Are you a “BIRTHER” or a “MARK”.

In the old neighborhood we would get a empty Sony TV box, glue cement blocks or bricks in it, reseal it and sell it on the street for $100.00 with the story that it was a $600.00 Sony TV that fell off a FedEx truck. Anyone that bought it without opening it was labeled a “Mark” A Bernie Madoff client, a Schmuck.

The ones that wanted to see what’s in the box before they bought it, today would be labeled a “Birther”

Are you a “BIRTHER” or a “MARK”. Do you believe Obama was born in Kapi’olani hospital? If you do I have a bridge I would like to sell you. It goes from Brooklyn to Manhattan, ready for a toll booth to be installed.

A “Mark” BELIEVED BILL CLINTON WHEN HE SAID: “I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THAT WOMAN” Then they found the stained dress. He lied and they became a “Birther”.

A “Mark” BELIEVED JOHN EDWARDS WHEN HE SAID: “THAT’S NOT MY BABY” Then the Enquirer exposed him. He lied and they became a “Birther”.

A “Mark” BELIEVED WILLIAM “FREEZER” JEFFERSON WHEN HE SAID: “I DON’T KNOW HOW THAT CASH GOT IN MY FREEZER” Then they threw him in the slammer and they knew he lied and they became a “Birther”.

A “Mark” BELIEVED LINDA LINGEL WHEN SHE SAID: "So I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi'olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that's just a fact and yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue and I think it's again a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this."
Then they learned she lied, Fukino's statement never identified Kapiolani as Obama's birthplace and they became a “Birther”.

Fukino said, "[I have]...personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record...,"

Beyond the lie, if Lingle disclosed Obama's birth hospital without his permission, she has committed a misdemeanor. If Obama gave permission for this public disclosure, then Hawaii no longer has a basis for maintaining the privacy of Obama's birth records.

Welcome to the new members of the growing army of “BIRTHERS”

Chris Mathews, Rush Limbaugh, Hawaii Governor Abercrombie Senator Will Espero and Hawaii Legislators; Rida Cabanilla, Jerry Chang, Joey Manahan, John Mizuno and Calvin Say to name a few.

Proud to be a “Birther”

Sunday, May 29, 2011

Natural Born Citizen

Sunday, May 29, 2011

Obama’s Enablers Put Forth Another Straw Man Argument: One’s Parents Do Not Have to Be Born in the U.S. to Be a “Natural Born Citizen”

Obama’s Enablers Put Forth Another Straw Man Argument: One’s Parents Do Not Have to Be Born in the U.S. to Be a “Natural Born Citizen”

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_-5V9K42htM0/TBcTVOkEIwI/AAAAAAAAARg/4IKXtSl700s/s1600/Apuzzo-Mario-287x249+in+chair.jpg
                 By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                                              May 29, 2011

Putative President Barack Obama’s enablers are out and about making their straw man arguments in order to win the presidential eligibility issue. “A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To ‘attack a straw man’ is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the ‘straw man’), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man.


In arguing that putative President Barack Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen, his defenders maintain that the “birthers” are wrong in believing otherwise because there is no requirement that one’s parents must be born in the U.S. to be a "natural born Citizen." This is a straw man argument given that it suggests that this is the “birthers’” argument when in fact it is not. This is not the only straw man argument that we have seen Obama’s enablers advance. We have seen their effort to win the Obama eligibility issue by misrepresenting the constitutional argument (e.g., they argue that a “natural born citizen” is the same as a “citizen” and then they set out to show what historically a “citizen” is and publicly concentrate on the place of birth issue but suppress from the same public the constitutional argument on the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen”); they present for public display “birthers” who may defend the constitutional position poorly as best defenders of that position; they invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then ridiculed and criticized (they have invented the “birther” who they attack as being a racists and/or attached to nothing but conspiracy theories or in the words of Obama himself: "We're not going to solve our problems if we get distracted by carnival barkers and sideshows." [Barack Obama, April 27, 2011, in reference to Donald Trump]); and they oversimplify our constitutional position and attack that position (e.g. they mock the “birthers” for saying that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to citizen parents and add that a simple facial reading of the Constitution’s text contains no such requirement). They also use the slippery slope fallacy, saying that there is no reason for Obama to release any medical or other evidence proving his Hawaiian birth because the “birthers” will never be satisfied with no matter how much documentary evidence of his alleged Hawaiian birth Obama may present to the public. None of this is even to mention the unfounded charges of racism and other and various ad hominem attacks against anyone who would dare question Obama’s Article II constitutional eligibility to be President.


