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

April 1, 2011

>Donald Trump Is a “Natural Born Citizen” But Putative President Barack Obama Is Not

>

Donald Trump Is a “Natural Born Citizen” But Putative President Barack Obama Is Not

By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 31, 2011

Based on the information that has so far been provided to the public, I conclude that Donald Trump is an Article II “natural born Citizen” but Barack Obama is not.

The Founders and Framers understood that under natural law and the law of nations, as explained by Emer de Vattel in his, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) (“Vattel”), a nation’s most fundamental duty is self-preservation. They therefore included the “natural born Citizen” clause in the Constitution so that each and every citizen would be protected by having someone assume and exercise the great and singular civil and military powers of the President and Commander in Chief with only their and the nation’s values and safety at heart. To accomplish that end, the Founders and Framers required in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of our Constitution that anyone who was a “citizen of the United States” at the time of the adoption of the Constitution was eligible to be President. But for anyone born thereafter, they built in extra protection for the nation by requiring that anyone born after the adoption of the Constitution be a “natural born Citizen.”

While a “citizen of the United States” is any citizen so made by the Fourteenth Amendment, Act of Congress, or treaty, a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to citizen parents. Vattel, Sections 212-217. Here are some supporting sources, and there are more, for this definition:

(1) Founder historian, David Ramsay, who in his A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789) told us that after July 4, 1776, birthright citizenship was preserved only for a child born to U.S. citizens, making no mention of place of birth. In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the “original citizens” were and then defined the “natural born citizens” as the children born to citizen parents. He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id. at 6. He added that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” Id. at 7. He continued that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6. As we can see, Ramsay put forth a definition of a “natural born Citizen” that only depended upon the child being born to U.S. citizen parents with no mention of place of birth;

(2) The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Chief Justice John Marshall, concurring and dissenting for other reasons, cited Vattel and provided his definition of natural born citizens and said: “Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says ‘The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights’”);

(3) Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99, 3 Pet. 99, 7 L.Ed. 617 (1830) (the majority, which included Chief Justice John Marshall, cited Vattel on the right of election to change one’s allegiance and thus citizenship in the context of the new nation being formed after revolution. The Court found on principles consistent with Vattel’s jus sanguinis and not on the English common law rule of jus soli, that simply being born in New York, after July 4, 1776 and before September 15, 1776, when the British took possession of New York, was not sufficient to establish one’s status as an American citizen, for a child of minor years is incapacitated from making any citizenship election but rather followed the citizenship held or chosen by the father. On the contrary, relying upon principles of the English common law, Justice Johnson and Justice Story, who wrote separate minority concurring opinions, would have found the child born in New York during the same time period a citizen of the State of New York or American citizen, respectively, regardless of the citizenship of his parents. Id. 136 and 164. This case shows what the majority rule was on citizenship and that it followed the Vattelian doctrine that a child when born took on the national character of his or her father (meaning father and mother under the doctrine of merger of the wife’s citizenship into the husband) and did not acquire his or her citizenship from the territory in which he or she was born);

(4) Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Justice Daniels concurring cited Vattel and The Law of Nations and provided his definition of natural born citizens and took out of Vattel’s definition the reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and “person,” respectively, and stated: “’The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.’ Again: ‘I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .’”);

(5) Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 167-68 (1875) (providing the same Vattelian definition without citing Vattel, and not in any way referring to the English common law, stated: “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.” Id., 169 U.S. at 679-80);

(6) United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649, 693 (1898) (a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment is a child born or naturalized in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” but an Article II “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the United States to citizen parents, citing and quoting Minor v. Happersett for that definition. The question that Minor did not answer was answered by Wong Kim Ark, wherein the United States argued that a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was not a “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment. Ruling against the government, Wong Kim Ark declared a child born in the country to alien parents to be a “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment. Wong Kim Ark, citing and quoting Minor and acknowledging its definition that a “natural-born citizen” was born in the country to citizen parents, in no way disturbed Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen,” for it was asked to decide only if Wong was a “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment. Wong Kim Ark also allowed Wong to be a 14th Amendment “citizen of the United States” because it found that his parents, while not U.S. citizens, were, among other things, domiciliaries, residents of the United States, and not working in some foreign diplomatic capacity and therefore “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. So Wong decided only the “citizen” part of Wong’s status. It never decided whether he also had the “natural born” part. The Court cautioned in its opinion in the beginning and at its end that it was only deciding whether Wong was a “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment and also informed us under what limited conditions (born in the U.S. to alien parents who were domiciled and residing in the U.S. and not employed in some foreign diplomatic capacity) it ruled that he was so); and

(7) Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) (confirmed that a child born in the United States to a naturalized U.S. citizen father and naturalized citizen mother, the mother being derivatively naturalized by marrying a U.S. citizen, was a “natural born Citizen.”

