Purpura and Moran New Jersey Obama Ballot Access Objection.

Weaving its way through the court system is another eligibility challenge for Barack Obama.

April 10, 2012, Nicholas E. Purpura and Theodore T. Moran had their Barack Obama primary ballot objection heard by Deputy Director and Administrative Law Judge, Jeff S. Masin.

Barack Obama was represented by Alexandra M. Hill of the firm of Genova, Burn & Giantomasi of Newark, New Jersey.

Ms. Hill is the latest newbie to be dragged into the mire of Barack Obama’s eligibility troubles.

Ms. Hill is based in the firm’s Newark, New Jersey office and is a member of the Commercial Real Estate, Redevelopment & Environmental Law and Corporate Political Activity Law Practice Groups.

Ms. Hill received her Juris Doctor from Georgetown University Law Center in 2011, achieving Dean’s List 2010-2011. She was a Lead Articles Editor for The Tax Lawyer and active in the Student Bar Association. She earned her Bachelor of Arts in Political Science in 2008 from Emory University.

While in law school, Ms. Hill served as a summer law clerk at Brown & Connery, LLP, extern at the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law (Voting Rights) and Judicial Intern for the United States Court of Federal Claims, Office of Special Masters. From 2003-2008, Ms. Hill served as an intern for the Camden County Democrat Committee.

It looks as though the Obama defenders have put this not yet dry behind the ears youngling against some pretty seasoned legal experts. Not only seasoned lawyers but seasoned constitutional experts.

“Ms. Hill implied that the image of Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery and and followed with the absurd claim that, therefore, it cannot be used as evidence to confirm his lack of natural born citizenship status. Therefore, she argued, it is “irrelevant to his placement on the ballot”.

Ms. Hill went on to contort reasoning by implying that Obama needs only invoke his political popularity, not legal qualifications, in order to be a candidate.

The opposition argued that Mr. Obama under the Constitution has to be a “natural born Citizen.” That under New Jersey law (the state constitution, statutes, and case law), Mr. Obama must show that he is qualified for the office he wishes to occupy and that includes showing that he is a “natural born Citizen,” which includes presenting evidence of who he is, where he was born, and that he was born to two U.S. citizen parents.

I would say Ms. Hill’s ignorance of the Constitution is jaw dropping but we have seen so much of this of late one can become numb to it.

Masin as expected punted the final decision to the Secretary of State Kimberly M. Guadagno.

On 4-12-12 Guadagno issued her Final Decision in Nicholas E. Purpura and Theodore T. Moran v. Barack Obama New Jersey Primary Ballot Objection. A copy of her decision may be read here, http://www.scribd.com/puzo1/d/89431332-Final-Decision-of-SOS-in-Purpura-Moran-Ballot-Objection-4-12-12. She concludes without any explanation: “After full consideration of the record and a review of the exceptions filed, I hereby adopt the ALJ’s Initial Decision in its entirety.”

Other links to this issue:

Update on the Purpura and Moran New Jersey Obama Ballot Access Objection

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/letter-to-george-miller-from-nj-sos-office

http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/protectourliberty.htm

As we get closer to the 2012 election and those running for office of President of the United States, the subject of who is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN and therefore eligible to hold office and who is not becomes more important.

On a daily basis more citizens are becoming educated on the matter.

The “birther” denigration of the public is beginning to fail as the population begins to understand and becomes more educated on our Constitution and our countries founding documents and those who wrote them.

The Obama supporters are quick to say anyone who questions the Obama Presidential Qualifications are racist or just plain nuts.

My response to them is THEY ARE EITHER ignorant, corrupt, stupid or committing treason.
Take your pick it is one, two, three or perhaps all of those.

Their worst nightmare is unfolding before their eyes.
The problem has not gone away.
NOR WILL IT EVER!

Let me make this abundantly clear … my opinion of Barack Obama and HIS SKIN COLOR OR PARTY has nothing to do with my continued rant on this subject.

It does not matter if the person being scrutinized is Democrat or Republican. If they do not qualify or have a hint of doubt about qualifying I will be reporting it here.

Apparently we have a Congress full of cowards and a court system (SCOTUS) who are either cowards or flat out shirking their sworn oath and allegiance to this country.

MAKE NO MISTAKE the Supreme Court Justices (EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM) know exactly what those of us ranting about this issue know.
For Gods sake they are suppose to be UNBIASED EXPERTS.

Below you will find a collection of links from this blog and others on the internet about “natural born citizen” issue.

I present it to you here in one place for those who choose to join the “think for yourself” citizenry.

It is time the public STOPS the lemming behavior of being swayed or conned by someone elses OPINION.
Pay attention to the FACTS AND DOCUMENTS PROVIDED THEN DECIDE FOR YOURSELF.

4 Supreme Court Cases define “natural born citizen”

Having the Status of Birthright Citizenship Is Not Sufficient to Make One an Article II “Natural Born”

Are the “Birthers” barking up the wrong tree?

More Citizenship Information Backed Up By Congressional Records

Mitt Romney IS NOT a natural born citizen!

WILL THERE BE A CITIZENSHIP ELIGIBILITY CHALLENGE FOR ROMNEY?

Has The US Supreme Court No Shame?

Audio recordings (5) of the above article HERE

Narrative on Wong Kim Ark citizenship issue

Article II Facts

According to Mario Apuzzo, Esq. the decision is not supported by either fact or law.

For those of you who visit the blog on a regular basis you are aware of my keen interest in the “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” issue of our Constitution.

To me it is the key issue that should be addressed during this election season.
IS IS NOT BEING COVERED ANY WHERE but on the internet with the average citizen.

Yesterday I had a run in with the “tinfoil hat” progressives on Dr. Conspiracy’s blog.
Dr. Conspiracy is not a real doctor he is simply someone who fancies himself?
Well I am not exactly sure … it is highly likely neither is he.

Heaven forbid that any of these “stuck in dope mode” actually rip the tinfoil off their couple of functioning brain cells in order to let “common logic or common sense” have a chance to sink in.

My experience tells me between 2/3 and 3/4 of the public is ignorant of how our founders defined the term “natural born citizen”.

What amazes me most is even those I consider intelligent can read the quotes from Congress and SCOTUS rulings etc. and still will argue with what those words mean.
Folks it honestly is not ROCKET SCIENCE. It is simply fact … read the quotes for yourself.
Just because no one in politics or the media is dealing with any of this?
None of that ALTERS THE FACTS OR CHANGES what our founders defined this term to mean.

HERE THEY ARE AGAIN United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898):
“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.”

This is straight forward FACT.
To be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN … you must be born in the country and your parents must BOTH BE CITIZENS.

BOTH REQUIREMENTS MUST BE MET!

PARENTS can be born citizens or naturalized (naturalized at the time of the child’s birth).
If both requirements are not met the child can still be a “US citizen” just not “natural born”.

No matter how anyone slices, dices or ginsus it Barack Obama has painted himself in a corner with his released Birth Certificate (be it real or fraud). His father NEVER WAS A US CITIZEN.
For sure he does not meet the “natural born” requirement. His US citizenship is iffy should his Hawaiian BC turn out to be a fraud.

Now to further hammer nails into the coffin lid of the Constitution comes Mitt Romney.

Here is further information just sent my way on his parentage and their citizenship.
Let me say this again … my research SHOWS NO REPATRIATION OR NATURALIZATION of George Romney.
That does not mean there is none … it does however cast serious problems into the cogs of what appears to be a well oiled Mitt Romney campaign for President machine.

I thank Edward Noonan for allowing me to republish this information.
MITT ROMNEY IS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!