Now let us see how Obama’s enablers’ statement that the “birthers” put forth the argument that the President’s parents must be born in the United States is nothing but a straw man argument. First, we do not maintain that the parents need to be American born. Rather, we maintain that they must be "citizens of the United States," which status they can acquire by being "natural born Citizens" or naturalized at birth or after birth. The parents must be “citizens of the United States,” under any one of three scenarios: (1) “natural born Citizens” under Article II by being born in the U.S. or its jurisdictional equivalent to U.S. citizen parents; (2) naturalized at birth, under the 14th Amendment or 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a) by being born in the U.S. to one or two alien parents or other Congressional Acts by being born out of the U.S. to one or two U.S. citizen parents; or (3) naturalized after birth under some Congressional Act or treaty by being born out of the U.S. to two alien parents.


Second, these same individuals also confuse an Article II “natural born Citizen” with a "born citizen" under the 14th Amendment or 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a) which as currently interpreted do not require U.S. citizen parents in order to be declared a “citizen of the United States” at birth. This latter citizen, lacking the natural quality of being born to two U.S. citizen parents, is actually naturalized at birth by way of Congressional naturalization power at first questionably exercised by Congress through the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and then unquestionably exercised by it through the 14th Amendment. Today, we commonly refer to this citizen as a “native-born citizen,” not to be confused with a “native” under natural law and the law of nations which has the same meaning as a “natural born citizen.” On the contrary, to be an Article II "natural born citizen," one must be born in the U.S. (or its jurisdictional equivalent) to a U.S. citizen father and mother. Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Sections 212-217 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758); Minor v. Happersett,
88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 167 (1875); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).  See also the many other legal and historical sources cited at this cite for support for this definition. The Founders and Framers wanted to make sure that no hereditary monarch could ever gain control of the new constitutional republic and to keep foreign influence out of the all-powerful and singular office of the Chief Executive and Commander of the military. These birth circumstances assure that the President and Commander of our military cannot be of royal parents (a U.S. citizen must renounce all titles of nobility) and has sole and undivided natural allegiance to the U.S. from the moment of birth by the child not inheriting any other foreign allegiance by jus soli (citizenship by right of the soil) or jus sanguinis (citizenship inherited by one’s parents). Only the President and Vice-President have to be an Article II "natural born Citizen." The great majority of Americans are “natural born Citizens.” For every other citizen in the U.S. who is not a “natural born Citizen,” the clause has no constitutional or other legal effect, for “citizens of the United States” all enjoy equality in rights, privileges, and immunities. Hence, the clause is in place only to protect the United States and its people by assuring that our representative constitutional republic will be lead by a President and Commander in Chief who from birth is attached to the best interests and only that of the United States.

Obama is not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen.” He maintains that he was born in Kapi’olani Hospital in Hawaii in 1961. But he has yet to conclusively establish that fact with a valid long-form Certificate of Live Birth or with any medical evidence. Rather, on April 27, 2011, after refusing to do so for over 2 ½ years and spending or causing to be spent countless millions of dollars of public and private funds and resources and even the 6-month imprisonment of a decorated military officer, LTC Terry Lakin, he released on the internet a forged internet image of his alleged long-form Certificate of Live Birth. This computer image is a forgery, as it contains evidence of electronic manipulation. Even if the internet image is a true representation of the alleged underlying Certificate of Live Birth, that underlying paper birth certificate, which is supposed to be a document filled in with a typewriter in 1961, is a forgery, for it contains evidence of kerning (a technique of spacing letters next to each other for aesthetic purposes) which cannot possibly be done on a typewriter in 1961. Also, there exist significant questions regarding whether Obama is using a valid social security number and whether his selective service military registration was also forged.


In any event, assuming the released birth certificate image to be valid, it conclusively establishes that Obama’s legitimate father was Barack Obama Sr. So, even assuming that Obama was born in Hawaii, he can be a “born” “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment or 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a), but he cannot be a “natural born” “citizen of the United States” under Article II. Under the British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama was born in 1961 to Barack Obama Sr., a British citizen father who was born in 1934 or 1936 in the then-British colony of Kenya and by descent from his father he himself was born a British citizen. He was therefore born with conflicting and divided loyalties to the U.S. and Great Britain, which under the Kenya Independence Act of 1963, converted to citizenship and allegiance to Kenya at age 2 which lasted until at least age 23. Consequently, Obama, was naturalized at birth and, like a person who is naturalized after birth is not eligible to be President, was not born with sole and undivided allegiance to the U.S. Obama is thus not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Obama is therefore not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.


Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
May 29, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

No comments:

Post a Comment