Donald Trump has expressed some interest in running for President in 2012. We have recently seen some commentators say that Trump is not a “natural born Citizen.” The question now is whether they are correct? Trump was born on June 14, 1946, in New York to U.S. citizen parents. He is therefore a “natural born Citizen.” His father, Fred C. Trump, was born on October 11, 1905, in New York, New York. His mother, Mary Anne (Mac Leod) Trump, was born on May 10, 1912, in Stornoway, Scotland. Trumps father was a U.S. citizen when he married Trump’s mother, who at that time had not yet naturalized to be a U.S. citizen. Trump was born in the United States thereafter. Under merger of the husband’s citizenship into that of the wife which was the doctrine existing at the time the Constitution was adopted and under Elg, this makes Trump a “natural born Citizen.”

In 1924, the Congress passed the Married Women’s Act, also known as the Cable Act. This act gave each woman a nationality of her own. Under this act, an alien woman who married a U.S. citizen did not need to file a declaration of intention to become a U.S. citizen. She needed only to file a naturalization petition to become a U.S. citizen. Given their dates of birth, Trump’s parents most probably married after 1924, the year the Cable Act was passed. Hence, Trump’s mother would have had to naturalize on her own to acquire U.S. citizenship. Trump’s mother naturalized to be a U.S. citizen on her own on March 10, 1942, which is over 4 years before Trump was born. Hence, when Trump was born, both his parents were “citizens of the United States.” These birth circumstances make Trump a “natural born Citizen.” See http://www.thebirthers.org/misc/trumped.html for screen shots of the supporting documentation which shows that Donald Trump is a “natural born Citizen.”

Putative President Barrack Obama might also run for re-election in 2012. While our legal and political institutions have allowed Obama to escape having to prove that he is a “natural born Citizen,” he will not be able to do the same when running for re-election in 2012. Hence, the question still remains whether Obama is a “natural born Citizen.” As I have stated repeatedly in the past, I cannot conclude that Obama is a “natural born Citizen.” Obama fails to meet the “natural born Citizen” eligibility test because when he was born in 1961 (wherever that may be), he was not born to a United States citizen father and mother.

There are two open issues regarding whether putative President Obama is eligible to be President. One is place of birth. Consider that in all the law suits filed against Obama and others on the place of birth issue, including the Kerchner v. Obama/Congress law suit (which also argued that regardless of place of birth, Obama is not and cannot be a “natural born Citizen” because he was not born in the United States to a U.S. citizen father and mother), Obama never once produced any birth certificate (neither his Certification of Live Birth known as the COLB nor his long-form, hospital generated Certificate of Live Birth) for the court which would have put an end to the birth place issue. Why did he pursue a legal strategy (e.g. standing, political question, and other justiciability defenses) which only worked in the short term rather than just produce the birth certificate which would finally end the birth place controversy?

Why spend so much private and public money and resources fighting the same issue over and over again? Even now, over two years after the 2008 election, we see the same place of birth issue raised in various contexts. It has risen in the military context with LTC Terry Lakin, who is serving 6 months in federal prison for defending the Constitution by wanting to assure that Obama is a “natural born Citizen.” We see it in ObamaCare litigation. Now some states are also moving to require proof of birth as part of a presidential candidate’s requirements to get on the ballot. Officials with the National Conference of State Legislatures report that 10 states already have some sort of requirement to prove eligibility. There is Arizona’s H.B. 2177 and S.B. 1157, Connecticut’s SB391, Georgia’s HB37, Indiana’s SB114, Maine’s LD34, Missouri’s HB283, Montana’s HB205, Nebraska’s LB654, Oklahoma’s SB91, SB384 and SB540, and Texas; HB295 and HB529. With Texas’ 34 votes, these states possess 107 Electoral College votes. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=258585 .

