February 15, 2010
Click image to enlarge. Visit ProtectOurLiberty.org to make donations to fund future advertorials about Barack Obama's lack of eligibility for the presidency.
Anyone with questions regarding the legal definition of a natural born Citizen should contact attorney Mario Apuzzo, who is representing Charles Kerchner et al vs Obama et al.
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."
Nice try smrstrauss, now calling yourself ann1. I see you have changed your pen name and email address in order to post disinformation again. Your ip address is identical to the one used by smrstrauss in Arlington, MA, so readers beware! Smrstrauss/Ann1 is an obot (paid or volunteer). He/she is not an attorney and is telling lies. For example, go to http://wsj.com and enter "some birthers imagine that there is a difference" in the search box, and you will discover that no such quote exists. What smrstrauss is likely doing is quoting himself/herself.
ReplyDeleteIf you are unfamiliar with the history of smrstrauss, read my article again.
http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2010/02/expose-obot-smrstrauss-finally-unmasked.html
ann1:
ReplyDeleteYou mis-state many of the points you raise and it is obvious that you have little background in the "nbC' matter.
If you go to the Mario Apuzzo website and actually read the Initial Appeals Brief of Jan 19, 2010, you're in for a real eye-opener (as are the DOJ attorneys "defending" Obama using our tax money).
That's doubly ironic since these attorneys - and their bosses - took an oath to defend the Constitution from enemies foreign AND domestic but they are now in the position of actually attacking that very document rather than defending it and are trying to get an obviously ineligible man to remain in an office he has never shown himself to be eligible to hold.
The wonderful Apuzzo Brief is a primer on both Constitutional law, the meaning of it, the Founders' intent vis-a-vis Article II of the Constitution and a forceful put-down of the lies and misinformation put forth by the Obama Flying Monkeys such as "smrstrauss" and others.
I’d urge everyone to read the Initial Appeals Brief from Attorney Apuzzo’s website along with the many essays by both Mario Apuzzo AND his Lead Plaintiff, Charles F. Kerchner. While there, it would really help to donate even a small amount to the publicity/education fund presently used only for full-page newspaper ads in the Washington Times National Weekly Edition.
The Brief gives a very good overview of the original action AND it puts the lie to the many false arguments by the Obot Flying Monkeys about why BHO is either (their words) eligible to hold the office he now occupies OR that it (their words) doesn’t matter that he is not eligible. Your understanding of the relation of the U. S. Constitution to We The People will be forever enlightened.
Actually, Obama's whole life seems to be nothing but a work of fiction. The man has never shown himself to be Constitutionally eligible to hold the office he now occupies.
If you'd like to see something from a different point of view, watch the two short videos below which, even though they start slowly and have a bit of fun, contain a wealth of factual data - more than we've seen from Obama.
In fact in the second video a famous senator is quoted speaking about someone that sounds for all the world like "Our Boy" and really strikes a chord.
Only thing is the senator was the Roman named Cicero speaking in 42 BC - but the message is still very directed and pertinent for all of us:
Three Little Words
Merry Christmas OmeriKa!!