Kerchner V Obama, lawsuit, July 13, 2009, Washington Times, Mario Apuzzo, Obama not natural born citizen

** See update from Charles Kerchner below **

Look for this ad in the Washington Times on Monday, July 13, 2009, regarding the Kerchner v Obama lawsuit filed by attorney Mario Apuzzo.

Kerchner090713WashTimes

Here is the text of the ad:

 

Obama is NOT an Article II Natural Born Citizen and therefore is NOT Eligible to be President

 
The President and CINC of the USA Must be a .Natural Born. Citizen . U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5
No Person except a
natural born Citizen, or
a Citizen of the United
States, at the time of
the Adoption of this
Constitution, shall be
eligible to the Office
of President
Obama’s Father Was
Not a U.S. Citizen, nor
Was He an Immigrant
to the USA, nor Was
He Even a Permanent
Resident of the USA
The Law of
Nations,Vattel, 1758,
Chapter 19, Section 212:
.natural-born citizens, are
those born in the country,
of parents who are citizens.
Article II .Natural Born Citizen. Means Unity of Citizenship At Birth
Article II of our Constitution has a lot
to say about how a would-be President
is born. .Natural born Citizen. status
requires not only birth on U.S. soil but also
birth to parents who are both U.S. citizens
by birth or naturalization. This unity of
jus soli (soil) and jus sanguinis (descent)
in the child at the time of birth assures
that the child is born with sole allegiance
(obligation of delity and obedience to
government in consideration for protection
that government gives (U.S. v. Kuhn, 49
F.Supp.407, 414 (D.C.N.Y)) and loyalty to
the United States and that no other nation
can lay any claim to the child.s (later an
adult) allegiance and loyalty. Indeed,
under such birth circumstances, no other
nation can legally or morally demand
any military or political obligations from
that person. The child, as he/she grows,
will also have a better chance of not
psychologically struggling with conicted
allegiance and loyalty to any other nation.
Unity of citizenship is based on the
teachings of the law of nature (natural law)
and the law of nations, as conrmed by
ancient Greek and Roman law; American,
European, and English constitutions,
common and civil law, and statutes; and
Vattel.s, The Law of Nations, all of which
the Founding Fathers read and understood.
These sources have taught civilizations
from time immemorial that a person
gains allegiance and loyalty and therefore
attachment for a nation from either being
born on the soil of the community dening
that nation or from being born to parents
who were also born on that same soil
or who naturalized as though they were
born on that soil. It is only by combining
at birth in the child both means to inherit
these two sources of citizenship that the
child by nature and therefore also by
law is born with only one allegiance and
loyalty to and consequently attachment
for only the United States.

 
Our Constitution requires unity of U.S.
citizenship from birth only for the Ofce
of President and Commander in Chief of
the Military, given the unique nature of
the position, a position that empowers
one person to decide whether our national
survival requires the destruction of or a
nuclear attack on or some less military
measure against another nation or group.
It is required of the President because such
a status gives the American people the
best Constitutional chance that a wouldbe
President will not have any foreign
inuences which because of conict of
conscience can most certainly taint his/
her critical decisions made when leading
the nation. Hence, the special status is
a Constitutional eligibility requirement
to be President and thereby to be vested
with the sole power to decide the fate
and survival of the American people.
Of course, the status, being a minimum
Constitutional requirement, does not
guarantee that a would-be President will
have love and fealty only for the United
States. Therefore, the nal informed and
intelligent decision on who the President
will be is left to the voters, the Electors,
and Congress at the Joint Session, to
whom hopefully responsible media and
political institutions will have provided
all the necessary vetting information
concerning the candidate.s character and
qualications to be President.
Through historical development, unity of
citizenship and sole allegiance at birth is
not required for U.S. born citizen Senators,
Representatives, and regular citizens under
the 14th Amendment and Congressional
enactments. In contradiction and which
conrms the Founding Fathers. meaning
of what a .natural born Citizen. is,
naturalized citizens, since 1795, before
becoming such must swear an oath that
they renounce all other allegiances to
other nations. During the Washington

 
Administration, the First Congress
passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 in
which it provided that new citizens take
a solemn oath to support the Constitution
and .renounce. all .allegiance. to
their former political regimes. This is
during the time that most of the Framers
were alive and still actively involved in
guiding and forming the new national
government and Constitutional Republic.
Today, we still require that an alien upon
being naturalized must give an oath that
he/she renounces all former allegiances
and that he/she will .support and defend
the Constitution and laws of the United
States of America against all enemies,
foreign and domestic.. Hence, allegiance
is not simply a thing of the past but very
much with us today. It is important to
also understand that naturalization takes
an alien back to the moment of birth and
by law changes that alien.s birth status.
In other words, naturalization, which by
legal denition requires sole allegiance to
the United States, re-creates the individual
as though he were a born Citizen but only
does it by law and not by nature. This
is the reason that the 14th Amendment
considers a naturalized person to be a
.citizen. of the United States and not
a .natural born Citizen. of the United
States. This recreation of birth status
through naturalization which also existed
under English common law also probably
explains why John Jay underlined the
word .born. when he recommended to
General Washington that only a .natural
born Citizen. (as to say born in fact, by
nature, and not by law) be allowed to
be President. Consequently, naturalized
citizens stand on an equal footing with
born Citizens (who are so recognized and
conrmed by the 14th Amendment or by
an Act of Congress and who can be but
not necessarily are also .natural born
Citizens.) except that they cannot be
President or Vice President, for they were