Hawaii Governor Abercrombie has recently revived the birth place issue, vowing to find the birth certificate and put an end to the debate. But we have seen that he found no birth certificate. Now Donald Trump has publicly announced that Obama should do the right and simple thing and just release his long form, hospital generated birth certificate.

So, there is no end to the issue of Obama’s place of birth. Should we not blame Obama himself for this issue still existing? After all, the Constitution says that he must be a “natural born Citizen.” Is not the burden on him to satisfy that requirement? The question of where Obama was born is not a distraction, for it only takes 10 minutes and $10.00 to resolve (the amount of time and money needed to produce his real birth certificate).

Why has Obama allowed this issue to continue unabated? Why have all the Department of Justice attorneys repeatedly taken the same approach in defending Obama, i.e., fighting jurisdiction (standing) and raising any other justiciability defense? Why have they fought so hard to prevent any litigant to have discovery so that a copy of the birth certificate could be obtained? Why have they to this day never produced a copy of any birth certificate in any court which would have put an end to the birth place issue not only in that court but in all other courts present and in the future?

While the courts have not been too kind to the “birthers,” why has not one court even mentioned the fact that not one court in the whole nation has yet to see Obama’s alleged birth certificate?

But apart from the place of birth issue, we also have the question of whether Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Assuming that he was born in Hawaii and also assuming that his parents are who he says they are, does Obama meet the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen?” At his birth, his mother was a United States citizen. But under the British Nationality Act of 1948, his father, who was born in the British colony of Kenya, was born a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC) which under that same law and by descent made Obama himself a CUKC. Prior to Obama’s birth, Obama’s father neither intended to nor did he become a United States citizen. Being temporarily in the United States only for purpose of study and with the intent to return to Kenya, his father did not intend to nor did he become even a legal resident or immigrant to the United States.

The U.S. State Department has confirmed that Obama was born with dual allegiances. Leventhal cites FactCheck.org to state, “Obama was originally both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies from 1961 to 1963 given that his father was from Kenya, which gained its independence from the British Empire in 1963. Upon independence, Obama became both a U.S. and Kenyan citizen from 1963 to 1982 [sic should be 1984], and solely a U.S. citizen after that.” The entry “The Obama Birth Controversy” was written by Todd Leventhal, the chief of the Counter-Misinformation Team for the U.S. Department of State.

Obama may be a plain born “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment or a Congressional Act (if he was born in Hawaii). But he is not an Article II “natural born Citizen,” for upon Obama’s birth his father was a British subject and Obama himself by descent was also the same. Hence, Obama was born subject to a foreign power. Obama lacks the birth status of natural sole and absolute allegiance and loyalty to the United States which only the President and Commander in Chief of the Military and Vice President must have at the time of birth. Being born subject to a foreign power, he lacks sole allegiance and unity of citizenship to the United States from the time of birth which assures that required degree of natural sole and absolute birth allegiance and loyalty to the United States from birth, a trait that is constitutionally indispensable in a President and Commander in Chief of the Military. Like a naturalized citizen, who despite taking an oath later in life to having sole allegiance to the United States cannot be President because of being born subject to a foreign power, Obama too cannot be President.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 31, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

Advertisements

March 30, 2011

>Standing Under Proposed State Presidential Vetting and Eligibility Laws

>

Standing Under Proposed State Presidential Vetting and Eligibility Laws

By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 30, 2011

The Founders and Framers understood that under natural law and the law of nations, as explained by Emer de Vattel in his, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758), a nation’s most fundamental duty is self-preservation. They therefore included the “natural born Citizen” clause in the Constitution so that each and every citizen would be protected by having someone assume and exercise the great and singular civil and military powers of the President and Commander in Chief with only their and the nation’s values and safety at heart. To accomplish that end, the Founders and Framers required that anyone born after the adoption of the Constitution be born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents.

We have seen with the many Obama eligibility law suits filed in our federal courts, citizens have attempted to protect themselves by enforcing the “natural born Citizen” clause. One of these law suits is Kerchner v. Obama, 612 F.3d 204, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 13608 , cert. denied, 131 S.Ct. 663 (2010). In these legal actions, the federal courts have simply denied anyone the right to enforce the “natural born Citizen” clause and to challenge Obama’s eligibility because as they have said, no one had standing to bring any such lawsuits. Generally, one has standing to bring a legal action if one can show that one has suffered an injury in fact caused by the defendant’s conduct and for which the court can give one a remedy.

Several of our states are now working on drafting and passing presidential vetting and eligibility election statutes. As one example, Arizona H.B. 2177 and S.B. 1157 both have standing clauses. These clauses state: “A member of the House of Representatives, a member of the Senate or any other citizen of this state has standing to initiate an action to enforce this section.”

As we can see, unlike our judicial branch of government, Arizona legislators have rightfully recognized the right of a citizen to protect his or her life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property from a potentially illegal President sitting in the Office of President and Commander in Chief from which he or she would wield enormous power over that individual which would cause that person an injury in fact on a daily basis.

If one of these state laws passes, such a citizen would have standing to file a legal action in which he or she would be able to enforce the “natural born Citizen” clause by enforcing the state eligibility statute.

As I have already stated in my article entitled, “The States Have a Right and Duty to Assure Their Citizens That a Presidential Candidate Is an Article II ‘Natural Born Citizen,’” the states have every right and duty to pass presidential vetting and eligibility legislation. To give these laws any teeth and to avoid any possible political games by any Secretary of State, it is critical that such legislation include a standing clause. Without Congress, the courts, the political parties, and the media willing to enforce the “natural born Citizen” clause, how else are responsible Americans to make sure that their President is eligible for that office? Let us all give our states the support they need to enact such necessary and proper legislation.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 30, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

March 5, 2011

>Obama Uses Race to Avoid Answering Whether He Is a “Natural Born Citizen” and to Divide and Conquer Our Nation to Hold Political Power

>

Obama Uses Race to Avoid Answering Whether He Is a “Natural Born Citizen” and to Divide and Conquer Our Nation to Hold Political Power
By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 5, 2011

Here is an article I just read published @ NewsMax.com, Friday 04 Mar 2011 10:57 PM. Source

“Black Leaders Rip Obama Claim of Tea Party Racism”

Members of the Project 21 black leadership network strongly disagree with President Barack Obama’s contention, as reported in the new book “Family of Freedom: Presidents and African-Americans in the White House,” that the tea parties are motivated more by the color of Obama’s skin than the content of his agenda.

“As a keynote speaker at numerous tea party events around the country which has allowed me to meet tea party activists from all walks of life, I know it is Obama’s progressive politics and not his race that motivates these patriotic Americans to protest our nation’s slide toward socialism,” said full-time Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli. “By engaging in race-card politics, Obama shows he is willing to follow the lead of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to ignite racial tension as a means of maintaining power and furthering his agenda.”

In “Family of Freedom,” by Kenneth T. Walsh, it is written that Obama, responding to a private dinner guest in May 2010, agreed there is a “subterranean agenda” in the opposition to his presidency that is rooted in race.

Project 21’s Borelli added: “By stooping to this level, Obama is discrediting his position as our nation’s leader.”

“Repeating the discredited assumption that race rules the tea parties is the action of a scoundrel and not befitting of a president,” said Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie. “For him to wallow in the gutter with charlatans who spurn honest debate for scurrilous name-calling is demeaning to all Americans and sends the wrong signal to all those who aspire to free and open political debate. With so much of the world embracing open discourse, it is a shame our President seemingly wants to cling to the discredited tactics that offended so many abroad.”

On Feb. 28, Massie engaged in an “empty chair debate” at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., to refute similar allegations about the tea party movement and race made by establishment civil rights lobbyists Al Sharpton, Marc Morial and Walter Fauntroy.

Project 21, a leading voice of black conservatives since 1992, is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research

© All Rights Reserved
NewsMax.com

*****************

There are two steps to power, gaining it and maintaining it.

As we can see from such demagogic statements, Obama is really desperate to maintain power. If he can make such reckless statements in order to keep power, we have to ask ourselves what else would he do to keep it?

If a “white” President ever played the race card and made such unfounded racial statements about some political opposition group, he would be asked to resign.

