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

March 28, 2010

What Does Obama Truly Want to Accomplish With His Health Care Plan?

By nature, Man is born free and independent. But to live in a state of nature alone is not safe and offers no security. Hence, Man created government for his or her protection and to achieve maximum happiness. Under a constitutional republican form of government, Man delegates to that government limited powers to best achieve that protection. What rights and powers Man does not delegate to that government are his or her to exercise to his or her best advantage in the pursuit of his or her happiness. Let us examine the liberties which the People have retained and enjoyed since the Founding of the Constitutional Republic.

“Does not every man sit under his own vine and under his own fig-tree, having none to make him afraid? Does not every one follow his calling without impediments and receive the reward of his well-earned industry? The farmer cultivates his land, and reaps the fruit which the bounty of heaven bestows on his honest toil. The mechanic is exercised in his art, and receives the reward of his labour. The merchant drives his commerce, and none can deprive him of the gain he honestly acquires; all classes and callings of men amongst us are protected in their various pursuits, and secured by the laws in the possession and enjoyment of the property obtained in those pursuits. The laws are as well executed as they ever were, in this or any other country. Neither the hand of private violence, nor the more to be dreaded hand of legal oppression, are [sic] reached out to distress us.”

Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, Published During Its Discussion by the People 1787-1788, Address By Melancthon Smith p. 94 (Paul Leicester Ford ed. 1888). Melancthon Smith of New York, was a member of the Continental Congress, (1785–88), and of the New York State Convention, in which he opposed, but ultimately voted for the ratification of the new Constitution.  He helped reconcile Federalists and anti-Federalists, enabling New York state to ratify the US Constitution in the Dutchess County Courthouse in Poughkeepsie on July 26, 1788

It cannot be denied that today our nation is experiencing economic hardship. But so have we throughout our history. Let us examine the economic times that prevailed during the Founding:

“It is true, many individuals labour under embarrassments, but these are to be imputed to the unavoidable circumstances of things, rather than to any defect in our governments. We have just emerged from a long and expensive war. During its existence few people were in a situation to increase their fortunes, but many to diminish them. Debts contracted before the war were left unpaid [7] while it existed, and these were left a burden too heavy to be borne at the commencement of peace. Add to these, that when the war was over, too many of us, instead of reassuming our old habits of frugality, and industry, by which alone every country must be placed in a prosperous condition, took up the profuse use of foreign commodities. The couutry [sic] was deluged with articles imported from abroad, and the cash of the country has been sent to pay for them, and still left us labouring under the weight of a huge debt to persons abroad. These are the true sources to which we are to trace all the private difficulties of individuals: But will a new government relieve you from these? The advocates for it have not yet told you how it will do it—And I will venture to pronounce, that there is but one way in which it can be effected, and that is by industry and economy; limit your expences within your earnings; sell more than you buy, and everything will be well on this score. Your present condition is such as is common to take place after the conclusion of a war. Those who can remember our situation after the termination of the war preceding the last, will recollect that our condition was similar to the present, but time and industry soon recovered us from it. Money was scare [sic], the produce of the country much lower than it has been since the peace, and many individuals were extremely embarrassed with debts; and this happened although we did not experience the ravages, desolations, and loss of property, that were suffered during the late war.” Melancthon Smith at 95.

Our current economic woes have not been caused by war but rather from bad economic decisions made by government, industry, and individuals. But we have seen the same in our history and as a nation we always overcame those times and eventually prevailed. Regardless of the cause of economic problems, what is important is that there is a remedy for curing them which is the same remedy offered by Melancthon Smith with reference to any post-war period. That remedy is “frugality,” “industry and economy; limit your expences within your earnings; sell more than you buy…”