 
born with an allegiance not owing to the
United States and acquire that allegiance
only after birth. Surely, if a naturalized
citizen, even though having sole allegiance
to the United States, is not Constitutionally
eligible to be President, we cannot expect
any less of someone who we are willing
to declare so Constitutionally eligible.
The Founding Fathers emphasized
that, for the sake of the survival of the
Constitutional Republic, the Ofce of
President and Commander in Chief of the
Military be free of foreign inuence and
intrigue. It is the .natural born Citizen.
clause that gives the American people the
best ghting chance to keep it that way for
generations to come. American people do
not have the Constitutional right to have
any certain person be President. But for the
reasons stated above, minimally they do
have a Constitutional right to protect their
liberty by knowing and assuring that their
President is Constitutionally eligible and
qualied to hold the Ofce of President
and Commander in Chief of the Military.

 
. Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Obama is not Article II Constitutionally
eligible to be President. Q.E.D.
. Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Lead Plaintiff
Commander USNR Retired

 

If you would like to help with
this lawsuit, please contact
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo@erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900
FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
Paid for by: Concerned Americans contributing at ProtectOurLiberty.org in support of the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al lawsuit.

 

** Update and clarification from Charles Kerchner 7/13/09 **

“To clarify and help people find the correct newspaper in print, you may wish to change the headline to read, “Washington Times National Weekly edition”, instead of just using the name Washington Times.  Some may think it is in the daily paper which it is not, and buy the wrong paper.  I chose the National Weekly edition since it reaches all the movers and shakers nationwide.  It is sold in major book store news stands.  It also has about 100,000 paid subscribers nationwide who in general are the very political aware people in this country. It is also read by leading conservative writers and spokes people on radio and TV.  I hope it stirs things up in DC.”

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
CDR USNR Retired
Lehigh Valley PA
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress

89 responses to “Kerchner V Obama, lawsuit, July 13, 2009, Washington Times, Mario Apuzzo, Obama not natural born citizen

  1. WTH? they’ll really allow that? For real?

  2. Hopefully the ad will ruin the day of the MESSIAH, and all of his slimey cohorts in Congress, and the SCOTUS.

  3. WTH, SueK…maybe sending a book to The Sun is not such a crazy idea after all…eh?

  4. “He’s in a spot of bother now!”…

  5. The Birthers, Truthers and Constitutionalists will NEVER go AWAY no matter what the ObaMORON DENIERS say.

    Great ad and great idea we need MORE and MORE looks like the only we get the BEDMATE MEDIA to report NEWS is if we PAY them like Obanana and SOROS do.

  6. Hi Re-do,

    Wowsie, this caught me by surprise! Goodie :).

    I think that The Sun may want to know about this just because from what I understand about Larry’s book, it’s pretty sordid. Now, no skank of a tabloid is gonna turn down skanky tidbits, right?

    Unlike our wimpy MSM, the British tabloids don’t seem to care, so I’m sure they’d like a book!

  7. Maybe we should first offer a FREE copy to somebody specific at the SUN. I would email them, and ask anyone who is interested to respond to the provided email address. It would seem that by doing it this way there would be a somewhat diminished probability of the book being conviscated by an Obama supporter. I am sure that the GLOBE will have their own copy. But I would also email them as well. You never know!

  8. I won’t rest until Barry gets the boot. We can’t wait for another 100 days, or this country will be destroyed. I think the Globe may also be a good spot for Larry’s book.

  9. How about sending a book to Pravda online……………………..

    Obama Committing Fraud and Treason: Multiple Grand Juries (Part I)
    http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/01-07-2009/107897-Obama_Fraud_Treason-0

  10. Patriot Dreamer

    Re-do // July 12, 2009 at 9:10 pm

    WTH? they’ll really allow that? For real?

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

    The Washington Times is a “right-wing” newspaper, so I bet they don’t mind running this ad. It’s the Washington Post that’s “left-wing” and would never run the ad in a million years!

  11. This is their 3rd full page ad in the Washington Times I believe.

    We need to be placing this ad, with approval from the plaintiffs in every local newspaper we can. That would REALLY ruin their day, week, and month.

    The more people know, the better the outcome will be.

  12. I wonder if USA Today would allow this ad. That would really put the nails into the eligibility coffin.

    1 full page ad is $117,000, so getting funding could be a problem. I don’t know. If everyone donated $5, all we would need is 28,000 patriots to donate. That doesn’t seem all that difficult.

  13. Larry Sinclair called into Usapatriots-shout broadcast this afternoon. He suggested people call Barnes & Noble and other book sellers and demand they stock his book. He said to use this Number ISBN 9780578013879 to identify his book.

    Also, I am going through an exercise in futility:
    Trying to get the Tea party people to focus only on Obama’s eligiblity. Please help me.

    If Tea party leaders would direct their wonderful enthusiastic members to focus on one and only one item Obama fears the most–his eligibility based upon citizenship–there would be no need to protest against any thing else Obama does. He would be removed from office, arrested, and tried for all his crimes. All he has done would be either illegal and uneforceable or simply repealed. As long as tea party people keep ignoring the eligibility of his presidency and keep focusing on what he does, they reinforce and validate this usurper as president. Your efforts are simply counter productive. To date, in spite of all your useless noise–you haven’t forced one change in what Washington is doing. They simply do not pay attention to any of your complaints. They are totally deaf to you. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. America needs result bringing action. Focus on Obama–Stand up or step down!