We have also seen Obama and his supporters using race as a means by which they seek to avoid having to show that Obama was born in Hawaii and that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Not once have we seen Obama come out publicly and say that race should play no role in the question of where he was born and whether he is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Instead, Obama just sits back and watches American race relations go down the gutter. It appears as though he just relishes in all the racial hate speech that has infected our public discourse and is dividing our nation.

Is Obama’s plan to divide our powerful nation so he can maintain power over her? Maybe Obama has been reading how Caesar used “divide et impera” to conquer people and control them. For those who want to read more about the concept of divide and conquer, I recommend reading the interesting Wikipedia article at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule .

It is time for Obama to resign, for attempting to use race as a means to divide our nation and thereby hold on to political power, for using race as a means to avoid having to answer to the people on whether he is an Article II “natural born Citizen,” and for not being an Article II “natural born Citizen.” If he is not willing to resign, then Congress has to take appropriate action against him to protect the American people. If Congress is not willing to do it, then it is up to the States to do so. Failure to take action against Obama will only weaken America and our allies.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 5, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

May 22, 2010

Rev. James David Manning Trial Results in Guilty Verdict for Obama and Former Columbia Univ. President on Various High Crimes Including Fraud

Pastor James David Manning of the ATLAH World Missionary Church, located in New York, New York, has worked tirelessly to investigate where Obama was born and who he is. He organized a trial to prove that Obama never attended Columbia University as he claims. It has been established by a People’s Petite Jury, which acted under the First, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments, that Obama never attended Columbia University as he claims.

Below is the report of the C.I.A. Columbia CIA Columbia Obama Sedition and Treason Trial which was held in New York City, May 14-19, 2010.  This report was provided by Neil B. Turner, Citizens for the Constitution, NBTurner @ Earthlink.net

———————————————————————————————————-
“REPORT  (by Neil B. Turner)

The Honorable Bob Unger presiding

(May 20, 2010):

I have just returned from the Trial of the Centuries, wherein the Jury has just returned the Verdict of the Centuries, against the perpetrators of the greatest Crimes of the Centuries: GUILTY on all counts (including Election Fraud, Obstruction of Justice, Disclosure of State Secrets, and Sedition) – against a former Columbia University President and its Board of Trustees, and Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro!

The Report:

Late in 2009, Pastor James David Manning of the ATLAH World Missionary Church, became fully aware that the key to the absolute proof of Obama’s ineligibility for the Office of President and Commander in Chief, was Columbia University.

That proof that Obama was never a student at Columbia was provided by testimonies of and evidence from the following:

• Fox News Channel’s Bill Hemmer, in a lengthy news report wherein their investigators interviewed over 400 Columbia graduates from the class of 1983 – none of whom ever heard or knew of Obama;

• ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos, Science Major/Political Science, Columbia U. class of 1982 – “never heard of or knew of Obama”;

• Wall Street Journal (Sept 11, 2008) reported that Obama was never at Columbia University;

• Wayne Allyn Root (the Libertarian Party’s 2008 vice presidential nominee who also attended Columbia at the same time as Barack Obama) “I don’t know a single person at Columbia that knows him, and they all know me. I don’t have a classmate who ever knew Barack Obama at Columbia.”;

• Two investigators researched the Columbia University yearbooks (1981-1985), and found the following:

• Zero/none/nather/zip pictures or mention of the names Obama, Soetoro, or Dunham;

• Obama’s ‘alleged’ Political Science class of 1983 had 43 students – only 2 of whom were black, and those two looked nothing like Barack Obama (pictures in detail and in color);

• Pastor Manning himself – who was in studies at the Union Theological Seminary, an across-the-street sister-institution to Columbia, and a member of the Columbia University Student Union in 1981, 82, and 83 – “never heard of or saw a fellow black student named Obama or Soetoro or Dunham”;

Further testimony and evidence proved that Obama/Soetoro:

1. Was recruited by the C.I.A. while at Occidental College in CA in 1979 – as a Foreign-Student non-U.S. citizen, Arabic-speaking, Muslim, to work with the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan & Pakistan – to help drive the Russians out of Afghanistan. (NOTE: 25 years later, he is apparently again working with the Muslims [an ill wind is blowing] to drive the Americans out of Afghanistan – after killing as many as possible first. NT);

2. Traveled often during the early 1980’s to Karachi, Pakistan under a Kenyan Passport, to visit often with his mother (of modest means), where she lived in a 5 Star hotel for 5 years, while working for the Asian Development Bank (a proven ‘front’ for George Bush Sr’s C.I.A.);

3. Used anywhere from 20 to 120+ Social Security numbers of persons both living or dead, that detailed investigative reporting by 2 Private Investigators proved had been associated with the names Obama, Soetoro, or Dunham. (NOTE: both Obama’s mother and grandmother worked as bankers for years – with easy access to thousands of SS Numbers and Passport Numbers.)