Indeed, if health care shall be the social problem upon which we are obliged to act, then let us act upon that problem alone and not allow the central government under the guise of curing that “evil” to intrude upon so many cherished liberties of the people.  Why are we to give to the central government so much power and control over our private lives and industry in the name of health care? Can the central government not offer a more limited and balanced plan which would address the very concerns it expresses without intruding so much upon our liberties? We Americans are a wise and practical people. I cannot imagine that we cannot put together a plan that would address our current health care problems without the need of the central government taking over so much of our private lives and industry and forcing employers and individuals to purchase health insurance under circumstances dictated by the central government or face various forms of punishments. The danger with such government encroachment upon our individual liberties is that “history affords us no examples of persons once possessed of power resigning it willingly.” Melancthon Smith at 100. That Obama has not even tried to develop a much more limited and reasonable approach to the health care problem should tell a cautious and prudent person that his plan is not one of only solving the problem of health care, but rather one of taking advantage of a moment in history to gain power and control over private lives and industry and thereby achieve his grand plan of “redistribution of wealth” and slowly but eventually transform our free enterprise system into a government-controlled socialist/communist/Marxist way of life.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 28, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Advertisements

March 26, 2010

Obamacare and the Natural Born Citizen Clause

Some might wonder what does health care and the “natural born Citizen” clause have to do with each other. The answer is the survival of our Constitution and Republic by stopping the usurpation of government power.

In the context of speaking about slavery that existed during the Founding era, Obama told us that the Constitution is an “imperfect document.” It has now become apparent that the flaw that Obama sees with our governing document is much more fundamental and goes well beyond what he said related to the early slave experience. For Obama, that flaw is that the Constitution is obligatory, is a strong check on government power, and cannot be changed by just one person.

We have seen Obama brazenly ignore the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the highest and most powerful office in the land, the Office of the President and Commander in Chief of the Military. We have seen how Obama has the audacity to be President and Commander without honoring and respecting the Constitution by showing that he is at least born in Hawaii as he claims and satisfying the definition of a “natural born Citizen” as originally intended by the Framers and Founders. That is a violation of the document he swore twice to “preserve, protect and defend.”

Such conduct by Obama lead many to ask if Obama does not respect and defend the Constitution and so publicly defies it once, what will stop him from doing the same a second and third time. These Americans were right in expressing such concern, for now we have Obamacare which is just another example of Obama flouting and ignoring the Constitution.

Now he wants to force upon the nation a health care system under the guise that the Federal Government can do so because that system does nothing more than regulate interstate commerce. Additionally, he wants to accomplish his plan without even adhering to legitimate legislative process. How he can honestly believe that a person who does not buy a good or service (such as health insurance) or who the government compels to do so under the threat of a camouflaged income tax is engaged in interstate commerce or gives the government the right to interfere in such personal decisions based on some other constitutional provision defies reason and common sense. Treating people’s refusal to buy health insurance as interstate commerce or triggering some other constitutional governmental power would in effect give Congress unlimited authority to control every aspect of people’s lives. When something defies logic, we have to ask ourselves what is the real motive involved. Upon close circumspection we can see that Obama’s health care plan is nothing more than the government taking more money from productive members of society and giving it to those who need money but do not have it for various reasons, with the central government in the process usurping great powers and control over the people’s lives including but not limited to violating their privacy rights over their own bodies, their medical and financial privacy, their right to decide how much medical care one needs, their right to free speech and association, their right to exercise their religion, doctors’ right to earn a living as they see fit, their right not to be illegally taxed, and their right to make end-of-life decisions. This is nothing but Obama and his Congress declaring a socialist revolution upon the American people and attempting to sneak that revolution right by them by dressing the wolf in sheep’s clothing.

There exists proof in the form of Obama’s own words that his health insurance plan is nothing more than a redistribution of wealth which the government has no power to do under our Constitution. Obama made some appearances as a guest on Odyssey, a talk show at Chicago Public Radio. Obama, then a State Senator and Senior Lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, was on the program 3 times between 1998 and 2002. Here is an excerpt from the call-in segment for the Slavery and the Constitution show that aired in September of 2001. Here is the transcript from 2001 as posted at Free Republic at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2116060/posts:

“MODERATOR: Good morning and welcome to Odyssey on WBEZ Chicago 91.5 FM and we’re joined by Barack Obama who is Illinois State Senator from the 13th district and senior lecturer in the law school at the University of Chicago.