  14. VIDEO: TIM GEITHNER REFUSES TO ANSWER BRAD SHERMAN

    TIM GEITHNER REFUSES TO ANSWER BRAD SHERMAN’S QUESTION!!! SUPPORT H.R. 1207 AUDIT THE FED

  15. Wow, after seeing that exchange with Sherman, I can truly say that Geitner is a weasel. There is simply no other way to put it. Just an obfuscating, two-faced lying weasel, perfectly at home in the Chicago-style thuggery which passes as our government.

    My God, what have we done people? Yeah, you got change all right. Lots of it.

  16. LM, thank you so much for this link of TG, which I am posting everywhere. This is what cap and trade is all about…

  17. Date: Friday, July 10, 2009, 7:31 PM
    > Obama thought it was a good idea
    > to release a terrorist who was involved in the capture and
    > murder of four American soldiers in 2007. President Bush had
    > refused to release Laith Qazali. Obama agreed to trade
    > Qazali for several captured British soldiers. After the
    > terrorists got their man back they returned the Brits.
    > Surprise! They had been dead for at least two weeks and all
    > Obama got was two corpses.
    >
    >
    > The story, of course, was not reported by the
    > mainstream media. Find it here:
    >
    > http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ODFkYTU2MjBmMTE5MDUzZTEzZWMyMTE5ZWZjNWI4Mjg=
    >

    We have got to get this fool out!

  18. usapatriots-shout, I did log on to the forum for the protest in D.C. on 9/12 and strongly suggested that the focus be shifted to his eligibility, rather than policy.

    His policies won’t matter if he’s ineligible. Which he is.

  19. Why not ask all the terminated auto deals to finace ads regarding Obama’s eligibility? They could even put up bill boards.

  20. How about faxing copies of this ad to all our Congress and Senate. There is a wonderful web site called Congressfax.com that will do so for free. Let’s get the word out every where and start faxing Congress the Kerchner ad. That way they can’t say they never saw the ad.

    Isn’t interesting with all the ads, articles, and alw suits Obama and his gang never counter sued for anything like slander or defamation of character. Oh yes. Often there is more in what people don’t say or do, than there is in what they say and do!

  21. A well-pleaded Complaint for libel or slander must allege harm.

  22. everybody get bumper stickers on your car! I get thumbs up all the time..plus tons of informing at read lights.I will go to zazzle tommorrow and get another made that says RELEASE THE DOCS BARRACK!
    Also, Joan of Arc 2012′
    That’ll be about 12 stickers now…

  23. The tea Party leadership here in Houston attended the UNITE FAMILY event for illegals in Houston but would not protest. they will not join on immigration either…but there was the guy at the event at DC (posted here) who I think did a great job.If a speaker brings it up at these events thats good…no?

  24. Wow CW!
    What a surprise. And, what a great ad! It’s good to know that some real news is finally starting to trickle through. I hope I can find a copy of the Washington Times in my area. I’ll buy a whole stack!! And, place them with that page open in Obot territories. I’m surround. ugh

  25. Pingback: OBAMAnation Fraud Ready To Overwhelm The Silent Main Stream Media « AConservativeEdge

  26. Hi,

    You can help run more of these advertisements. See this site:

    http://www.protectourliberty.org/

    Article II

  27. MLK Was A Republican Affirmed by Niece Dr Alveda C King

  28. Jacqlyn Smith

    natural born citizen, Washington Times
    25 responses so far ↓

    *

    Re-do // July 12, 2009 at 9:10 pm

    WTH? they’ll really allow that? For real?
    *

    oldsalt77 // July 12, 2009 at 9:11 pm

    Hopefully the ad will ruin the day of the MESSIAH, and all of his slimey cohorts in Congress, and the SCOTUS.
    *

    Re-do // July 12, 2009 at 9:12 pm

    WTH, SueK…maybe sending a book to The Sun is not such a crazy idea after all…eh?
    *

    Re-do // July 12, 2009 at 9:18 pm

    “He’s in a spot of bother now!”…
    *

    Portuguese Revolutionary War Hero – Peter Francisco // July 12, 2009 at 9:21 pm

    The Birthers, Truthers and Constitutionalists will NEVER go AWAY no matter what the ObaMORON DENIERS say.

    Great ad and great idea we need MORE and MORE looks like the only we get the BEDMATE MEDIA to report NEWS is if we PAY them like Obanana and SOROS do.
    *

    SueK // July 12, 2009 at 9:26 pm

    Hi Re-do,

    Wowsie, this caught me by surprise! Goodie 🙂 .

    I think that The Sun may want to know about this just because from what I understand about Larry’s book, it’s pretty sordid. Now, no skank of a tabloid is gonna turn down skanky tidbits, right?

    Unlike our wimpy MSM, the British tabloids don’t seem to care, so I’m sure they’d like a book!
    *

    oldsalt77 // July 12, 2009 at 9:34 pm

    Maybe we should first offer a FREE copy to somebody specific at the SUN. I would email them, and ask anyone who is interested to respond to the provided email address. It would seem that by doing it this way there would be a somewhat diminished probability of the book being conviscated by an Obama supporter. I am sure that the GLOBE will have their own copy. But I would also email them as well. You never know!
    *

    hapnHal // July 12, 2009 at 9:43 pm

    I won’t rest until Barry gets the boot. We can’t wait for another 100 days, or this country will be destroyed. I think the Globe may also be a good spot for Larry’s book.
    *

    Jonah // July 12, 2009 at 9:52 pm

    How about sending a book to Pravda online……………………..

    Obama Committing Fraud and Treason: Multiple Grand Juries (Part I)
    http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/01-07-2009/107897-Obama_Fraud_Treason-0
    *

    Patriot Dreamer // July 12, 2009 at 9:53 pm

    Re-do // July 12, 2009 at 9:10 pm

    WTH? they’ll really allow that? For real?

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

    The Washington Times is a “right-wing” newspaper, so I bet they don’t mind running this ad. It’s the Washington Post that’s “left-wing” and would never run the ad in a million years!
    **************************************************

    PD—-You are right….they are also the ones who reported on the firing of Inspector Walpin…which the White House has yet to answer to!! We need to stay on the Walpin story as it is against the Law to fire and Inspector General before outlining why to C0ngress at least 30 days in advance…..Obama is trying to cover his friend Kevin Johnson’s A$$!!!

  29. Ron Paul questions Meltzer and Galbraith during hearing on Federal Reserve independence 07/09/09

    Fed “Independence” = Fed Secrecy

    On Thursday, Congressman Paul questioned economist and professor Allan Meltzer and economist James Galbraith concerning transparency at the Federal Reserve.

  30. Pingback: Zelaya Should Have Been Arrested – WSJ – Inspector General Walpin still in the News – Important Hearings for Dr. Orly Taitz – Not a Natural Born Citizen ad – CitizenWells – Book Reviews for Larry Sinclair’s Book &

  31. Pingback: Zelaya Should Have Been Arrested – WSJ – Inspector General Walpin still in the News – Important Hearings for Dr. Orly Taitz – Not a Natural Born Citizen ad – CitizenWells – Book Reviews for Larry Sinclair’s Book &

  32. Pingback: Zelaya Should Have Been Arrested – WSJ – Inspector General Walpin still in the News – Important Hearings for Dr. Orly Taitz – Not a Natural Born Citizen ad – CitizenWells – Book Reviews for Larry Sinclair’s Book &

  33. Pingback: Zelaya Should Have Been Arrested – WSJ – Inspector General Walpin still in the News – Important Hearings for Dr. Orly Taitz – Not a Natural Born Citizen ad – CitizenWells – Book Reviews for Larry Sinclair’s Book &

  34. LOL LOL WOWWWWW this made me LAUGH.
    It takes a Third World Reporter to show the LIE-beral BEDMATE MEDIA Pournalist how to be ETHICAL and HONEST.
    Not only OWNED but EXPOSED someone throw a shoe at this Lemon.

  35. RE: Jacqlyn Smith // July 13, 2009 at 12:31 am

    PD—-You are right….they are also the ones who reported on the firing of Inspector Walpin…which the White House has yet to answer to!! We need to stay on the Walpin story as it is against the Law to fire and Inspector General before outlining why to C0ngress at least 30 days in advance…..Obama is trying to cover his friend Kevin Johnson’s A$$!!!
    ==========================
    EDITORIAL: Stonewalling on Walpin-gate
    The White House ignores unanswered questions about the scandal.

    President Obama’s dismissal of AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin becomes more of a scandal with every White House action.

    READ MORE………
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/10/stonewalling-on-walpin-gate/?source=newsletter_must-read-stories-today_top_storie

  36. Lurker // July 12, 2009 at 11:31 pm

    Wow CW!
    What a surprise. And, what a great ad! It’s good to know that some real news is finally starting to trickle through. I hope I can find a copy of the Washington Times in my area. I’ll buy a whole stack!! And, place them with that page open in Obot territories. I’m surround. ugh
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    I’m in KY, but it would be great if that ad could be plastered in every library board in every county in every state……I don’t know about you, but I always stop at the cork board leaving the library!!!

    He**, don’t stop with libraries, go for the boards at the gas stations, etc..

  37. This one made me laugh out loud this morning:

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103810

  38. Patriot Dreamer

    JeffM, thanks for sharing! I’m still LOL!

  39. Orly Taitz’s hearing today in California is in the U.S. Courthouse at Ronald Reagan Federal Building -I hope Ronnie is watching over Orly & with his persuasive communication skills persuades Judge Carter to let justice pervail.

  40. While much of what is said here is encouraging, I think we might be up against something much more important than a birth certificate. Sue K, thanks for responding to me….but please, read my entry from today and the most recent days…I need to know if what I’m seeing isn’t too far outside-the-box. http://www.conrest.blogspot.com

  41. AOL has had a poll up since yesterday and Obanana i snot looking good and he is being TRASHED in the Comments.
    CHECK IT OUT and VOTE:

    http://news.aol.com/article/obama-approval-rating-in-july/567643?icid=main|htmlws-sb|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fobama-approval-rating-in-july%2F567643

    This quote really made my day:

    TO: DOLPH66 11:07 AMJul 13 2009 i am not an expert in the stock market. i just invested in razor blades. it seem they are being used to scrape obama/biden bumber stickers off of bumpers. let the free market prevail” ==============================
    [This is my reply] Great Investments after they scrape the stickers off they will SLICE THEIR WRISTS. ObaMORONS will be SUICIDAL soon.

  42. Patriot Dreamer

    PRWH – PF, this comment from that AOL poll really made me chuckle!:

    *************************************
    Darncomputers4
    08:35 AMJul 13 2009

    Signing Earmark Bills faster than Anyone could read them, more Powerful than any Dictator of any Nation, able to send AF1 on Picture Missions over NYC! …Look, All Over The World! …There He is! Shaking Hands with Every Dictator! It’s Super-Obama! …Yes, it’s Super-Obama, a strange visitor from …well… no one really knows for sure, who suddenly appeared out of the Senate with Powers and Abilities far above those of Mortal Men. Super-Obama, who can Kill Flys with a Single Hand, makes New Tax Laws with a Fast Stroke of His Pen, and who, disguised as a Chicago Acorn Worker, fights a Never-Ending Battle for More New Taxes, More Job Losses, and The National Healthcare Way.
    ***************************************

  43. For those looking for a print copy of this paper, please note that this is the weekly edition. It is in today’s issue of the Washington Times National Weekly edition on page 9, a full page advertisement. More details about this and prior inserted advertorials can be seen here:

    http://www.protectourliberty.org/

    POC
    Article II

  44. Patriot Dreamer,

    LMAO needs a little work BUT GREAT START.

    Obama the Britsish Kenyan WonderHOMO.

  45. Thanks Peter for link.I nailed it over there at AOL. Sent Mario a check.I will post it at ALIPAC.
    They need $$ there or will shut down in a few weeks.Help them if possible fighting amnesty.
    They act like SOTOLATINA will get a pass. It makes me furious. We should call senators and tell them if they do not blockade her we will not be voting for them! No commies on SCOTUS!

  46. Watching Sotomayor hearings on c-span. All I hear is “blah,blah,blah uphold the Constitution and Rule of law,blah,blah blah.”
    Makes me want to eat the seat cushions.

    By the way, in the beginning someone got up and yelled something.and Sen. Leaky had him tossed out. I hope we find out what was yelled.
    CHARGE

  47. Yes, JeffM: thanks for the (10:27) post…makes me wonder what the Wiki’s definition of “shell game” is! btw: they seem to be really good at it.

  48. JBJD,
    You are correct because you are lawful. Obama is not lawful. Laws are what he invents as he goes along, are only weapons of public control and seizing power. Obama will doing anything including murder to keep his power. He will also do anything to any one who gets in his way. So what is to stop Obama from inventing he has been harmed by all the “bad publicity” and make a counter suit –if for nothing more–show and example. Would it be because if he did he would have to produce his documents to prove the plaintiffs are wrong–which he reufuses to do?

  49. Patriot Dreamer

    Swine flu news alert #1:

    New Flu Resembles Feared 1918 Virus, Study Finds
    13 Jul 2009 14:28:11 GMT
    Source: Reuters
    http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N13166187.htm

  50. Patriot Dreamer

    Swine flu news alert #2:

    Swine flu ‘Unstoppable’: WHO Official
    AFP
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090713/hl_afp/healthfluwhovaccine_20090713164047

  51. Sorry to change the subject, but wanted to share an email I got today.

    Putting things into perspective: What If George W. Bush had …
    What If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?
    If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
    If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?
    If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?
    If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent “Austrian language,” would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?
    If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes, would you have approved?
    If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to “Cinco de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the Fifth of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?
    If George W. Bush had misspelled the word advice would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potato as “proof” of what a dunce he is?
    If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on “Earth Day”, would you have concluded he’s a hypocrite?
    If George W. Bush’s administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually “get” what happened on 9-11?
    If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he is inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?
    If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?
    If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?
    If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?
    If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?
    So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can’t think of anything? Don’t worry. He’s done all this in 10 weeks — so you’ll have three years and nine-and-a-half months to come up with an answer.

    ——————————————————————————–

  52. Fernley Girl

    Here’s the last two paragraphs from an article at the New Scientist regarding the flu.

    A mutation to the virus’s polymerase enzyme, which makes it replicate more efficiently, has cropped up in a sample from Shanghai, China. This could spread if it makes the virus more contagious. But it may also increase pathogenicity, says Ron Fouchier of the University of Rotterdam.

    And last week, two cases of swine H1N1 with resistance to the main antiviral drug, Tamiflu, were discovered in people using the drug. Another was discovered in a girl who had never taken the drug, suggesting Tamiflu-resistant swine H1N1 might already be circulating.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327164.000-swine-flu-sweeps-the-southern-hemisphere.html

  53. George Bush was born in USA. Obanana wasn’t.

  54. Sorry OT

    Has anyone seen this?!? This is outrageous! I’m sickened.

    http://aukina4israel1.multiply.com/journal/item/1187/Money_for_the_new_world_order

  55. LDacar, BO met with the Mexican ambassador on May 4. So, he was trying to make a joke, saying they were celebrating the ‘4th of May’ instead of the ‘5th of May.’ Only, instead of saying, ‘4th of May,’ by changing the cinquo to quartro; he said the ‘5th of 4th,’ changing the Mayo to quartro. Even not knowing Spanish does not explain such a faux pas.

  56. Civis naturaliter natus

    Baxer should be charged with homicide for every death from the swine flu.

    Can patriots file a criminal complaint against Baxter to the AG in any district where one of these persons has died? That should get the ball rolling…

  57. John Fenny.. You are exactly on the mark.. great website you have.. However, The question is: What are we going to do about it?

  58. Patriot Dreamer

    Lurker, here’s a link to the Bloomberg article’s source web site:

    http://www.futureworldcurrency.com/

  59. Hi John Feeny,

    Comment posted on your site.

  60. ms.helga // July 13, 2009 at 11:50 am

    Watching Sotomayor hearings on c-span. All I hear is “blah,blah,blah uphold the Constitution and Rule of law,blah,blah blah.”
    Makes me want to eat the seat cushions.

    By the way, in the beginning someone got up and yelled something.and Sen. Leaky had him tossed out. I hope we find out what was yelled.

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

    ms.helga,

    I loved what Lindsey Graham had to say! He didn’t sugar coat anything. Judge Sotomayor looked as though she was either going to cry or puke. I “almost” felt sorry for her.

    I heard the man shouting. I backed up my dvr several times in an attempt to make out what he said. All I could make out was something about abortion. One sentence sounded like: “What about abortion!” I’m sure Fox will let us know later. lol

  61. If George Bush was responsible for 911 inside job, would you approve??

    if he declared an unconstitutional war, would you approve??

  62. Thanks Patriot Dreamer

    But, I think I’ve seen enough of the new world order coin for one day. ugh God, I hope this doesn’t happen.

  63. BushFRAUD’s Internal NSA Gestapo Exposed
    Goldman Sachs’ Doomsday Box
    Part 1 of 2

    http://blogs.myspace.com/tom_heneghan_intel

  64. I love the new coin idea. The first thing we should do is melt them down and make bullets out of them.

    That should get their attention.

  65. LMAO JeffM @ 2:09!!!!!!

  66. Sue K & amy 1 –

    Thanks for reading. Sue, I don’t think your comment took, because i didn’t see it. I really feel like I’m bugging you, so I apologize. I just really need to understand if I’m way off-base here. Amy, I can tell you that if I’m right, I know that I’m prepared to do whatever I have to do; my son is NOT going to live through this. In fact, everyone should go to this link immediately, as it pertains to the possible viewpoints of Justice Ginsburg (whom i could also do without:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/09/what-did-ginsburg-think-roe-would-do/

    We need to talk, people. I think there’s a reason events are happening so quickly now.

  67. Sorry, John. IT came in to change my computer at lunch and it must’ve been lost. I will try again tonight.

    And no, you’re not at all off base!

  68. If anyone has a Facebook here and wants to add me, feel free – I also interact regularly with Jeff Schreiber and Nathanile Givens at America’s Right.

  69. Love the ad—let’s see it everywhere!!!!!!!!!!!!

  70. JeffM // July 13, 2009 at 2:09 pm

    I love the new coin idea. The first thing we should do is melt them down and make bullets out of them.

    That should get their attention.
    ==============
    Yes!!!!!!!!!!

  71. magna carta

    John,
    speaking of Facebook..check out the censorship story at Atlas where Anti-terrorists activists, (Americans against Jihad training in the USA and suppression of freedom of speech by CAIR tactics) are being censored.Guess the label Islamocommunism takes on new life with each passing day. There is a competitor to facebook but I forgot the name.It was put out by by a faith-based group.

  72. off-topic:
    I would like to apologize for the “Columbus Crew” —they should have presented the
    usurper with a jersey with the number ” Zero”
    and the words “Where’s the Birth Certificate?”
    ‘nough said on that!

  73. Patriot Dreamer

    Jack Cashill, Ph.D. on “Who Wrote Audacity of Hope?”:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/who_wrote_audacity_of_hope_1.html

  74. citizenwells

    ** Update and clarification from Charles Kerchner 7/13/09 **

    “To clarify and help people find the correct newspaper in print, you may wish to change the headline to read, “Washington Times National Weekly edition”, instead of just using the name Washington Times. Some may think it is in the daily paper which it is not, and buy the wrong paper. I chose the National Weekly edition since it reaches all the movers and shakers nationwide. It is sold in major book store news stands. It also has about 100,000 paid subscribers nationwide who in general are the very political aware people in this country. It is also read by leading conservative writers and spokes people on radio and TV. I hope it stirs things up in DC.”

    Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
    CDR USNR Retired
    Lehigh Valley PA
    Lead Plaintiff
    Kerchner v Obama & Congress

  75. Pingback: 20 Theories for Forthcoming Admiralty Lawsuit Against the United States and the U.S. Coast Guard for the Second Amendment from an Unrepresented Merchant Seaman’s Point of View « American Common Defence Review

  76. what’s it gonna take before one of the guys at FOX gonna take a stab at this? WTH are they waiting for?

  77. donchyathink Hannity’s got the itch to?

  78. Pingback: 20 Theories for Forthcoming Admiralty Lawsuit Against the United States and the U.S. Coast Guard for the Second Amendment from an Unrepresented Merchant Seaman’s Point of View « American Common Defence Review

  79. Pingback: 20 Theories for My Forthcoming Admiralty Lawsuit Against the United States and the U.S. Coast Guard for the Second Amendment from an Unrepresented Merchant Seaman’s Point of View (Will the NRA Help Me This Time?) « American Common Defence Revi

  80. Civis naturaliter natus

    Ms. Helga,

    If you want to know who was thrown out of the Sotomayor hearings it may have been this person:

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jul/09071311.html

    She reportedly shouted out: “”You’re wrong Sotomayor, you’re wrong about abortion!”

  81. Civis naturaliter natus

    I would point out regarding the Defense’s objections to standing in Kerchner vs Obama:

    The arguments of the Defense are tantamount to saying that there can be no judicial review of the Joint Session’s action, when this is unconstitutional in naming a non-NBC as POTUS because it harms everyone, and no one personally and sufficiently.

    The simplest counter argument is that every requirement of office is subject to judicial review by every citizen who is under the authority of that elected official when he holds that office, since with an ineligible candidate in office, everyone subject to his commands, is put in a double jeapardy situation, able to be considered criminal whether he does or does not obey. The military are also in jeapardy of international war crime charges. It is essential to the Judicial Branch’s independence not only to determine the constitutionality of laws, but also of congressional acts, and to remove those under the charges of Federal Elected Officials of this double jeapardy by putting their election to judicial review in questions of eligibility. Otherwise there is no other recourse, constitutionally, and the words of the Constitution regarding eligibility are without force.

  82. I will refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in 1898 in the case of UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM ARK. .

    This case was brought by a Wong Kim Ark, a person who was born in San Francisco in 1873. Both of his parents were Chinese Citizens who were both legally domiciled in the United States when their child was born in 1873.

    He Supreme court ruled in that case that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States at birth.

    Here is a quoted section that was taken directly from that opinion.

    The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution: ‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.’

    I. In construing any act of legislation, whether a statute enacted by the legislature, or a constitution established by the people as the supreme law of the land, regard is to be had, not only to all parts of the act itself, and of any former act of the same lawmaking power, of which the act in question is an amendment, but also to the condition and to the history [169 U.S. 649, 654] of the law as previously existing, and in the light of which the new act must be read and interpreted.

    The constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words ‘citizen of the United States’ and ‘natural-born citizen of the United States.’ By the original constitution, every representative in congress is required to have been ‘seven years a citizen of the United States,’ and every senator to have been ‘nine years a citizen of the United States’; and ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president.’ Article 2, 1. The fourteenth article of amendment, besides declaring that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside,’ also declares that ‘no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’ And the fifteenth article of amendment declares that ‘the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any state, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.’

    The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that ‘all persons born r naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.’ Amend. art. 14. In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422 , 5 S. Sup. Ct. 935; Boyd v. U. S., 116 U.S. 616, 624 , 625 S., 6 Sup. Ct. 524; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465 , 8 Sup. Ct. 564. The language of the constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent, Comm. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. U. S., 91 U.S. 270 , 274. [169 U.S. 649, 655] In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: ‘The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.

    In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said: ‘There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several states each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes.’ ‘There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.’ 124 U.S. 478 , 8 Sup. Ct. 569.

    II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called ‘ligealty,’ ‘obedience,’ ‘faith,’ or ‘power’-of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king’s allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,-as expressed in the maxim, ‘Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,’-and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king.

    Please note that the paragraph (II) directly above states the basis in English common law for the term ‘Natural born citizen’ that is found in our Constitution. You will note that at the time that our Constitution was ordained and established, the principle of English common law embraced all persons born within the king’s allegiance, and subject to his protection. . This principle established ‘natural born citizenship’ to the children of aliens with the following; Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. . The exclusions to this rule were children born of foreign ambassadors or the children of alien enemies who were born in England during a hostile occupation.

    Those principles of English common law that existed at the time that our Constitution was ordained and established give meaning to the otherwise undefined references in our Constitution. The common law for each of the thirteen colonies was all based on English common law. That is why the principles of English common law that were in effect at the time of this nation’s founding are given weight in our interpretations of the Constitution today.

  83. Anyone who challenges the eligibility of the President as a ‘natural born citizen’ is going to have an extremely high burden of proof to meet. I say this because there is another section of the Constitution that is applicable here besides the ‘natural born’ eligibility clause. The section that I am referring to is contained in Article IV.

    According to Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution

    Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
    .
    .
    .
    The State of Hawaii has certified that the President was born in the State of Hawaii, in the city of Honolulu. What is then required is to determine if the certified record of birth that the State of Hawaii has provided is sufficiently proven under the law to be held as valid.
    The question becomes; ‘Is the short form Birth Certificate that was issued by the state of Hawaii sufficient to prove birth in the United States?’ The ‘Full Faith and Credit’ section of the Constitution provides that Congress may prescribe the manner in which the records of a state may be proved.

    In order to determine what threshold of proof is for ‘Birth Certificates’ we must look at what the laws passed by the Congress have to say in this regard. There is no specific law that has been passed by Congress that is directly aimed at proving the authenticity of a state issued Birth Certificate, but there is clear guidance in this matter. Congress has specifically authorized a means for a citizen to prove citizenship, and this authority has been provided under a General Law.

    The Congress has granted the Secretary of State, and by implication the Department of State, the authority to issue Passports under US Code, Title 22, Chapter 4.. The granting of authority to the Department of State to issue a Passport implies that the authority to prescribe the manner in which citizenship must be proved has also been granted.

    When this authority has been granted to a federal Department or Agency, the rules that the Department or Agency will use are then promulgated as regulations. These regulations are maintained as part of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
    The Department of State has issued regulations under CFR22.51.42 that state the following requirements for a citizen to prove birth in the United States:

    (a) Primary evidence of birth in the United States. A person born in the United States generally must submit a birth certificate. The birth certificate must show the full name of the applicant, the applicant’s place and date of birth, the full name of the parent(s), and must be signed by the official custodian of birth records, bear the seal of the issuing office, and show a filing date within one year of the date of birth.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Under this CFR, a Birth Certificate will be accepted as proper evidence of Jus soli citizenship if it shows the full name of the applicant, the applicants place and date of birth, and the full name of the parent(s). The certificate must be signed by the official custodian of the birth records for that state, and the record must bear the seal of the issuing officer. In addition, the filing date shown on the certificate must be within one year of the date of birth. If all of these requirements are met, the certificate is proven under the CFR and by implication, under the general laws enacted by Congress. In order for that CFR to be over-ridden, wither the CFR would need to be changed, or the Congress would have to specifically change the requirements by legislation.

    The State of Hawaii has issued a Birth Certificate that meets all of the requirements of CFR 22.51.42. That Birth Certificate is certified by the State of Hawaii, and is considered proven by the Laws of the United States. It will be up to anyone who challenges its authenticity to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Birth Certificate is actually invalid.

    There is a very high standard of proof that must be met in order to override the Constitutional ‘Full Faith and Credit’ standard granted to the State of Hawaii in this matter. That standard of proof would require that the complainant show proof that there was an actual fraud committed by the State of Hawaii in the certification of that Birth Certificate, or that the certificate itself was fraudulent. Either way, the
    burden of proof rests with the complainant. Merely making accusations that this may have happened is not sufficient.

    This would be true even if a foreign power were to present a Birth Certificate that was claimed to show birth in another country. Under the standard of ‘Full Faith and Credit’ that is specifically provided for in the Constitution, the public records of the State of Hawaii would take precedence over the public records of any foreign power. In order to meet the required burden of proof, the foreign record would not only have to be proven as true, but also the State of Hawaii’s record would have to be proven separately as false.

  84. In the document that is posted to begin this thread (the ‘advertisement’ in the Washington Times at the top of this web page), a reference is made to the ‘Law of Nations, Vattel 1798. This was a book written by a citizen of Switzerland.

    This book had nothing to do with the common-law of England, which were the principles of law that guided the founding fathers when they wrote the Constitution.

    Under the English common law at the time that our Constitution was ordained and established, a ‘natural born’ subject was a person who was born on English soil, and under the jurisdiction of the king. Even a child born to an alien was considered a natural born subject as long as they were born under the jurisdiction of the king.

    The principle, Jus soli (right of the soil) was most likely brought to England by William the Conqueror after his conquest of the Britons in 1066. Jus soli had long been the rule that determined whether a person was considered ‘natural born’ by the French, and the Normans.

    The competing principle discusses in Vattel’s ‘Law of Nations’ was based on another rule that the Germanic peoples adhered to, the rule of Jus sanguinis (right of the blood). Under this principle, a persons ‘natural born’ citizenship was determined by the citizenship of his parents, or more specifically, the father.

    Any interpretation of the true meaning of the term ‘natural born citizen’, as it is meant in the context of a person’s Constitutional eligibility for the office of President of the United States, must be viewed in the light of the English common law, not on the words that were authored by a citizen from a country with a different common law view.

    The courts of the United States are required, by previous decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, to view those words in light of their meaning under English common law at the time that the Constitution was ordained and established. That meaning has already been provided in the Wong Kim Ark case of 1898. A person who is born in the United States and under the jurisdiction of the United States is a citizen of the United States, at birth, even if both parents were aliens.

    To modify the meaning of our Constitution by using definitions that were not germane to the principles and laws that our Constitution was based on is not a true conservative principle. It is, in fact, a position that would only be taken by a radical activist.

    Of course, there is another principle that could be applied here. The laws that Congress has passed since the founding of this country have tended to allow the rule of Jus sanguinis to be applied alongside of the rule of Jus soli. See <a href=”http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t05t08+5071+0++%28%29%20%20AND%20%28%288%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND%20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%281401%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20”<US Code, Title 8, Section 1401.

    Under these laws, Congress has provided that a person who is born in the United States is a citizen at birth, which codifies the Jus soli principle. This is the very first part of that section. The same section also allows that a person who is born on foreign soil, of parents who at least one is a citizen will also be a citizen, at birth. This codifies the Jus sanguinis principle. This is not automatic, under the law because it provides for certain residency requirements to be fulfilled.

    The problem is that these laws were passed after the Constitution was established. There is a valid question as to whether the meaning of ‘natural born citizen’ as it appears in the Constitution may be changed by legislation and not by Amendment. The argument for change by legislation is that rules of common law will remain in force only until they are changed by legislation.

    The argument against changing the meaning of the Constitution by legislation is that a principle of common law becomes ‘frozen’ once it has been given Constitutional status, and the only way to change that principle is by Amendment.

    Although it is ultimately up to the Supreme Court to decide, the decision will be whether or not Jus sanguinis may be used in addition to the rule of Jus soli, and not whether it may replace it. One thing that will be true regardless of what the Supreme Court rules is that citizens born on foreign soil of US Citizens will still be citizens at birth. That is allowed under the power granted to Congress to provide for ‘naturalization’ laws. The question will be whether those laws may be used to change the meaning of the ‘natural born citizen’ qualification for President.

    To the lawyer who argues that Jus sanguinis is the law of the land, and not Jus soli, you may find that your client will be compensating you for your services, but may also be required to compensate the other party’s lawyer too, because that is a frivolous argument.

  85. My apologies for the misformed link to Title 8, Section 1401 in my post above. The link below should be usable:

    See US Code, Title 8, Section 1401.

  86. Pingback: 22 Theories for My Forthcoming Admiralty Lawsuit Against the United States and the U.S. Coast Guard for the Second Amendment from an Unrepresented Merchant Seaman’s Point of View (Will the NRA Help Me This Time?) « American Common Defence Revi

  87. Pingback: 22 Theories for My Forthcoming Admiralty Lawsuit Against the United States and the U.S. Coast Guard for the Second Amendment from an Unrepresented Merchant Seaman’s Point of View (Will the NRA Help Me This Time?) « American Common Defence Revi

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s