My basic premise is simple…Mitt Romney, candidate for President 2012 cannot be eligible for President because his entire family converted to Mexican citizenship and relinquished their US Citizenship.

Above is a pedigree chart first showing GEORGE ROMNEY, the father of Mitt Romney. Second shows George’s parents, Gaskell and Anna Romney. Then we have the two grandparents of George Romney, who was Miles and Hannah Romney, and then Helaman and Anna Pratt.

In my previous post I explained that Helaman Pratt had been ordained by the LDS President, John Taylor to become Mexican citizens and help colonize the Mexican Territory of the Colonia Dublan, Chihuahua area of Mexico.

This was quoted from the Helaman Pratt Journal of about 1884.

This post will deal with the other great-grandfather of Mitt Romney who was Miles Park Romney. The same priesthood duty was conferred on Miles Romney. I quote a genealogy page of the our-genealogy.com: See:
http://www.our-genealogy.com/Latter-Day-Saint-Families/Romney-Family/ancestry-romney/miles_park_romney.htm

The Romney family Genealogy/History is recorded as the following:

Hanna Hood Hill Romney

Miles Romney lived in Mexico as a Mexican citizen for the next two decades and until his death in 1904. Miles is buried in Colonia Dublan, Chihuahua, Mexico.

This is where Gaskell Romney also became a Mexican citizen. He married his wife in Colonia Dublan.

Wikipedia states of the Colonia Dublan colony: “In 1888, George M. Brown of Provo, Utah made a deal with German-Mexican Lewis Huller for 73,000 acres (300 km2) of land north of what was then the Casas Grandes River. The colony, which was originally called Colonia Huller, was first settled by George Lake, a Mormon colonist, with many others following in the spring of 1889.[1] However, due to a problem with the deal between Brown and Huller, titles to the land could not be given to them. Instead, the colonists were forced to rent from the native population or make their own individual purchases. When it was founded, the nearest train station to the colony was Gallego, 110 miles (180 km) away. Since a large percentage of goods consumed by the colony had to be imported from the United States, prices were high. In 1897, a railroad was built from Ciudad Juárez to a point twelve miles (19 km) outside of Dublán. The railroad proved extremely valuable for the colony, as goods could be cheaply imported and exported.[2]
The community was also the birth place of Michigan Governor George W. Romney, father of 2012 Presidential candidate Mitt Romney.”

There is no doubt that George W. Romney is NOT a citizen of the United States. And there are no records showing George Romney’s father ever to have been re-patrioted. At least I can find no such record.

A Boston Globe News webpage states:”After fleeing the Mexican revolution, Mitt Romney’s grandfather, Gaskell lost his home and possessions…”

As best as I can determine, Gaskell and this son, George came back to the US and renounced their Mexican citizenship. Once they did this all of their Mexican property and possessions were confiscated.

The Gaskell website continues: “Gaskell sued Mexico for the loss of his property and, in 1938, was awarded damages of $9,163.”

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/romney/graphics/GaskellRomney/

The big question is this…how did George and Gaskell Romney get their US Citizenship back if they still had it at all? If Gaskell (son) and Miles Park Romney (father) who were both Mexican citizens how could they transfer US Citizenship to George Romney? Mitt Romney, however, may be a birthright baby because he fell under the 14th Amendment (I doubt they were under the jurisdiction of the US) but it is absolutely clear that Mitt Romney is NOT a Natural Born Citizen unless he can prove that George Romney gained citizenship from naturalization prior to Mitt’s birth in 1947. I have found no records showing this to be the case.

Edward C. Noonan
President 2012

More posts on the “natural born citizen issue”:
4 Supreme Court Cases define “natural born citizen”

Having the Status of Birthright Citizenship Is Not Sufficient to Make One an Article II “Natural Born”

Are the “Birthers” barking up the wrong tree?

More Citizenship Information Backed Up By Congressional Records

WILL THERE BE A CITIZENSHIP ELIGIBILITY CHALLENGE FOR ROMNEY?

Has The US Supreme Court No Shame?

Audio recordings (5) of the above article HERE

Narrative on Wong Kim Ark citizenship issue

For MONTHS I have been saying PAY NO ATTENTION to the “political elite” (Republican or Democrat), the media talking heads, or the propaganda (BY ANYONE) foisted our way to trap, scare, con or HERD the public into NOT UPSETTING THE APPLE CART.

So what is the apple cart?
Political business as usual of course … you know the old status quo?

I hate to bring up the old adage “insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

For years the public has fallen for the same old crap by the “political establishments” and the SAME OLD CRAP continues to happen.

How much more SAME OLD CRAP can this nation stand before we meet the tipping point and are on a slide into the great abyss?

The majority of citizens agree WE CAN NOT STAND another 4 years of this BUSINESS AS USUAL STATUS QUO.
How to fix the “business as usual status quo” is the question on every disenfranchised voters mind. Herein lies the disagreement and divide in the voting public today.

NONE OF US can do this alone.
It takes the mass to stand up INDIVIDUALLY and make a choice.
DO YOU PERSONALLY cower in fear foisted your way by the establishment and go down with the TITANIC?
or
DO YOU PERSONALLY decide to THINK FOR YOURSELF … FOLLOW YOUR HEART, VOTE YOUR HEART and become part of the solution that has a chance to keep this ship from sinking?

An article from Canada Free Press was posted to a forum.
It so closely paralleled my own thoughts and perceptions about this election cycle I am posting part and providing a link to the rest below.

We are fast becoming a nation divided by choice.

That choice is to be free thinkers and decide for yourself or REMAIN VICTIMS OF THE CON foisted our way by the “political establishment” WHO EXPECT US TO REMAIN PART OF THE HERD.

It’s All Over But the Voting
Daren Jonescu Friday, December 30, 2011

The Republican and media Establishments have joined hands in an attempt to lead America buoyantly, triumphantly off the cliff into the bottomless pit of civilizational dissolution. They have fought their version of the good fight, prematurely creating the optics, and, if all goes well, the dynamics, of a two-man race, where in fact there are six men and a woman.

They have settled all their chips on the two candidates who are least conservative, most establishmentarian, and, in their actions and rhetoric, most pragmatic and unprincipled. And they have done everything within their considerable power to disseminate the irrational narrative that now, before a single vote has been cast, life stinks for anyone who is not in one of the two anointed camps.

So what else is new?

In 1964, Barry Goldwater won the Republican nomination. His main opponent was the “moderate” Nelson Rockefeller. Rockefeller was polling well going into the early primaries, until a peculiar write-in movement arose in support of Richard Nixon’s 1960 VP running mate, Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. A Massachusetts moderate, Lodge won three of the first five states as a write-in candidate, thus effectively unraveling Rockefeller’s Establishment campaign. This was particularly evident in the first contest, New Hampshire, where Rockefeller finished only one point behind Goldwater, 22% to 21%, while Lodge got 36%, most of which, in all likelihood, would otherwise have gone to Rockefeller. After Lodge formally withdrew from the race, Rockefeller picked up some steam, won a couple of states, and came close to winning California, which might have turned the tide in his favor. Had the Lodge write-in campaign not occurred, things might have turned out in the Establishment’s favor.

In 1976, the Establishment man was President Gerald Ford. Famously, Ford won the first six states, and eight out of the first nine, before Ronald Reagan’s campaign began to break through the mainstream chatter, and to find its audience among the burgeoning conservative undercurrent of the Republican Party. By the time of Ford’s narrow victory at the Party convention, as Reagan, by popular demand, gave a short speech to the delegates, there was a sense among many present that they had just made a huge mistake. (Mark Levin has pointedly emphasized that some of today’s prominent Washington conservatives, such as George Will, did not originally support Reagan in the 1980 primaries. This interesting bit of history gains further trenchancy when one recalls that 1980 was not the conservative punditry’s first chance to take a serious look at the mature Reagan—anyone can misjudge a relative unknown—but the second. What was their excuse that time?)

In 1980, the Establishment man was George H.W. Bush. Though the conservative with the proven constitutionalist credentials was polling well during the spring and summer, the Establishment choice began to “overtake him” during the final months before Iowa, creating the impression of “momentum” in Bush’s favor. (Sound familiar?) Bush won Iowa and Massachusetts, losing only New Hampshire in between. Reagan won almost everything after that.

In 1996 and 2000, the Establishment got the candidates it wanted, in part due to a paucity of credible conservative opposition. (Remember George W. Bush’s unofficial welcoming party thrown by the Senate Republicans during the 1999 primary campaign?)

In 2008, the Establishment wanted Romney, and sure enough, he won three of the first five states, and built up a big lead in the delegate count. Gradually, however, as people began to look at him, to look through him, to run their hands through him and find out there was nothing there, they started looking for other options. Hence, in a campaign which by that time had lost its conservative candidate—Fred Thompson—to the Establishment’s created illusion that he lacked popular appeal, even McCain started to look okay. At least he had an inspiring personal story.

This quick survey of most of the Republican nominating processes since 1964, when modern conservatism began its slow insurgency within the party, suggests a few important conclusions relevant to today’s fight over the soul of the GOP, and, in turn, over the survival or demise of the American republic.

The rest of the story …

ASK MITT ANYTHING?
Where is THE PROOF your father George Romney was a naturalized US citizen making you a NBC in order to qualify for the office of POTUS?

The moral of this story is NONE OF US can trust anyone who is suppose to be legitimate and telling the truth.
Jurista.com now bites the dust where credibility use to be.
Just plain lies, corruption or server error?

You be the judge.
Check out important data yourself at the source.
The Constitution, Congressional records, State records? Take the time in the end it will be worth it.

December 14, 2011
JustiaGate: ‘Natural Born’ Supreme Court Citations Disappear
By Dianna C. Cotter with L. Donofrio Esq.

Did Justia.com deliberately aid Barack Obama in 2008 by helping to hide the one legal case that might prevent him from legally qualifying for the presidency?

On October 20, 2011, New Jersey attorney Leo Donofrio accused online legal research behemoth Justia.com of surgically redacting important information from their publication of 25 U.S. Supreme Court opinions which cite Minor v. Happersett, an 1874 decision which arguably contains language that appears to disqualify anyone from presidential eligibility who wasn’t born in the country to parents who were citizens. According to the decision in Happersett:

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. (Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 [1874])

Justia is a Google Mini-powered website which has singled itself out as one of the most comprehensive and easy-to-search legal sites on the internet. Other legal resources such as Lexis can cost as much as $5,000 a month for a subscription, and it’s impossible to hyperlink to cases which include copyrighted headnotes and analysis. This is why powerful law firms such as Perkins Coie (where former Obama White House Counsel Bob Bauer practices law) have cited Justia’s pages.

The Wayback Machine, run by InternetArchive.Org, is the means by which the changes made at Justia were documented over time. Among the first responses from Justia regarding this controversy was to block its Supreme Court Server from being viewed by the Wayback Machine.

Click the following link for an image documenting the pattern of changes made to one of those 25 cases, Luria v. U.S., 231 U.S. 9 (1913). Notice that the case name “Minor v. Happersett” has been removed, minimizing the case searchability.

The cover-up simply reeks. While Justia owner Tim Stanley told CNET that there were more cases which had also been “mangled,” there is no way to identify how much bogus law was published by Justia over the three-year period in question. Minor v. Happersett simply disappeared from cases which cited it, minimizing its footprint on the internet at a critical juncture in history — the election of 2008.

McCarthy v. Briscoe, 429 U.S. 1317 (1976)

On Nov. 3, 2008, one day before the election, Donofrio petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the ballots in New Jersey from being used the next day in the case Donofrio v. Wells, claiming that the eligibility of both Obama and McCain had not been verified by the NJ secretary of State as required by law.

In his research, Donofrio had found a reference to McCarthy v. Briscoe, 429 U.S. 1317 (1976), an important precedent which allows the Supreme Court — or even one justice acting alone if an emergency stay is requested — to order a secretary of state to insert a name on the ballot. The holding of the case implies a reciprocal power to remove names from ballots for the several secretaries of State, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court.

Back in ’08, Donofrio couldn’t find the in chambers decision anywhere online. Forced to go old-school, he procured it from a brick-and-mortar law library. But to this day, McCarthy v. Briscoe remains elusive at Justia. If you look in their “Volume” database and click “429,” all of the in chambers opinions are mysteriously absent.

In chambers opinions generally begin on pg. 1,301, but not every official volume has them. For example, Volume 428 has no in chambers opinions, but 429, 434, and 439 do. Justia’s database for Volumes 434 and 439 do exhibit the in chambers opinions, but Volume 429 has them scrubbed.

If you search Justia’s Cases & Opinions by Year in 1976, McCarthy v. Briscoe is listed. There are two cases, an insignificant one-page opinion at page 1,316, followed by the relevant decision on pg. 1,317. There are links to the preview as well as “Full Text.” However, all of the links are broken, leading back to Justia’s front page.

Additionally, Justia’s publication of a following 1977 5th Circuit case, 553 F.2d 1005, includes a hyperlink back to 429 U.S. 1317, and that link is also mysteriously broken.
The rest of the story ….

It is finally beginning to dawn on “we the people” that the “political insiders” are clueless and think we are all stupid.
Well perhaps for a number of reasons we were a little ignorant. But little by little we are waking up and educating ourselves to the reality of what is going on and in America the why.

For the past week or so I have listened to Bill O’Reilly and his guests wonder why the Democrats and Obama supporters think Barack Obama could beat Newt Gingrich at ANYTHING.

Come on O’Reilly (and guests) how clueless do you want to look anyway?

Really folks these people (Obama supporters) are NOT TOTALLY STUPID. They are simply terrified that in a debate Gingrich would kick Obama’s ass into the next century. Between now and any debate time Obama could not get prepared enough to take on Gingrich.
That is not simply wishful thinking it is FACT.
I have said it before but let me say it again. If I had an extra million I would pay it to see Gingrich annihilate Obama one on one in any debate ON ANY SUBJECT.

That however is not the real problem that underlies a shellacking of Romney by Gingrich for the Obama puppet-masters.

It appears that Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have the same problem. Reported here ad nausium on this blog.
Neither are “natural born citizens”. (according to any records I could dig up for George Romney who was born in Mexico and never naturalized)

Hello … does it make sense to anyone why the Obama supporters (at least those who are less ignorant and know the Constitution) want to run against Romney instead of Gingrich?
They already know Obama is going to get his clock cleaned by WHOEVER.
They would prefer it be Romney because … then NO REPUBLICAN is going to challenge their own guy NOT BEING a NBC.
Then Obama skates on his NBC status and we have now bypassed the whole CONSTITUTIONAL NBC requirement issue because of precedent.

Where is Ron Paul? … MR CONSTITUTION on this issue?
Where is Rick Perry who pulls a pocket Constitution out in the last debate? Was all of that just for show?
LOOKS LIKE! Maybe he needs to read and understand it before he makes that move.
Michelle Bachmann blew herself out of the water on the issue with Greta when asked about who would make a good VP.
These people have taken an oath to follow the Constitution and do not have a clue what it says?

Time to wake up people.
It is your choice … you are either a “useful idiot” falling for the bull crap propaganda dished out by the media … or start checking out some of these facts for yourself.