“OBAMA: If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay.

“But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.”

Indeed, there we have it in Obama’s own words. There is little doubt that Obamacare is nothing more than Obama’s means of achieving what he perceives to be “political and economic justice in this society” by using “redistribution of wealth.” He even concedes that redistribution of wealth is a “radical” idea. He admits that the Warren court could not achieve such “political and economic justice” because it could not break free from the “essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution.” And here is the real flaw that Obama sees with the Constitution: “it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.”

We can see that Obama does not accept that the Tenth Amendment says that whatever powers the Constitution does not give to the federal government or prohibit to the States is reserved to the States or the people. What is it that Obama wants the government to do “on your behalf?” One can only wonder why Obama believes that a government must do some unspecified thing for people. Is it love of power and control over people that compels him to harbor such ideas? We can see that Obama realizes that my right to sit at the lunch counter is freedom “as long as I could pay for it.” Hence, comes his plan to redistribute wealth. Obama admits that such radical change has not yet been accomplished through the courts. He also does not accept the “essential constraints” the Founders and Framers wrote into the Constitution. Hence, he offers a plan on how to get around those limitations. He tells us that such radical change must be accomplished through “political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change.” So there you have it very loud and clear. Obama admits that the Constitution does not allow him to engage in any such “redistribution of wealth” and that the Courts have never gone as far to permit it. But his plan is to accomplish it by changing the political structure of America which would give him the power to accomplish what is currently unconstitutional. Obama’s fear of the courts is evidenced from provisions that provide that no company can sue the government for price fixing and there will be no judicial review of government monopoly of health care. Of course, Obama’s plan necessarily includes also changing the current make-up of our courts. Maybe this is the “change” that he had in mind when he said that if he won the Presidency he was going to “change” America.

Obama has totally ignored the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the highest and most powerful office in the land, the President and Commander in Chief of the Military. The problem with that violation is that we have a person sitting in the President’s and Commander’s seat who is not eligible to be there. Practically speaking, that is a grave national security matter that puts America at risk not only from attack from enemies both foreign and domestic but as we can see also threatens America’s basic political institutions and freedoms. I believe it is a fair question to ask whether we would have an attack on America’s fundamental political, social, and economic institutions from a President who was a “natural born Citizen?” The Founders and Framers included the “natural born Citizen” clause in the Constitution believing that it would give America a better chance of avoiding such a person coming to power. The remedy for such usurpation is to immediately remove Obama from office and to secure that office with a replacement, all consistent with constitutional procedure.

During the Revolution, the People risked their lives, fortunes, and honor to earn the right to decide what powers they wanted to give to any national government that they would eventually constitute for the purpose of protecting themselves. The People drafted and ratified the Constitution as their written expression of their decision in that regard. Now through his new government-run health care system, Obama flouts the will of the People as expressed in the Constitution that the federal government stay out of the private affairs of the People. Obama and his Congress have now assumed powers that the Constitution does not give to the central government but rather leaves in the hands of the People and the States under the Tenth Amendment. And we have seen through Obama’s own words, that he knows that what he is attempting to accomplish is unconstitutional but he will nevertheless force it through by utilizing “political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change.”

Practically speaking, such usurpation is a government attempt at nationalizing over one-sixth (and probably even more once we learn by experience what the full impact of his plan really is) of the private economy. Add to that government ownership of some banks, auto makers, and insurance companies, and we have a very serious assault upon the free enterprise system and the American way of life. Thomas Jefferson told us that “[w]hensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force” and that “nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.” Thomas Jefferson, November 16, 1798, Kentucky Resolution at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mtj:@field(DOCID+@lit(tj080201)).

Jefferson also warned against construing the “necessary and proper” clause so broadly as to justify the assumption of undelegated powers by the general government. He said that the intent of the clause was to only enable the execution of limited powers, not to indefinitely extend the general government’s scope. If a broader interpretation were to be given to the clause, this part of the Constitution would be used “to destroy the whole residue of that instrument.” Jefferson also counseled the states to be vigilant against violations of the Constitution and not hesitant to attack unconstitutional measures by Congress or the President. He continued: “[F]ree government is founded in jealously and not in confidence” and therefore urged that “no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” In other words, the states and the People should not trust federal officials with non-constitutional powers simply because those officials might be otherwise trusted to exercise those powers benevolently. He warned that this kind of “confidence of man” leads to the destruction of free government. The next question we should ask ourselves is what other assaults upon the Constitution can we expect from Obama and his Congress? Let us keep open our ears and eyes. Let our great States follow Jefferson’s wisdom and protect our freedoms.

The Kerchner et al. v. Obama & Congress et al. case, which challenges both Obama and Congress over Obama having usurped the Office of President and Commander in Chief, is currently pending in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia and is awaiting the Court’s decision on plaintiffs’ request for oral argument. Many States and private persons have recently filed lawsuits over Obama’s new national health care plan. It is hoped that the People closely monitor the progress of these law suits as they make their way through the courts and that they make themselves publicly heard on the matter.

This leads me to my final point. We the People need to understand that Obama will surely attempt to change the composition of or influence our judicial branch of government so that he can accomplish his unconstitutional ends. Now we can clearly see how important judicial appointments and an independent judiciary are to the survival of our Constitution and Republic and the freedoms we individuals all enjoy.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 26, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

March 25, 2010

Atty Apuzzo & CDR Kerchner on Let’s Talk Liberty Radio Show hosted by Chalice Jackson – Thurs, 25 Mar 2010, 9:30 p.m. EST

Atty Mario Apuzzo and CDR Kerchner were on on the Let’s Talk Liberty Show on Thursday, 25 March 2010, hosted by Chalice Jackson of the Patriot’s Heart Network. Topics discussed: Appellant’s Reply Brief filing on March 23rd with the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia PA for the Kerchner v Obama & Congress lawsuit, Request for Oral Arguments, and the case status and issues in general. The show aired from 9-11 p.m. EST. Atty Apuzzo and CDR Kerchner will join the show at 9:30 p.m. EST. Below is the direct link to the Let’s Talk Liberty radio show at BlogTalkRadio.com:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/patriotsheartnetwork/2010/03/26/lets-talk-liberty

Link for information on the recent filing with the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/03/kerchner-reply-brief-and-oral-argument.html

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
Please if you can, visit this site and donate to help the cause: http://www.protectourliberty.org
####

March 23, 2010

Kerchner v Obama & Congress Appeal Reply Brief and Oral Argument Request Filed

I have completed filing the Kerchner Reply Brief and Request for Oral Argument. These documents may be accessed at the indicated links. All parties have completed filing all briefs and now we just need a decision from the Court. We will now wait and see if the Third Circuit Court of Appeals grants my request for oral argument and if so when the oral argument will be. If oral argument is granted, it will take place at the United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit, U.S. Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The courthouse is located right across the street from Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell.

I want to thank all of my supporters on this blog and all those who visit here to find out what is going on with the Obama eligibility issue.

I will be posting more essays on natural law, the law of nations, Emer de Vattel, the Founders and Framers, the Courts, and the meaning of the “natural born Citizen” clause.

Kerchner v Obama & Congress Appeal Latest Filings:
Appellant’s Reply Brief — http://www.scribd.com/doc/28779811/Kerchner-v-Obama-Appeal-Appellant-s-Reply-Brief
Oral Argument Request — http://www.scribd.com/doc/28781505/Kerchner-v-Obama-Appeal-Request-for-Oral-Argument

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 23, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

March 18, 2010

Hawaii Law Makers Contemplating Stopping Concerned Americans from Investigating Whether Obama Was Born There

The State of Hawaii is contemplating passing a law allowing its officials not to answer the requests of concerned Americans who are looking for proof from that State that putative President Barack Obama was born there as he claims. Officials there contend that many of the open records requests are repetitive and vexatious and they cause them to lose time and money in providing a response to others.

We hope that the State of Hawaii will consider the state of affairs as they exist today regarding the question of whether Obama was born in Hawaii. It is probably these circumstances which causes concerned Americans to continue to pursue the State for a definitive answer. Let us review what we know.

Obama must be an Article II “natural born Citizen” in order to be eligible to be President. I have written that showing that he is a Fourteenth Amendment born “citizen of the United States” without more is not sufficient to show that he is a “natural born Citizen.” In any event, Obama must at least prove that he is a born “citizen of the United States” before he can prove that he is a “natural born Citizen.

Was Obama born in Hawaii? What is the evidence for and against?

Obama supporters provide the following evidence as proof that Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii and that he is therefore a born “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. The comments in parenthesis are my response to the proffered evidence:

(1) He was a State and U.S. Senator (although we do not know what type of vetting was done for those offices);

(2) Obama posted on the internet a copy of what his supporters call his “birth certificate” (although the image is only of a 2007 Certification of Live Birth [COLB which is not a Birth Certificate] that was posted in 2008 and not a contemporaneous birth certificate from 1961);

(3) John McCain and Hillary Clinton would have told us he was not born in Hawaii during the primary and presidential campaigns (although they might have had political and racial reasons for not doing so);

(4) The media would have discovered his not being born in Honolulu (although the media was afraid to properly vet Obama because of not wanting to be labeled racist);

(5) The FBI, CIA, and other security agencies would tell us if he was not born in Hawaii (although we do not know if they can even raise the question and who among them would);

(6) The Electoral College elected him President (although electors under most state statutes are beholden to their political party);

(7) A majority of Americans elected him President (although many of them may not have known of the issue of or even cared about where he was born);

(8) Congress confirmed his election (although politics and race sensitivity could have motivated it to avoid addressing the issue);

(9) Obama is currently the sitting President (although that alone is not proof of where he was born);

(10) No court has told us that he was not born in Honolulu (although no court has granted discovery or reached the merits of the question of where Obama was born);

(11) Obama has traveled internationally allegedly on a U.S. passport (although he has not publicly produced one); and

(12 The Hawaiian Department of Health has confirmed that he was born in Hawaii (although its statements are incomplete and inconclusive).

Those concerned Americans who question where Obama was born provide the following evidence as proof that Obama has not conclusively proven that he was born in Hawaii:

(1) Obama’s step-grandmother, Sarah Obama, told Bishop McRae, who was in the United States, during a telephonic interview on October 12, 2008, while she was in her home located in Alego-Kogello, Kenya, that was full of security police and people and family who were celebrating then-Senator Obama’s success story, that she was present to witness Obama’s birth in Kenya, not the United States (the English and Swahili conversation is recorded and available for listening). She was adamant about this fact not once but twice. The conversation which was placed on speaker phone was translated into English by “Kweli Shuhubia” and one of the grandmother’s grandsons who were present with the grandmother in the house. After the grandmother made the same statement twice, her grandson intervened, saying “No, No, No, He [sic] was born in the United States.” During the interview, the grandmother never changed her reply that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya. The fact that later in the same interview she changed her statement to say that Obama was born in Hawaii does not change the fact that she initially stated twice that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya. One would think that a grandmother would know whether she was present or not at the birth of her American Senator and U.S. Presidential candidate grandson;

(2) The Kenyan Ambassador to the United States, Peter N.R.O. Ogego, confirmed on November 6, 2008, during a radio interview with Detroit radio talk-show hosts Mike Clark, Trudi Daniels, and Marc Fellhauer on WRIF’s “Mike In the Morning,” that “President-Elect Obama” was born in Kenya and that his birth place was already a “well-known” attraction;

(3) Several African newspapers said in 2004 that Obama was born in Kenya;

(4) No hospital in Honolulu has yet to confirm that he was born there;

(5) Obama and his sister stated different Honolulu hospitals at which he was allegedly born;

(6) Obama has refused to give consent to Kapi’olani Medical Center for it to release minimal documents confirming he was born there as he claims;

(7) No witness with any personal information has come forward to confirm he was born in Honolulu;

(8) New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson publicly stated during the 2008 campaign that Obama was an immigrant;

(9) Obama has refused to release to the public his education, work, and travel documents (including passports he used for international travel);

(10) Obama’s kindergarten records have allegedly disappeared;

(11) Obama’s application to the Franciscus Assisi Primary School in Indonesia states he was an Indonesian citizen;

(12) Obama has only produced for public viewing a 2008 computer image of an alleged computer generated 2007 Certification of Live Birth (COLB) which contains no independently verifiable information to corroborate his alleged birth in Honolulu as would be found on a Certificate of Live Birth (Birth Certificate);

(13) Various experts on documents and digital images state the digital image of the alleged 2007 computer generated Certification of Live Birth (COLB) placed on the internet by Obama’s campaign in 2008 and the alleged underlying document pictured on the internet later indicate it is a forgery;

(14) Obama refuses to produce a contemporaneous birth certificate created in 1961;

(15) Hawaii Health Department has publicly released incomplete and inconclusive information showing that Obama was born in Honolulu;

(16) In 1961 it was not very difficult for a family member to defraud the State of Hawaii by registering and claiming a child was born there when he or she was not and obtain a Hawaiian birth certificate;

(17) A newspaper birth announcement from local Honolulu newspapers was simply a confirmation that the Honolulu health department “registered” a birth as occurring there based on what someone told them. Given Hawaii’s very lax birth registration laws in 1961, without independent contemporaneous evidence and non-family member witnesses, the registration of a birth as having occurred in Hawaii does not 100% prove the birth actually occurred there;

(18) The proffered online image of the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) put on the internet states in the lower left corner a date of “Filing” the birth registration.  It does not state that the birth registration was “Accepted.”  Computer generated COLBs obtained for other people registered in Hawaii state the word and date “Accepted” in that field. See these examples compared to Obama’s COLB. This implies additional information on the birth registration was requested by the state but never received. If the state questioned the evidence in 1961 provided by the family to register the birth as occurring in Hawaii, that is all the more reason now to investigate the birth registration method and statements provided to the Health Department by the family back in 1961. What evidence was missing such that the registration was never Accepted;

(19) There is no public drive to commemorate Obama’s place of birth;

(20) No government, political, security, or police agency or media entity has confirmed for the American people that Obama was born in Honolulu; and

(21) Attorney Phil Berg has filed with a Federal Court an affidavit in which an investigator recounts how he went to the hospital in Mombasa, Kenya and was told by officials there that Obama was born in that hospital.

None of these factors alone would be sufficient to disprove that Obama was born in Hawaii. But the totality of them raises legitimate doubts which Obama should dispel by providing corroborating evidence supporting his claim that he was born in Hawaii. That evidence must be more than just posting a computer image of an alleged 2008 COLB which at best is only prima facie evidence that he was born in Hawaii, for it does not contain the name of the birth hospital in Honolulu or of the delivering doctor there or other corroborating evidence.

Given America’s military might and who her current enemies are, Americans know that an attack upon America will most likely not come from without but rather from within. They also know the amount of power that the President and Commander in Chief of the Military wields and how that power affects their lives every day. Given these circumstances, it should not be difficult to understand why Americans, concerned for their life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property, want to protect themselves by making sure that their President and Commander in Chief was born in Hawaii as he claims he was and that he is a “natural born Citizen” to whom they can entrust their very lives.

It is Obama who chose to run for President. We cannot imagine that he does not realize that he has no reasonable expectation of privacy as to his place of birth and as to what he has done in his life. Regardless of where Obama was born, he has lost what he probably perceives to be nothing more than a little birth certificate game given that he has disrespected so many Americans who have every right to know who their President is. Obama is supposed to be a constitutional scholar. Maybe he never learned or he forgot that the President works for and answers to the people who under our Constitutional Republic are the sovereigns.

We hope that Hawaii can understand the frustrations that these concerned Americans feel when they turn to that state for confirmation regarding Obama’s place of birth which Obama himself could easily provide. Obama’s refusal to provide basic credible information showing where he was born can only leave us thinking what is Obama hiding.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 17, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.