to 2 US citizen parentsindeed any other "born citizen" definition bots try to assign to being NBC, just proves even more that Obama is only a statutory citizen and thus CANNOT be NBC

    Comment by cajapie — January 19, 2010 @ 8:26 am

  131. January 19, 2010, is an important date for many reasons!It is also the date the Appeals Court briefs were due. Can we have an update on the progress of the case? Will the brief be posted for us to read?Thanks again, Mr. Apuzzo and Mr. Kerchner, for all of your hard work!

    Comment by Sallyven — January 19, 2010 @ 1:50 pm

  132. Scott Brown wins in MA! 52-47%. Coakley has conceded per AP. Charles

    Comment by cfkerchner — January 20, 2010 @ 2:37 am

  133. Scott Brown's win in Massachusetts shows that "the usurper's" endorsement of Martha Coakley was as helpful to her campaign as tying her to a ship's anchor, then dropping her off the deep end of a long pier at high tide. A conservative candidate from ultra-liberal Massachusetts winning a Senate seat proves beyond all doubt "the worm has turned". The obvious, rude, nasty, illegal, evil, and now publicly well known "DOJ Blog Squad" has not, as they had foolishly planned and imagined, helped "the usurper" and his extreme far left Marxist/socialist fellow travelers, it has backfired and helped to destroy them. Many of the "backlash" voters are very upset that "the usurper" is still concealing all his background records, has broken every last one of his campaign promises, absolutely refuses to produce his "long form" birth certificate and claims "it's no longer available" (does he REALLY believe the voters are THAT ignorant?), and he is wasting millions of dollars worth of the government's attorneys' time (OUR MONEY) to protect him from being forced into a court of law to face up to the facts. AFTER ONLY ONE INNING OF WHAT WAS SCHEDULED TO BE A FOUR INNING GAME, "THE USURPER" and HIS TEAM ARE ALREADY TOO FAR BEHIND TO EVER CATCH UP! (Think "coprolalia". Tonight, there's a massive outbreak of it rapidly spreading through Washington.)

    Comment by medical — January 20, 2010 @ 6:47 am

  134. medical:And if you really want to hear some uninformed (and spite-filled) "coprolalia", just check into Keeth Onagerman's "congrats" speech to Scott Brown.This TV type wasn't even entertaining as a sportscaster and is even less so as some sort of self-aggrandizing "commentator". He even makes Rachel Madcow look intelligent – and that's some stretch!Just for fun you migh check these two short videos: Three Little Words Merry Christmas OmeriKa!!

    Comment by jayjay — January 20, 2010 @ 10:34 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: