As you know, I listen to your program on a regular basis and usually agree with everything you say, but while I was catching up on your shows this weekend and heard this, I was pretty surprised and I think you’re totally missing the point on this one. I really don’t know too much about Erick Erickson or his Redstate blog, but after hearing his opinion and offensive attack on his readers about the birth certificate issue, it makes me wonder what the “Red” in Redstate is indicative of.
As a rational thinking conservative, I resent being labeled a “birther” or any other kind of an “er” for that matter. And to put any logical person that asks legitimate questions into the same category as a “9-11 truther,” is just pure ignorance. These are two very different things. Treating people like the lunatic fringe for simply asking to see proof of Obama’s eligibility is just wrong, and Erickson is doing exactly what the liberal left news media wants him to do. He’s using Alinsky’s Rule #5, from “Rules for Radicals” by ridiculing those that dare question Obama’s eligibility. Judging by the way these people are continually mocked by the media, anyone would think they’re a pack of toothless inbreds that all claim to have been abducted by UFO’s and given anal probes before they became “birthers.” They’re not!
The American public aren’t asking for much, they’re just asking to see a birth certificate. A simple document, so basic that you can’t even register a kid for Little League Baseball without one. This guy is sitting in the White House. The most powerful position on earth and we know absolutely nothing about him. While any one of us would gladly produce whatever documentation necessary to prove that we are who we say we are, Obama has gone to great measures and spent 2 million dollars to hide all of his documents. He signed Executive Order #13489 on Jan. 21, 2009, to seal all his records on his very first day in office. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-1712.pdf Why would anyone do that if they have nothing to hide? Because we have never seen any of his records, it would be impossible to say with any degree of certainty where Obama was born. For all we know, he might not even be an American citizen at all, he could be an illegal alien. I don’t know, but I do know with absolute certainty that he is NOT a “natural born” citizen.
By virtue of his father being a
Kenyan national at the time of
Obama’s birth, he could never be
considered a “natural born” citizen
Kenyan national at the time of
Obama’s birth, he could never be
considered a “natural born” citizen
But it really doesn’t matter what I think, what Erickson thinks, or anyone else thinks. The only thing that matters is the Constitution, and Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution is very clear on the requirements to be the POTUS. There are no exceptions outlined in this and it’s not open for debate. You either are, or are not a “natural born” citizen.
So let’s forget about all the evidence against Obama and the growing suspicion surrounding him for a minute. By virtue of his father being a Kenyan national at the time of Obama’s birth, he could never be considered a “natural born” citizen. BOTH parents must be at least “naturalized” citizens at the time of a child's birth, for that child to be considered “natural born” under Vattel’s “Law of Nations.” So, it doesn’t matter if Obama was born in Hawaii, Kenya, on the Moon or on top of the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office. He is not a “natural born” citizen, making him constitutionally ineligible to legally hold the office of POTUS. It’s that simple!
Most Obama supporters couldn’t care less about his citizenship status, they say it doesn’t matter, but then again, if it were up to most of them, they would just burn the Constitution so they could proceed to rob us of our freedom and liberties. Nobody has the right to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution we honor and which parts we don’t. Each and every part of the Constitution must be kept sacred and it is every Americans duty to see that this is upheld at any cost. It must be honored in its entirety, or none of it is safe.
I wonder how Erick Erickson would like it if our government decided to play their “pick & choose” game with the Bill of Rights and decided to rescind the 1st Amendment. I’ll bet if he were deprived of his freedom of speech and could no longer write whatever he wanted to on his website, he’d be singing a different tune. Then he might realize that ALL of the Constitution mattered.
We’re all fully aware that Obama got elected and is currently holding the office of President, and at this stage of the game it would be pretty tough to get him out of there before he completes his first term. This should’ve and could’ve been done before he was put in office, but he was never properly vetted by the DNC and the same people shunned those that were trying to force him to show proof of eligibility back then.
The fact is, he is NOT a legitimate President and has managed to commit one of the greatest scams in history against our nation. He should be immediately removed from office and tried for treason, along with every other person that is complicit in this cover up. For anyone to say it’s racist to ask Obama for his birth certificate because nobody else ever had to show theirs, find another excuse. John McCain had to show his. He had to prove that he was born on a U.S. Military Base in Panama and that his father and mother were both U.S. citizens at the time of his birth. Why didn’t Obama? Is he special? Is he above the law? I thought those days were over, but it’s sure starting to look like Affirmative Action in action to me.
Jim McMahon - Chicago
Posts
Birth in the USA is sufficient to create a Natural born Citizen.
ReplyDeleteThe definition of Natural Born Citizen is:
"“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition."
All US-born citizens are Natural Born Citizens. That is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:
“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)
Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004
The Wall Street Journal put it this way:
"Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning."
All US citizens who were born in the USA are Natural Born Citizens. ALL of them. The parents of the child have no effect on Natural Born Citizen status.
ReplyDeleteThe definition of Natural Born Citizen is:
"“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition."
All US-born citizens are Natural Born Citizens. That is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:
“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)
Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004
The Wall Street Journal put it this way:
"Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning."
A Natural Born Citizen is simply a citizen who has not been naturalized. Naturalized citizens are not eligible. Natural Born Citizens are eligible. US born children of foreign citizens are eligible regardless of the number of their parents who were citizens at the moment of birth.
ReplyDeleteThe definition of Natural Born Citizen is:
"“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition."
All US-born citizens are Natural Born Citizens. That is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:
“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)
Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004
The Wall Street Journal put it this way:
"Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning."
APUZZO RESPONSE TO OBOT SMRSTRAUSS: Your error is in equating a "citizen of the United States" to an Article II "natural born Citizen." The Constitution, even specifically in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 which prescribes the Presidential eligibility criteria, has always used both expressions. There are other sections of the Constitution that also make the distinction. Note that before the Constitution was adopted, the clause “citizen of the United States” necessarily included both born and naturalized citizens. But the Framers included yet another class of citizen for the future, “natural born Citizen.” This was a child born in the U.S. to citizen parents. Under standard rules of interpretation, the words "natural born" must be given meaning. You cannot simply conflate “citizen of the United States” and “natural born Citizen” into “citizen of the United States” and give the former clause the meaning that the latter clause has taken on under an incorrect although current interpretation of the 14th Amendment. There is no evidence that the 14th Amendment, which was adopted 80 years after the Constitution was adopted, was either intended to or in fact did amended Article II.
ReplyDeleteAfter the adoption of the Constitution, given the universal applicability of the law of nations as part of our federal common law, there was not supposed to be any confusion as to who was a future (post Constitution adoption) born U.S. citizen, i.e., a child born in the country to citizen parents. It is because some “authorities” (Minor v. Happersett explains this point and none of these “authorities” ever included any U.S. Supreme Court) and Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark opened the privilege of membership to U.S. citizenship to children born in the U.S. to alien parents that we must now distinguish between two different classes of born U.S. citizens. Justice Gray knew that he was not creating any "natural born Citizen." Rather, he just created another category of born citizens under the 14th Amendment, by clearly departing from the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" which had been established by the main sponsors of the laws in the debates on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment and subsequent decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. All former case law and history clearly showed that there was no way for a child to be born in the U.S. to one or both alien parents, whether the parents were foreign ambassadors, consuls, alien occupying soldiers, or just plain foreign citizens, and to be completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the U.S.
Continued ...
PART 2: APUZZO RESPONSE TO OBOT SMRSTRAUSS; Even Justice Gray in his former opinion in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) knew it. What Justice Gray did in Wong Kim Ark is suspect because he was appointed by President Chester Arthur who unknown to the American public at the time was not born to a citizen father. See the research of Leo Donofrio on this point. This is what Justice Gray said there 14 years earlier regarding Indians which equally applies to non-diplomatic/soldier aliens present on U.S. soil:
ReplyDelete"The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts; or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired. Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indiana tribes, (an alien though dependent power,)although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more 'born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' within the meaning of the first section of the fourteenth amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.”
Since Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark could not changed the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” he created another category of born U.S. citizens, i.e., those born on U.S. soil to alien parents who were domiciled and permanently residing in the United States. But this new born U.S. citizen was not the born U.S. citizen to whom the Framers entrusted the future power of the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military. See the well-reasoned and correct statement of the law provided by Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Harlan in Wong Kim Ark. Hence, Wong Kim Ark did not change the original constitutional meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” nor did any other later Supreme Court case. Currently, we therefore still have the original definition of a “natural born Citizen” as intended by the Framers.
Your Black's Law Dictionary definition does not provide any source as authority. In fact, all available authority shows that Black's is wrong in defining "natural born Citizen" the way that it does.
What these Senators today say a "natural born Citizen" is does not make it what they say it is. Remember what Judge Land said, just saying something is so does not make it so.
As far as The Wall Street Journal goes, if they want to back up what they wrote, they can invite me for a debate and we will see who is "eccentric." - Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Kerchner vs Obama/Congress
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
Exposé: Obot SMRSTRAUSS Finally Unmasked!
ReplyDeleteAn individual using the tag smrstrauss has been an extraordinarily busy fellow and an annoying enigma on the internet since late 2008, but now his identity is known. Mr. smrstrauss has contributed countless hours, days, weeks, months, and thousands of comments to defend Barack Obama against everyone who questions the President’s eligibility. Smrstrauss sometimes writes long essay comments, and he often cites case law, so if you didn’t know better, you would be excused for thinking he’s an attorney. I can assure you he is not!....
....Since at least October, 2008, smrstrauss has regularly commented about the eligibility question on virtually every conservative blog which raises the issue. He has also commented on mainstream media sites that discuss the controversy. In fact, smrstrauss has left so many comments on the internet that a keyword search for his tag returns a huge, and continuously growing, number of hits. For example, on January 29, 2010, the search returned 17,500 hits! Just ten days later on February 8, 2010, the search returned 18,900 hits. And today, February 11, 2010, the search returned 19,100 hits. Now to be fair to smrstrauss, some of those hits will be responses to his comments and thus cite his name. Not long after this article is published, I’m confident the number of hits will be even larger. Try a keyword search yourself to test the results.
Full report on the Obot; http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2010/02/expose-obot-smrstrauss-finally-unmasked.html
That may be true about that person - I don't care. I tend to believe that anyone born here is going to be eligible. Why? Because that's the way that most Americans understand it. If a court finds in the other direction, fine. But that hasn't happened yet.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.scribd.com/full/26885850?access_key=key-hmcg9pxal5qqetedi9q
ReplyDelete