CONCLUSION: Money Laundering of large amounts of money – for drugs, arms, and/or terrorism – would of necessity require many different Social Security and/or Passport numbers.

Further presentation of documents and testimony, including:

• Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution requires that the President must be a Natural Born citizen;

• Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution requires that all acts of Congress be in accordance with the Law of Nations;

• The Law of Nations (used as the foundation of the Constitution) defines that a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ is one who is born of parents – BOTH of whom are citizens (Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was NOT a citizen of this country).

NOTE: To change this Constitutional mandate would require an Act of Congress and the people – an Amendment that becomes part of the Constitution once it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). The patently absurd passing of Senate Resolution 511 by Claire McCaskill, Patrick Leahy, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and others, declaring that John McCain was a Natural Born Citizen, and thus Constitutionally qualified to be President because he was born of two (2) U.S. citizen parents:

RESOLUTION

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;…

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens (plural) on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

– was nothing more than an attempt to circumvent the Article II requirements of the Constitution – for both McCain and Obama; a diversion from the obvious Article II ineligibility of Obama, and an act of conspiracy and sedition in the usurpation of the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the United States of America.

Pastor Manning’s Summation (highlights):

• The top priority now of the Usurper and his handlers is not to further the take-over of our Constitutional Republic, but to STOP the Patriotic movements (like the Tea Party people, Oath Keepers, Citizens Grand Juries, etc.) before they can expose the whole seditious movement;

• All of Obama’s activities as a C.I.A. agent in Pakistan and Afghanistan (1981-1985) were as a Kenyan citizen – on a Kenyan Passport;

• Only criminals hide everything – and Obama is the most notorious criminal ever to walk the face of the earth. Obama has openly admitted that he is, and will always side with, Muslims and Islam – and he therefore has no business even being near the Office of our Presidency;

• If he’s not a Natural Born Citizen (which we have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt he is not), then every $dollar he has spent to get elected and to usurp that office – and to prevent the discovery thereof – is criminal, fraud, theft, and robbery, and is re-payable to the We the People in full;

• The funny thing about EVIL is that it has no place to go.

Highlights of Judge Bob Unger’s instructions to the jury:

You have before you charges of Mail fraud, swindle, fraud by wire, radio, and TV, obstruction of justice, and sedition – all of which relate to whether or not the alleged president has used these acts to obscure the truth relative to his Constitutional authority to be President and Commander in Chief.

Like a lawyer having never been admitted to the bar – and who acts illegally in the capacity of a lawyer – he cannot be disbarred, since he never was a member of the Bar in the first place.

Therefore, if found guilty as charged, Obama cannot be ‘disbarred’ (i.e. impeached), since he never was a duly seated member of the Executive in the first place.

Sedition, under 18 U.S.C., Section 2384, can be wherein two or more would conspire to acts of fraud, concealment, and disclosure of information that would lead to the unconstitutional takeover of the government of the United States.

COURT RECESSED FOR JURY DELIBERATIONS

at 1:30 pm, 05/18/2010

COURT RECONVENED FOR THE JURY VERDICT

at 4:30 pm, 05/18/2010

Jury returns with the Verdict:

GUILTY on all counts against Columbia University former President Michael I. Sovern* (1980-1993), and Barack Hussein Obama. Main findings were:

• Mail and wire fraud;

• Obstruction of Justice;

• Disclosure of State Secrets;

• Sedition – against the people of the United States of America;

• Dwight D. Eisenhower was president of Columbia from 1948-1953, when he left to become the 34th President of the United States.

Statement by the Jury Foreman before the jury is excused by the Judge:

Due to the seriousness of the crimes, we the jury recommend that the U.S. Congress conduct a full-scale investigation of these indictments, and take appropriate action therefore.

COURT ADJOURNED

at 5:00 pm, 05/18/2010”

End of Report
———————————————————————————————————-

At 1:30 p.m. (EST), on May 21, 2010, Pastor Manning held a televised Press Conference at the ATLAH World Missionary Church, located at 38 West 123rd Street, New York, New York 10027. During his press conference, Pastor Manning referred to, among others cases, the Kerchner et al. v. Obama/Congress et al case presently pending in the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia.  We maintain in the Kerchner case that Obama has to this day yet to conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii.  The jury findings reported above support our position that Obama has hidden critical details of his life from the American people and that to this day he has yet to provide conclusive evidence that he was born in Hawaii.  We also maintain that regardless of where he was born, Obama is not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen” because he was not born to both a citizen mother and father.  At Obama’s birth, his father was a British subject/citizen.  Additionally, Obama himself was born a British subject/citizen.  The Framers would not have allowed a person born after 1787 a British subject/citizen along with having a British subject/citizen father to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. The Kerchner case has been “tentatively listed on the merits on Tuesday, June 29, 2010 in Newark, NJ…. The panel will determine whether there will be oral argument and if so, the amount of time allocated for each side….” Letter of Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, dated April 6, 2010. Pastor Manning asked that the jury’s findings be presented to the Federal Circuit Court currently handling the Kerchner case.

The entire hour-long Press Conference can be seen at:

CIA Columbia Obama Trial – Guilty Verdict Press Conference
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/7098248

Guilty Verdict Press Conference
http://atlah.org/atlahworldwide/?p=8274

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
May 22, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com%20/
####

May 3, 2010

For Love of Party Obama Supporter Declares President George Washington a “Natural Born Citizen” Instead of an "Original Citizen" Covered by the Constitution’s ‘Founding Fathers Grandfather Clause’

It is becoming clear that Obama’s enablers are running scared and desperate. They are intensifying their campaign of deceit and ridicule and their war against the straw man, “Birther.” Even though they have no history, law, or facts to support their position and that history and all United States Supreme Court cases show that the Framers used natural law and the law of nations to define an Article II “natural born Citizen,” they continue trying to sell to the unknowing person that the Framers used the English common law to define a “natural born Citizen.” Can you just imagine? The Founders told us in the Declaration of Independence, the same document that was inspired by the political philosophy of natural law and the law of nations, that it became necessary for the American 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…” They also declared that the new “Free and Independent States” were “absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved….” The Founders’ goal was to “totally dissolve” all political connection with and allegiance to Great Britain. They saw themselves as establishing a new nation that was separate from Great Britain or any other nation. They saw that they had a right to this free and independent status by the Law of Nature and of Nature’s God. Hence, it was in nature that they saw their rights to be born and not from government. The Founders saw the need and the wisdom in totally dissolving any connection or allegiance to a foreign power which happened to be Great Britain. The Framers understood that adhering to the Revolution provided the Founding generation with the opportunity to dissolve any allegiance individuals had to Great Britain.

With all that, demagogue Dr. Conspiracy and his hate-filled team of birther bashers want us to believe that the Framers would have allowed a British subject by birth like Obama to be President and Commander in Chief of the Constitutional Republic. Now they want to convert President George Washington into an Article II “natural born Citizen” in order to give support to their untenable position. http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/04/george-washinton-natural-born-citizen/. Dr. Conspiracy reaches the desperate point of declaring President George Washington an Article II “natural born Citizen” even though we know that President George Washington and his parents were born “natural born subjects” of Great Britain, when they were born there was no United States of America, it is his mother’s (his father died a British subject in 1743 when Washington was 11 years old) and Washington’s adherence to the Revolution which naturalized them to become original citizens of the United States, and David Ramsay, a highly respected historian from the Founding period, provides direct evidence from that period and explains in no uncertain terms at page 3 and 6 of his 1789 dissertation, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789), that the “difference is immense” between a “subject” and a “citizen” and citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789, http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay.html. Of course, Dr. Conspiracy takes the position that he does because he is looking for mere birth on the territory (he will even go as far as settling with British territory) to make one a “natural born Citizen” rather than have to concede that a “natural born Citizen” is one born in the United States (or in what is deemed its equivalent) to parents who are themselves United States citizens (by birth or naturalization). See Ramsay; Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature bk 1, c. 19, sec. 212 (1758 French edition) (1759 first English translation). See also all Supreme Court cases and other authorities cited and discussed in my essay, Obama – Maybe a Citizen of the United States but Not a Natural Born Citizen, http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-maybe-citizen-of-united-states.html. Dr. Conspiracy would have a lot to do if he had to explain why President George Washington under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 was only a grandfathered “citizen of the United States” and not a “natural born Citizen.” He figures he better stay away from that one. Hence, a Washington that is a “natural born Citizen” of the United States, even though the United States of America did not exist when Washington was born, suits his unfounded position just fine.