It is getting a little tiresome listening to people say “well if there were anything to this SOMEONE IMPORTANT would be addressing it”.
Well they aren’t.

I have to wonder if people need a 2 by 4 up beside their heads to check into the Constitution for themselves.

World Net Daily has just published a story involving John Albert Dummett (www.johndummett.us) and his quest to have Barak Obama declared ineligible to serve as President of the United States of America. The suit centers around the “natural born citizen” status requirement as stated in the Constitution, the Naturalization Act of 1790, and an 1875 Supreme Court decision, Minor vs. Happersett (88 US 162).

The following link will take you to the story for all of the details:
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=360813

John has teamed up with the Liberty Legal Foundation (http://www.libertylegalfoundation.net/) in this effort to remove what I see as one of the most insidious attempts to subvert the Constitution in this nation’s 235 year history. The article points out that John has been given standing to sue by the 9th Circuit Court, the most liberal in the nation. If that bastion of liberal thinking agrees with John there must be something to the case. Where there is smoke there is fire and this fire is hot.

It has long been known that Obama is not eligible but was certified by Nancy Pelosi and other federal and state officials in what this writer sees as a totally unlawful and treasonous disregard for the Constitution of the United States of America and We the People. The long form birth certificate issued by the White House is such a poor forgery that I can see it and I am not a computer forensics expert.

If the title of this article surprises you I can explain. I expect the Democrats, especially the far left like Obama, Pelosi, and their ilk, along with the lame stream media, to ridicule and criticize this action. That can be expected by anyone with ability to reason. However, it is surprising to me how many “conservative” politicians and pundits dismiss this case, and those cases leading up to this one as nonsense.

I was listening to the Neal Boortz radio show this morning and heard sit-in host Eric Erickson ridiculing anyone who agreed with the ineligibility position and calling us all “nut cases”. He went on a long diatribe describing “native born citizen” and attributed the parameters he stated to “natural born citizen”. There is a great deal of confusion about this although I don’t know why. I don’t have a college education and I understand the parameters just fine.

Other “conservative” media pundits, including Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity, have dismissed the “birther” stand as nonsense also. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala), a 15 year member of the United States Senate, also dismissed the eligibility question stating that the State Department said Obama was eligible and the Constitution has nothing to do with eligibility to run for president. HUH??? Apparently Sen. Sessions, in addition to not reading legislation passing his way, has also not read or does not understand the Constitution he swore an oath to uphold and defend. That problem seems to be rampant in both parties in Washington.

My question is: Why do they dismiss this so off-handedly? I can’t begin to imagine how so many “conservative” pundits and politicians can dismiss a decision against Obama by an extremely liberal circuit court. This decision could not only prevent Obama from running again, it could lead to everything he has signed being nullified. Obamacare gone; czars gone; Elena Kagan gone; Sonia Sotomayor gone; what is there to not like about this? On the surface this doesn’t make one bit of sense to me.

I think, however, that I can answer the question quite easily. It has recently come to my attention that Mitt Romney’s father was born in Mexico, thereby bringing his eligibility into question. However, as it relates to Romney, his father’s birthplace is the least of my objections. Mr. Erickson also brought up Marco Rubio, the heir-apparent to the Republican throne, as another person mentioned as not eligible. I have researched Mr. Rubio and found him to be ineligible also. I have written about the Rubio case more than once. The sad thing is that I really like Marco Rubio and everything he stands for. Even though I respect and admire him, and his positions, my loyalty is to the Constitution first. I have also looked into Bobby Jindal, another man I admire very much, but guess what.

The question here is: Do we follow the Constitution when it is convenient or do we live by its tenets completely? I understand that the politicians have strayed far from the original letter and intent of the document and find it easier to do what is in their best interests rather than follow what our founding fathers laid down as the guideposts for our nation. I don’t need any further explanations about what is wrong with America today. We the People do not matter, power matters. Both parties fight over who will control government with no regard for the people they are supposed to be SERVING.

Both parties have taken young Muslim men who can’t count to ten with both hands in front of them, set them up with fake bombs and targets, and then arrested them in the name of “Homeland Security”. I think they call that entrapment!! Officials hail themselves as doing a wonderful job protecting our homeland but are they? Not in my book. They break their arms patting themselves on the back for playing poor idiots as patsies. The only two attacks I know about that weren’t planned by federal agents, the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber, were thwarted by private citizens alert to something amiss and the incompetence of the would-be attackers.

This isn’t only about Barak Obama; it is about politics and the corruption that permeates every pore of it. This is about We the People once again gaining control of our future and restoring America as the “shining city on a hill” described by John Winthrop in the 1700’s. It is about honor, integrity, and the rule of law. It is about following the blueprint given to us by those who fought valiantly and defeated the strongest nation in the world at the time.

The Solyndra scandal is not the sole property of the Democrat Party. Under Republican rule we had Enron, questionable money going to Halliburton, and on and on. Political corruption and vote buying has been a part of Washington as long as I have been around and I date back to the middle of the last century (1950). Cronyism has long been the font of the ruling class, making sure those who give money to politicians of either party get their money back with interest.

Our forefathers, the men who wrote two of the greatest documents ever written, pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to establish the United States of America. Generations of men and women have fought and died to preserve this nation. We have strayed so far from what they established with the help of Divine Providence, that they would not recognize this nation today.

John Dummett is a common man, not a politician, not a wealthy wanta-be looking for a title to make him a legend in his own mind as most of the ruling class tends to be. His desire is to live by the Constitution and bring this country back to its design. I support him, as do many other “commoners”, the “country class” of America. We have been ruled by the Ivy League know-it-alls for much too long. Our nation has turned into a quagmire of evil, increasing poverty, class envy, and divisiveness by those who seek to rule rather than govern. Both parties enrich their friends while promising We the People the moon. You know the old saying, “divide and conquer”.

The goal of John Albert Dummett, Liberty Legal Foundation, and many common American citizens is to restore our nation to what it was designed to be, government OF the People, BY the People, and FOR the People. God and our founding fathers gave us a wonderful way of life, full of freedom, full of liberty, full of promise, and what have we done with it?

It is up to We the People to take our country back. Unfortunately we will have to fight a war on two fronts. We have to fight the liberals, George Soros, and the “Occupy Wall Street” morons who aren’t smart enough to put two sentences together, as well as the so-called conservative media and politicians who do not want to give up their gravy train to those of us “too stupid to know what is good for us”.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the ruling elites are all around us. They are found on both sides of the political aisle and until we get enough common people into office to blunt their agenda we are in danger of dictatorship and slavery. Remember, it was George W. Bush and a Republican Congress that gave us the Patriot Act, a misnamed law if I ever saw one. In the name of protecting us they turned the noose of slavery one notch tighter.

John Dummett and the Liberty Legal Foundation are working for us, the common citizen of all colors, all economic categories, and all ethnic groups. They are trying to restore We the people as the arbiters of freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We need to support them.

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty god to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell Claremore, Oklahoma October 29, 2011

UPDATE on Mitt Romney “natural born citizen” state.
Please read this latest research update on this issue.

This is a re-post of an article I wrote (based on the research and comments submitted by Adrianne) back in mid June. I am grateful for her research finds.

It is CRITICAL that the public understand this problem … leap on the bandwagon and FORCE EVERYONE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT TODAY to address this issue.

For whatever reason the DC powers that be CONTINUE TO IGNORE the most important issue that faces the United States.

YES EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE ECONOMY.

Without a fix for this constitutional problem the imminent economic collapse is small change in comparison.
WE CAN AND WILL RECOVER from a collapsed economy.
WE CAN NOT RECOVER FROM THE COLLAPSE FROM WITHIN WITHOUT THE CONSTITUTION.

People YOUR FREEDOM IS AT STAKE … WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT THE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES BE NATURAL BORN IS IMPORTANT.

No matter how ANYONE slices, dices or ginsu it BARACK OBAMA for certain does not meet the requirement … neither does Mitt Romney according to records of old.

If these contenders are not WILLING to face and DO SOMETHING about this problem then WE AS CITIZENS MUST FACE THE FACTS … that contender is either ignorant (no matter what they claim) of what the constitution says/means or is to cowardly to stand up and follow it.

Those contenders do NOT DESERVE THE VOTE OF THE PUBLIC PERIOD.

Do we need ANOTHER IGNORANT COWARD in the white-house after the 2012 election?
DO WE ACCEPT WASHINGTON BUSINESS AS USUAL?

Is Mitt Romney a “natural born citizen”?

Was George Romney (father of Mitt Romney) a natutal born citizen?
Not according to the historical records I could dig up.

If George Romney was not a “US citizen”, “natural born citizen” or became naturalized BEFORE Mitt was born then neither can Mitt Romeny (his son) be natural born.

THE CASE:

Had Romney been successful in 08, we’d still have socialized medicine, only the name would be Romneycare, not Obamacare.

In regards to the missionaries, I point that out to show that the expatriate Mormons HAD to become Mexican citizens since missionary work by foreigners was prohibited by Mexican law at the time.

Geometry, “if this and this, therefore that.” If Mexico only allowed citizens to conduct missions/missionary work. The Mormons operated missions in Mexico, therefore, the Mormons were Mexican citizens.

Since George W. Romney was born in Mexico, son of the head elder, there for about 3 decades before his birth, said elder must have been a Mexican citizen, therefore, could not bestow American citizenship, let alone “natural born” to George W. Romney. Since George W. Romney was therefore NOT AN American citizen, he could not bestow natural born to his son Mitt Romney. It does not matter what state Mitt Romney was born in.

The operative immigration law of nations at the time, each government had a tacit agreement about such expatriates as a matter of being put into delicate situations of having to defend Americans on foreign soil. This procedure was operative when the Mormons fled Utah, the standard being that if an American stayed (at the time the accepted time frame was) 5 or so years, each country would consider they had rejected their native country’s citizenship.

Since the family was in Mexico, depending on the story, 1870′s or 80′s, the USA would have considered them Mexican and Mexico would have too, on that account.

Since Mexican law severely restricted foreign ownership of territory and since Romney’s own family genealogy reports they bought land w/Mexico’s approval, then if this, then that of it concludes that they were Mexican citizens, free to own land and also, do their missionary work.

The Mormons left to escape the US government threats, then passage of two severe laws against polygamy (links below). They were losing or had lost their citizens’ rights to vote, sit on juries, etc. The final legislation banning polygamy and assessing severe sanctions in the 1880s made committed polygamy a crime and while the legislation OFFERED THE EXPATRIATES IN MEXICO a legal way back, all those who were married prior to 1864, (and George W. Romney’s father was), he could have chosen to repatriate with all benefits of American citizenship.

He declined and died in Mexico in 1906 or 1907, never returning, never giving up Mexican citizenship.

Clearly American citizenship was not a concern then, Romney et al have a dog in that fight but not the Mexican Mormons, the Romney family tree is clear, committed and leaders of that movement.

Notes to CI from Adrianne:

CI … I went to your site and as I forewarned, said that the “official” accounts are revisionist history.

From your link:
“… While Romney was born in Mexico, he was still considered to be a viable and legal candidate to run for president. His Mormon grandfather and his three wives fled to Mexico in 1886, but none of them ever relinquished their citizenship.”

Actual Chronological History:

Mitt Romney’s paternal great grandfather Miles Park Romney was one of the many families that left the United States in March of 1885 to conlonize Mexico. (why and their citizenship fate explained below)

Mitt’s paternal grandfather Gaskell Romney stayed in Mexico until the Mexican Revolution forced his family to move back to the United States.

Mitt’s father George W. Romeny was also born in Colonia Dublán, Galeana, in the Mexican state of Chihuahua – one of the Mormon colonies in Mexico – on July 8, 1907.

Mitt Romney’s great-grandfather, George W. Romney’s maternal grandfather, Helamen Pratt:
Pratt was one of the first missionaries to Mexico, and in 1876 at Hermosillo, Sonora, Pratt and Meliton Trejo performed the first baptisms recorded by the LDS Church in that country. Pratt latter served as president of the Mexican Mission based in Mexico City for part of the 1880s. After his release he moved to Colonia Dublan in Galeana, state of Chihuahua, Mexico, where he died.

He married in Salt Lake City, Utah, 20 April 1874 German Anna Johanna Dorothy (“Dora”) Wilcken (Dahme, Zarpin, Rheinfeld, Ostholstein, Schleswig-Holstein, 25 July 1854 – Colonia Dublán, Galeana, Chihuahua, Mexico, 22 June 1929), daughter of Carl Heinrich Wilcken (Eckhorst, Holstein, Schleswig-Holstein, 5 October 1831 – Salt Lake City, Utah, 9 April 1914) and the first of at least four wives (m. Neustadt in Holstein, Ostholstein, Schleswig-Holstein, 10 August 1853) Eliza Christina Carolina Reiche (Neustadt in Holstein, Ostholstein, Schleswig-Holstein, 1 May 1830 – Salt Lake City, Utah, 13 August 1906), both of whom also became LDS Church members. He was also a polygamist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helaman_Pratt

His maternal great grandfather, Helaman Pratt’s Obituary:
Helaman Pratt, a Frontiersman From Birth, Closes Long Missionary Life at 63

In the death of Helaman Pratt, the Juares stake has suffered an irretrievable loss. He died of apoplexy, Nov. 26, 1909, at his house in Colonia Dublan, Chihuahua, Mexico. Few have done more for the spreading of the gospel among the natives of Mexico than he. None have taken a more general interest in the work both temporal and spiritual. ….”

Would you agree then, that despite the claim on the official page, the link I give from the FAMILY genealogy page would show that Romney’s great grandfather and his descendants all considered him a missionary?

Mexican law, until the 1940′s prohibited foreign missionaries.
I know this because my cousin was a Franciscan missionary and was imprisoned and tossed from Mexico, the third time with a warning he’d be shot.

Interesting old article, some name dropping, too:
Mormons Carry On In Mexico Farm Area

May 03, 1986|By William Stockton, The New York Times
NUEVO CASAS GRANDES, MEXICO — A hundred years ago, a group of Mormons loaded their possessions and families onto wagons and moved to Mexico to seek a place to practice polygamy free from interference and to establish a beachhead from which to convert Mexico to Mormonism.

Polygamy died out not long after the turn of the century, and most of the Mormon colonies disappeared, too. But two survived and prospered in northern Chihuahua, and the descendants carry on their ancestors` religious traditions and work as farmers and ranchers.

Residents have names such as Romney, Taylor, Wagner and Hatch, and some live in two-story Victorian-style brick houses reminiscent of Salt Lake City. But a century of living here has produced a life of dual identities.

On one hand, the Mormons are Mexican citizens, some proudly, ardently Mexican. They speak Spanish, are subject to Mexican laws and economic woes, and must meet the Mexican military service requirement.

But their outlook on life is decidedly American. Their children attend Brigham Young University in Utah, and they receive Bride`s magazine when a daughter`s wedding is imminent. The side of the refrigerator in one Mormon home has a very American set of household rules posted for the children.
Whole Story …

In order to stay and own property, they had to become Mexican Citizens.

HELAMAN PRATT — Mission to Mexico City

” ….Helaman’s duties with the exploration commission did not release him from his duties as Mission President. It was not until after the trouble with the Governor of Chihuahua that he was released and set apart by President Taylor to help in the colonization of the Saints in Mexico. In this new calling he worked hard to help the Saints get land, secure land titles, water rights, spearhead the building of canals, and ditches and all that was necessary to make their new home a happy and prosperous one. At the time he set Helaman apart, President Taylor told him that he was called until death released him, and that he was to become a Mexican citizen and take part in the government. Helaman accepted the call and all its ramifications. ….

Helaman Pratt’s Mexican naturalization paper.

State side persecution from the government only increased as the Mormon Church continued to grow. In 1882, the Edmunds Act, which outlawed cohabitation with more than one woman, was passed. To enforce this, U.S. President Chester A. Arthur sent the Utah Commission. All Mormons who practiced polygamy were disenfranchised, stripped of the right to vote or hold public office. Many of them were also jailed. Although this clearly violated U.S. constitutional law forbidding ex post facto laws, over 1,300 men were jailed. In Idaho, a loyalty oath was instituted in 1885, which required all residents to swear they opposed polygamy or any organization that taught it in order to vote. This effectively disenfranchised all Mormons. Mormons appealed these laws all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, but things only got worse. In 1887, the U.S. Congress passed the Edmunds-Tucker Act, which dis-incorporated the Mormon Church and seized virtually all of its property. It required loyalty oaths from local officials, which kept even Mormons not practicing polygamy from holding office, and allowed the federal government to appoint state officers and even control what textbooks could be allowed in classrooms.

In July of 1862 the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was signed into law by Abraham Lincoln. Then in March of 1882 the Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882 was signed into law.

The Edmunds Act not only reinforced the 1862 Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act but also revoked polygamists’ right to vote, made them ineligible for jury service, and prohibited them from holding political office.

Their citizenship was unceremoniously stripped.
According to the anti-polygamists the Mormons were charged with “political treason” by establishing a separatist theocracy in Utah. Second, they saw a social treason (Race Treason) against the nation of White citizens when Mormons adopted a supposedly barbaric marital form (polygamy).

By the time George W. Romney was born, it was quite safe for the Romneys to come back to the United States. They chose not until the revolution in 1912 forced the issue.

The polygamists expatriated.
They went to Mexico planning to convert Mexico and stay in Mexico.

And the bottom line is that immigration law then, put a time limit for natural citizens to live in a foreign country. Especially with no indication they’d come back. The Mormons bought and owned property. Not to mention that Mexican law at the time severely restricted foreign ownership, they COLONIZED the place, all their literature freely admits that.

Go to the American colonists. How many of them came with the intent of going back? They came to stay. As did the Mormons who because citizens.

Now, here is the link and the pertinent points of law that show that law and protocol at the time considered the Mormons expatriates.

“…….Congress finally got into the act in 1907, passing a new law that essentially codified most of these administrative rules governing expatriation. Loss of citizenship depended on the act—naturalizing elsewhere or assuming lengthy foreign residence, for example—not the conscious choice of the individual to give up US nationality as a result…”

Dual citizenship was rare and frowned upon at the time, if it existed in real terms at all.
But the idea is moot since dual is not natural born.

If you are not yet familiar with what the constitution says about “natural born citizen”?
I suggest you bone up on it by visiting the links below.
Also keep in mind that all the naydsaying rhetoric from those who believe “the constitution” is a living growing document? THEIR OPINION of what is TODAY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW matters not and is about as valuable as confederate money.

4 Supreme Court Cases define “natural born citizen”

Having the Status of Birthright Citizenship Is Not Sufficient to Make One an Article II “Natural Born”

Are the “Birthers” barking up the wrong tree?

More Citizenship Information Backed Up By Congressional Records

I just ran across this new very comprehensive well documented article on “natural born citizen”.

Personally I have read everything I can get my hands on that defines this term way back in the time of our founders.

I do not take into account TODAY’S OPINION.
The reasons no doubt are obvious … opinions are like … well you get the picture.
Give me the FACTS only.

I am stuck on John Bingham’s clear definition from congressional records in 1866.
Large view HERE
The world TODAY can argue until the cows come home about who agreed or did not agree with Bingham’s definition.

The reality is I find no congressional record quote that disagrees with Bingham.
Therefore I assume it is safe to believe there was no authoritative argument on record from that time.

Sifting through this data of old was not easy for me. I can not imagine it is easy for others either. So when I run across something that explains the data again in a different or more inclusive way I am more than happy to reprint it here for all of you to evaluate.

Thank You Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

This is FROM:
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
September 20, 2011

I just read an article regarding a debate going on in Liberia about Presidential and Vice-Presidential eligibility requirements. The issue is whether the residency has to be immediately before the election. The article may be read at http://allafrica.com/stories/201109200851.html.

The President or Vice-President eligibility requirements in Liberia are: (1) being a natural born citizen 35 years or more, (2) 10 years residence in Liberia 10 years prior to elections; (3) owner of unencumbered real property worth not less than 25,000; and (4) President and Vice-President must not come from the same county.

Note that the Liberian Constitution even considers those acquiring the status of “citizen” after birth as “natural born citizens.”

What struck me as interesting is that they treat their “natural born citizens” like the Founders and Framers treated plain “Citizens” of the United States (distinguished from “natural born” Citizens of the United States). What is also interesting is that Liberia considers a person to be a “natural born citizen” even if that status was not acquired at birth. Indeed, they have created a contradiction and oxymoron right in their own Constitution.

I suspect that Liberia is treating a “natural born citizen” just like the British treated their “natural born subject.” For the British, who followed the feudal and monarchial system of subjectship with allegiance to a sovereign King rather than a true republican system with voluntary membership and allegiance to the sovereign nation and its people through free choice made by a child’s parents who then pass that decision to their children, it did not matter if one was truly a “natural born subject” or even a naturalized subject, for they considered all their subjects to be “natural born subjects,” which conveniently for the King carried with it allegiance to the King for life.

The Founders and Framers did not adopt the same oppressive system for the constitutional republic. They rejected that a person was born into the allegiance of a King or any nation for life. They also rejected that one could be born with allegiance to more than one nation or later in life maintain multiple allegiance at the same time. Throughout the Constitution, they were careful to distinguish between a “natural born” Citizen of the United States and a “Citizen” of the United States. In their eyes, a “natural born” Citizen was born with sole and absolute allegiance and jurisdiction to the United States and its people. They gave Congress the power to add additional members to the new republic through naturalization, which could be granted to a person only if he or she swore or affirmed to have the same sole and absolute allegiance to the United States which a “natural born” Citizen acquired by nature at birth. So for the Founders and Framers, all the “citizens” of the republic, either by birth or naturalization, had sole and undivided allegiance and jurisdiction to the United States. Through this process, people could make a decision based on free will whether they first and then through them their children wanted to become members of the republic.

The Constitution gave Congress the power to make uniform the naturalization laws. Congress first exercised that power in 1790. The act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103, c. 3, provided for the naturalization of aliens and then provided that “the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.”

The third section of the act of January 29, 1795, 1 Stat. 414, 415, c. 20, provided “that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States,” etc.

The fourth section of the act of April 14, 1802, 2 Stat. 153, 155, c. 28, carried into the Revised Statutes as section 2172, was: “That the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, or who, previous to the passing of any law on that subject, by the government of the United States, may have become citizens of any one of the said States, under the laws thereof, being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of their parents being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship, shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States.”

The provision that children born in the United States to alien parents was carried in all the following naturalization acts, including the that of 1804, 1855, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which required that the child be born in the United States and not be “subject to any foreign power.” Given the world-recognized doctrine of jus sanguinis (also utilized by our own Congress in 1790 to make children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents “natural born citizens” and starting with 1795 “citizens of the United States”), the only way such a child could be born not subject to any foreign power was to be born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents or to parents who had long lost any foreign nationality who at that time were American slaves and their descendents.

As we can see, Congress, in all of these acts, did not make any exception for children born in the United States. It simply said that any child of any person who naturalized would fall under the act. This is broad language and included also children that were born in the United States. If Congress meant to exclude children born in the United States from having to naturalize it surely knew how to do so by using simple language. Hence, Congress considered children born on U.S. soil to alien parents to be themselves aliens.

From a reading of the text of these acts, we can see that only non-naturalized persons, i.e., person not acquiring citizenship under these Congressional Acts could be “natural born” Citizens. From this legislative history, we can see that the only persons not needing naturalization, i.e., not needing any positive law to acquire U.S. citizenship, were the children born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents. This is confirmed by, among others, the following historical and judicial sources:

(1) Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Sec. 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758):

Ҥ 212. Citizens and natives.

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 the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

(2) David Ramsay, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789) . He said that after July 4, 1776, birthright citizenship was preserved only for a child born to U.S. citizens. He defined the “natural born citizens” as the children born to citizen parents. Concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, he said that birthright “[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 continued 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; Finally, he said 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.

(3) The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253 (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.’” Id. at 289.

(4) Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857). Justice Daniels concurring cited Vattel and the The Law of Nations and provided his definition of “natural born citizen” and removed Vattel’s references to “fathers” and “father” and replaced them with “parents” and “person.” He 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. 162 (1875). Even though the Fourteenth Amendment had already been passed, Minor did not rely upon that amendment to define either a “natural born Citizen” or a “citizen.” Rather, it applied the “common-law” definition of those terms. Providing the same Vattelian definition without citing Vattel, and not in any way referring to the English common law, it held:

“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., at 167-68.

Minor did not cite Vattel but as can be seen the Court’s precedential definition of a “citizen” and a “natural-born citizen” are taken directly out of Vattel’s The Law of Nations, Section 212. Hence, when Minor said “common-law,” it was not referring to the English common law but rather to American common law which had its basis in citizenship matters in natural law and the law of nations. Minor also distinguished between “natural-born citizens” and “citizens.” When Minor spoke of the “common-law,” it referred to the “citizens” and the “natives or natural-born citizens,” explaining that there never has been any doubts that the children born in the country to “citizens” were the “natives or natural-born citizens.” So Minor concluded that any person who is a “natural-born citizen” is necessarily also a “citizen.” The Court, was not, however, willing to say that a child born in the country to parents who were not U.S. citizens was even a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment, let alone a “natural-born citizen” under Article II. The Court added that “there have been doubts” as to whether that child is even a “citizen.” Having decided that such a child is not a “natural-born citizen,” it left the question of whether such a child is a “citizen” of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment to another day.

It is important to understand that if the English common law prevailed in the United States to define national citizenship, the Court would not have stated that “there have been doubts” whether children born in the country to alien parents were citizens. Under English common law, there was no doubt that such children would have been “natural born subjects,” for under that law the citizenship of the parents was not a factor in determining subjectship when the child was born in the dominion of the King.

So as we can see from this case law, and especially from the precedential definition confirmed by Minor, a “natural born Citizen” was well defined. All other persons not falling under the well-established American “common-law” definition of a “natural born Citizen,” who wanted to be “citizens” needed a Congressional Act (positive law) to gain membership in the United States which we call naturalization. And these latter persons became so naturalized either at birth or after birth only by Congress.

(6) All this continued unchanged until the U.S. Supreme Court, per Justice Horace Gray–who was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Chester Arthur whom history has recently shown was not a “natural born” Citizen (see the legal research of Attorney Leo Donofrio at http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/ )–decided the famous case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). The question that Minor did not answer was answered by Wong Kim Ark, in which the United States argued that a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was not a “citizen” of the United States either under the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the Fourteenth Amendment which had been adopted in 1868. Ruling against the government, Wong Kim Ark declared a child born in the country to domiciled alien parents to be a “citizen” of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Wong Kim Ark applied the Fourteenth Amendment and colonial-era English common law to determine whether a person born in the United States to domiciled alien parents was a “citizen” of the United States under that Amendment. With the Wong Kim Ark decision, even the judicial branch of government, like Lord Coke did in Calvin’s Case (1608), naturalized a person at birth. By doing so, it went beyond what as we have seen above Congress had always expressed in its naturalization statutes was a born “citizen” of the United States and expanded that “citizen” class. Indeed, Wong Kim Ark did not change the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Rather, it created another class of born “citizens,” those born in the United States to one or two alien parents. Congress had never considered these children to be born “citizens” of the United States. Rather, Congress had always required that these children naturalize, either derivatively when their parents became citizens if done before the child’s age of majority or on their own if done thereafter. These born “citizens” do not meet the definition of a “natural born” Citizen but because of the Wong Kim Ark decision are nevertheless granted a birthright citizenship through naturalization at birth. By naturalizing Wong at birth, the Wong Kim Ark decision, like Congressional Acts which also naturalize children at birth, also created the anomaly that these children are born with allegiance and jurisdiction to the United States and to the nations of their alien parents (through jus sanguinis citizenship), but are not despite our citizenship history required to give an oath of sole allegiance to the United States.

Hence, we now have three birthright citizenships, (1) one under Article II which gives the national status of “natural born Citizen” of the United States, (2) another under the Fourteenth Amendment, Wong Kim Ark, and 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a) which gives the national status of born “citizen” of the United States to person born in the United States to one or two domiciled alien parents and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” and (3) another under Congressional Acts (8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401et seq.) which also give the status of born “citizen” of the United States to children born out of the United States to one or two U.S. citizen parents. But because the Founders and Framers distinguished in Article II’s grandfather clause between “natural born” Citizens of the United States and “Citizens” of the United States (prior to the adoption of the Constitution, one could be a “Citizen” of the United States and be eligible to be President but for those born after its adoption, one had to be a “natural born” Citizen”), only a person who has Article II “natural born” Citizen status is eligible to be President. This means that only a person who was born in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents is eligible to be President.

This all brings us to putative President, Barack Obama. If Obama was born in Hawaii (a fact that he has yet to conclusively prove) and if his parents are Barack Obama and Stanley Ann Dunham (it is reported that these are his parents), he can be a Fourteenth Amendment and 8 U.S.C. Section 1401(a) born “citizen” of the United States, but he cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen” of the United States which is the constitutional standard that he must meet to be eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. His mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was a “citizen” of the United States at the time of Obama’s birth. But his father, being born in 1934 or 1936 in what was then the British colony of Kenya, was under the British Nationality Act of 1948, a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (“CUKC”). Obama himself by right of decent from his father under the same Act was also born a CUKC. Hence, because Obama was not born in the United States to United States citizen parents, he was not born under the sole and undivided allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States. Obama was not born with sole citizenship in the United States. Consequently, he was not born with unity of allegiance to and citizenship in the United States. Obama, therefore, cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen” and is not eligible under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military, just as much as if he had not been at least 35 years of age or 14 years a resident of the United States.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
September 20, 2011

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

You can view this article with references HERE:
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

I got probably the most incredible e-mail I have ever received today. An alert from World Net Daily notified me that Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, who has been a senator since 1996 (that is 15 years), has come out and answered the Obama eligibility issue. He said that the State Department has certified that Obama is eligible to hold the office of President of the United States and that the Constitution is not the determining factor in this issue. Once again I refer back to the AFLAC duck of a previous article HUH????????? What is wrong with our members of Congress? How has this guy managed to spend 3 terms in the senate if he doesn’t know the basic tenets of the Constitution?

This man is a senior Republican, not a new guy on the block or a looney tune Democrat. I have been roundly criticized in some forums for my habit of denouncing Republicans as much as Democrats. I have consistently warned of the RINO’s in the Republican Party, those who make the policy that is forced upon the members of the caucus. Nothing gets done without the blessing of the leaders of the Republican caucus. They have to sign off on anything the party supports in either house in Congress.

Jeff Sessions is one of the darlings of the McConnell faction of the Hugo Chavez government in Washington D. C. because he is “civil and bi-partisan”. Folks, this is the very problem with our federal government, and many states for that matter. He sits up there making laws for We the People to follow and he either doesn’t know or doesn’t care what our founding document, The Constitution of The United States of America, says about eligibility to hold the highest office in our land.

As we teeter on the edge of a dictatorship we find a long time senator, a Republican senator, supposedly a conservative senator, making a statement like this. I don’t know what to think about our chances of turning our nation around if this is what we have for support on our side. Well, actually I do know, we have no chance whatsoever. If this man is the best the Republican Party can do, and if this is the party attitude, on the issue of Barak Obama’s eligibility to hold office then our republic is lost.

I have been saddened by the lack of courage of Republican Party office holders, and the RNC itself, to come out and denounce Obama as the usurper he is. I see this lack of speaking out as either cowardice or complicity in our trip down the road to dictatorship and tyranny. Not one Republican of any prominence has come out to speak of this issue, at least not in the Constitutional aspect. They all apparently hide behind the State Department opinion.

This issue is one that will resonate with We the People because it is a valid issue and of critical importance. A few weeks ago Hugo Chavez announced himself as “president for life” in Venezuela. As I wrote in a previous article we are about 3-5 years behind Venezuela and gaining ground fast. I have watched Venezuela go from freedom to tyranny over the last 10 years. Obama and his crew of despots are ruling by executive order and bureaucratic fiat while the Republican Party sits on its hands and does virtually nothing more than posture and issue “we disagree” statements. This is the precise route taken by the “opposition party” in Venezuela over the years. Appeasement got them a dictator but those legislators are doing just fine. The people aren’t doing so well, but the ruling class in both parties live a fine life. Go along to get along is working out real well for the politicians there. It seems to be working out fine here also, at least for the politicians.

Kenneth Melson, Director BATFE

I wrote Darrell Issa and Charles Grassley a couple of weeks ago about the Operation Gunrunner/Fast and Furious debacle. I told them that Kenneth Melson, Eric Holder, and Barak Obama should be led out of their offices in handcuffs, be charged with violating gun laws, and be charged with treason over this blatant attempt to subvert the laws of the land and the Constitution. I hear nothing back from them. I write letters to members of Congress asking that they investigate the Obama birth certificate forgery, a forgery so obvious even I can see it. I don’t need forensic studies to tell me it is a fake; I can see it with my own eyes. I hear nothing back from them.

People tell me I need to shut up, stop criticizing Republicans and vote Democrats out of office. Why vote Democrats out of office if it means voting in another Jeff Sessions, another Mitch McConnell, another John McCain, another John Boehner, or another Lindsey Graham? Does it matter if we are a dictatorship 5 years from now or 7 years from now? Wow, I can add another 2 years or so of pseudo freedom if I will blindly support Republicans, what a plus for the country.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we face a crisis that can’t wait. We need 300 million people sending this to Congress. We need every Republican and every Independent sending this to the RNC, to their state Republican Party chairmen. We need to throw these people out now or we will not have a republic in 5 -7 years. We will find ourselves sitting in FEMA camps wondering what happened. We will find the freedom won with the blood and lives of patriots over 235 years is gone, probably forever.

I have never been, nor will I ever be, a partisan political hack. I believe in the Constitution, as written, and as intended by God and our founding fathers. I am told that if I refuse to support the Republican candidate for president, regardless of who it is, that I am helping Barak Obama get re-elected. How much difference does it make if we have Obama or Gingrich, Obama or Romney? Is the extra few years it will take to destroy America all that is important? How much difference will it make if we have Marxist or Marxist light in control of government? Two peas in a pod to me.

We need people like Tim Cox of GOOOH to be successful. He is looking for grassroots people to run for the House of Representatives, common people who know what it is like to live life in the every day, not some lawyer who never did anything but politics. Our rulers now get law degrees and run for office, local, state, and then federal. They are career politicians who do nothing else their entire lives. They have no clue what it is like to manage a household budget, deal with rising prices on everything, or try to get an education for their children in schools that teach communism instead of the Constitution, schools that teach “diversity, tolerance, and acceptance” instead of teaching the Bible and right from wrong, or how to read and write.

We need to repeal the 17th Amendment and once again have senators appointed by the states as designed by our founding fathers. They spend much of their time raising campaign money and the rest of their time paying off the big money donors with political favors, i.e. Wall Street, Unions, banks that are “too big to fail” etc. They owe their allegiance to donors not We the People of their respective states. The Senate was designed to represent the interests of the states, not the people directly. We need the state governments to stand on the 10th Amendment and demand their status as written in the Constitution. Unfortunately the party machinery owns most of the state governments also. If they want to run for higher office they play the party game to get the support of the national office for their campaigns.

I am looking for the people who will stand up and be counted on to make the Constitution and We the People the focus of government. I am looking for those who will stand for individual freedom, individual responsibility, free markets, secure borders, and limited government, not stand for a party that is “not as bad a the other party”. I am looking for people who will use the energy sources God gave this nation as a means to support our people so we don’t have to be at the mercy of countries and people who hate us. I don’t want to be Brazil’s best oil customer. I want our own sources of energy tapped and used in a safe and efficient manner, which is entirely doable with today’s technology.

Sadly, Senator Jeff Sessions in not the exception in Congress, he is the rule. This is the way they think, about themselves not We the People and the Constitution. Until these kinds of people are eradicated from government we will never be a free people. It is critical that we let them know this is not acceptable, and even more critical that we do something about it. Do you remember what Senator Trent Lott, another RINO of the first order, said after the TEA Party run in the November 2010 mid-term elections? He said “ we will just co-opt these people when they get to Washington”. Who voted against John Boehner as Speaker of the House of Representatives or Mitch McConnell as minority leader? Is Lott’s statement the attitude of a conservative elected to public office? Is this the Republican Party people demand I blindly support? That doesn’t sound like cowardice to me, it sounds like complicity in the enslavement of We the People under a tyrannical government only interested in preserving the power, wealth, and prestige of the ruling class. Senator Lott’s statement is not the statement of a servant of the people. It is the statement of an arrogant ruler who will have his way regardless of what We the People want or what the Constitution says or means.

People, time is short. Every person in this country who values freedom needs to get busy changing what is happening to us. I can write all day, I can send this to every person in Congress, but until you make your voices heard, one voice with one message, nothing is going to change. I am one voice but you are millions of voices. We need to speak together to tell both parties that this is not acceptable. If you blindly support either party you will get more of the same. Politicians like to talk about “mandates”. I have not seen anything in the “mandates” of either party that truly includes We the People.

Today is the day the Lord has made, what will you do with it? I started my day, with my wife, in prayer for our nation, our “leaders”, our military, their families, and our family. I have spent the rest of the morning and half of my afternoon figuring out how to make a difference in the future of our nation. Will you take the time to send this to your congressional delegation, the RNC, your state elected officials? Will you make the effort to send this to everyone you know and urge them to stand up for freedom? Will I be the only one who puts pressure on Congress to do what is right or will you stand with me for freedom? God Bless America
I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.
In God We Trust

Bob Russell               Claremore, Oklahoma              July 5, 2011