But Dr. Conspiracy and his supporters do not stop there. They also put forth the position without providing any evidence that the Fourteenth Amendment amended the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” by making a born “citizen of the United States” under that Amendment or under any Congressional Act to mean the same thing as an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Finally, they even go as far as to pooh-pooh the constitutional requirement that a President and Commander in Chief must have unity of Citizenship and sole and absolute allegiance and loyalty to the United States from the moment of birth and that the Framers inserted the “natural born Citizen” clause in the Constitution for the security of the nation. It is by examining the Dr. Conspiracy team which is a reflection of the current Democrat and Republican parties that we can understand President Washington’s warning in his farewell address about the threat that political parties pose to the survival of the Constitutional Republic.

In his Farewell Address of 1796, Washington not only warns the young nation which had yet to “settle and mature its yet recent institutions” about the “insidious wiles of foreign influence” which he saw as “one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government, but he also continues to advance his idea of the dangers of sectionalism and expands his warning to include the dangers of the “fury of party spirit” to the survival of the republic. His warnings are made in the context of the then-recent creation of the Democratic-Republican Party by Jefferson, to oppose Hamilton’s Federalist Party, which had been created a year earlier in 1791 and which in many ways promoted the interest of certain regions and groups of Americans over others. A more pressing concern for Washington, which he makes reference to in his address when speaking about the need to maintain neutrality in the war between England and France, was the Democratic-Republican party aligning with France and the Federalist party aligning with Great Britain in the ongoing conflict between the two European nations caused by the French Revolution.

Washington accepts that it is natural for people to organize and operate within groups and to have the “spirit of party.” But he also argues that every government has recognized political parties as an enemy and has sought to repress them because of their tendency to seek supremacy over other groups and take revenge on political opponents, motivations which he argues have led to horrible atrocities. He also warns that such party spirit could ultimately lead to a “more formal and permanent despotism” as people seek security in that individual who may gain and wield absolute power and who will most likely use that power for his own elevation at the expense of “Public Liberty.” Washington sees parties as something that could promote and protect liberty in monarchies. But he believes that parties must be restrained in a country led by self-representative government because of their tendency to distract the government from carrying out its most pressing duties, create unfounded group and regional jealousies, create false crisis among the public, and promote riot and insurrection. What he also cautions against and which is most relevant to the issue of the President having to be a “natural born Citizen” is his warning that the spirit of party “opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.” Finally, Washington advises that since there is the constant danger to liberty posed by the spirit of party, the people need to be forever vigilant that party excesses do not consume the nation and to express their views publicly.

We can see where love of party has led us on the constitutional question of whether Obama is a “natural born Citizen” and eligible to be President and Commander in Chief. People like Dr. Conspiracy now tell us that Washington was an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Both the Democratic and Republican parties will not touch the question of Obama’s eligibility to be President and do not take any affirmative steps to stop party operatives and media cronies from bashing those who do, all at the expense and survival of our Constitution and Constitutional Republic. Obama and both political parties believe they do not have to prove or do anything because they consider those who question Obama’s eligibility to be President to be nothing but “radical fringe groups.” But polls, even recently in the NY Times with their liberal readership, disagree with that characterization and reveal that a significant percentage of Americans do not believe at all or doubt Obama’s eligibility.

President George Washington warned us so that the spirit of party does not consume our nation, the people need to be forever vigilant and express themselves through public opinion on the issues that they believe are dear and vital to their liberties. Let the Obama eligibility debate rage on in the court of public opinion, for it is only with open, complete, and honest public debate on this issue that the truth will be revealed.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
May 2, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.