| Obama attorneys argue he's NOT Dem nominee |
| Attorneys arguing on behalf of Barack Obama’s
re-election plans today urged a Florida judge to decide that Obama is
not yet the Democratic nominee for president – and ignore evidence
challenging his eligibility.
Click here to read the full article. |
DONATE TO COLD CASE POSSE
Donations:
The MCSO Cold Case Posse (CCP) is a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. We are awarded no tax dollars and have no paid staff. We are supported by membership dues as well as donations from corporations and individuals in the county we serve.
If you would like to make a contribution to the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Cold Case Posse, please click on the "Donate" button directly below. Your donation is greatly appreciated. Remember, in most cases, your donation to CCP is deductible. Please consult with your tax professional regarding any tax related questions.
By clicking on the below "DONATE" Link, you will be leaving the MCSO Cold Case Posse website. Within a few seconds, your browser will be redirected to a secured Paypal site at which point you can safely and securely make your donation.
Thank you very much for your donation.
To learn more about 501(c)(3) Non Profit Organization
You may also mail your donation to us at:
MCSO Cold-Case Posse
P.O. Box 74374
Phoenix, Arizona 85087
Adjectives mean something. A “Citizen at Birth” is not logically identically equal to a “natural born Citizen at Birth”. Barack Obama may be a ‘Citizen of the United States’ but he is not a ‘natural born Citizen of the United States’ and does not meet the constitutional standards as to who can be the President and Commander in Chief of our military: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-maybe-citizen-of-united-states.html
The natural born Citizen clause in our Constitution is a national security clause inserted into our Constitution by John Jay and George Washington. Read why the natural born Citizen clause is still important and worth protecting.
Five Citizenship Terms Mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-US-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same
Of Trees and Plants and Basic Logic and Citizenship Types: http://www.scribd.com/doc/44814496/Of-Trees-and-Plants-and-Basic-Logic-Citizen-at-Birth-NOT-Identical-to-Natural-Born-Citizen
See evidence Obama forged the birth certificate posted on White House servers 27 Apr 2011: http://www.scribd.com/collections/3166684
See evidence Obama is using a SSN 042-68-4425 not legally issued to him: http://www.scribd.com/collections/3260742
Click on image for details
See evidence of Obama’s forged and back dated draft registration here: http://www.debbieschlussel.com/4428/exclusive-did-next-commander-in-chief-falsify-selective-service-registration-never-actually-register-obamas-draft-registration-raises-serious-questions/
The Obama constitutional eligibility issue is not a fringe issue! South Carolina Poll Results – A poll done by Public Policy Polling (PPP) shows that almost 2/3 of GOP voters want Obama’s constitutional eligibility and true legal identity investigated. This is not a fringe issue: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=340805
December 12, 2011 (TPATH) The honorable John Jay, the first leader of the United States Supreme Court, initiated the insertion of "Natural Born Citizen" into the Constitution for the purpose of setting a higher standard for the office of the President.
All of the verbal gymnastics being put forth by the left, as to the meaning of the term, will eventually be proven to be just what it is.
Unlawful defense of an individual and political party at the expense and detriment of this country.
When you watch this video you will begin to wonder how this country continues to allow such simple and precise language to be twisted, manipulated and convoluted.
WATCH THE VIDEO PART ONE
WATCH THE VIDEO PART TWO
A Place to Ask Questions To Get the Right Answers published
An election for President and Commander in Chief of the Military must strive to be above reproach. Our public institutions must give the public confidence that a presidential candidate has complied with the election process that is prescribed by our Constitution and laws. It is only after a presidential candidate satisfies the rules of such a process that he/she can expect members of the public, regardless of their party affiliations, to give him/her the respect that the Office of President so much deserves.
All those who have been following the Obama eligibility issue well know that Article II, Section 1, clause 5 provides that “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President. . .” At this blog, I have already explained the importance of the “natural born Citizen” clause. See my essay entitled, Why the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause of Our Constitution Is Important and Worth Preserving, located at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/why-natural-born-citizen-clause-is.html. In order for Obama to prove that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen,” he must conclusively demonstrate that he was born in the United States to a United States citizen mother and father. For legal support for this definition of what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is, see, among others, my articles at this blog entitled, The Natural Born Citizen Clause of Our U.S. Constitution Requires that Both of the Child’s Parents Be U.S. Citizens At the Time of Birth, located at
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html;
Article II “Natural Born Citizen” Means Unity of Citizenship At Birth, located at
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-means.html;
and ‘The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law’ as U.S. Federal Common Law Not English Common Law Define What an Article II Natural Born Citizen Is, located at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.html.
At present, there is much controversy regarding where Obama was born. We have seen much contradictory information regarding this issue. Obama maintains he was born in Hawaii at Kapi’olani Medical Center and as his best evidence he has posted on the internet a computer-imaged Certification of Live Birth (COLB, which is a summary of his alleged long-from hospital-generated birth certificate) to prove that fact. According to the laws of Hawaii, this summary document, which does not contain information as to which hospital he was born in or what doctor delivered him, is only prima facie evidence of a birth in Hawaii. On the other hand, there exists evidence that Obama was born in Kenya. For a presentation of this evidence, see my essay on this blog entitled,
Obama Has Not Met His Burden Of Proving He Was Born In Hawaii, located at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2008/12/obama-has-not-met-his-burden-of-proving.html. Additionally, just over the last few days, we have seen surface on the internet old newspaper articles that were written in African newspapers in 2004 stating that Obama was born in Kenya. http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/video-documents-discovery-of-ap-story-declaring-obama-kenyan-born/; http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/2-more-african-news-agencies-declare-obama-kenyan-born/; http://thepmnews.com/2008/11/25/two-nigerians-tipped-as-potential-%E2%80%98british-obama%E2%80%99. Because of this conflicting information, the prima facie validity of the COLB must fail. Hence, Obama should present evidence that corroborates his and the State of Hawaii’s position that he was born in Hawaii and that he is a “natural born Citizen. He has without good reason refused to provide this evidence.
It has been reported how past Hawaiian State practices with its birth certificate procedures have presented opportunities for birth certificate fraud. An example of such fraud is that of Chinese native, Sun Yat Sen, one of the founders of the Republic of China, who was born in China but was able to obtain a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth in 1904 based on his fraudulent affidavit and evidence submitted by witnesses to the Hawaiian authorities stating that he was born in Hawaii on November 24, 1870. http://www.scribd.com/doc/9830547/Sun-Yatsen-Certification-of-Live-Birth-in-Hawaii. See also the September 2000 report of the Office of Inspector General, entitled “Birth Certificate Fraud,” which provides an update on the nature and extent of birth certificate fraud, found at http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-07-99-00570.pdf. Because of critical importance of knowing for sure who the President is, the potential for birth certificate fraud, and since Obama’s original long-form birth certificate housed in the offices of the Hawaii Department of Health can be some type of certificate (even a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth) that is based on some family member’s affidavit of personal knowledge but which includes no documentary evidence of an actual birth in Hawaii, it becomes crucial to confirm whether there exists any corroborating evidence of Obama actually being born in Hawaii. Consequently, various members of the public have tried to obtain information that would adequately confirm Obama’s and the State of Hawaii’s statements that he was born in Hawaii. These concerned citizens have made requests to the State of Hawaii and to various hospitals there for such information. The State of Hawaii, Kapi’olani Medical Center, and Queens Medical Center (originally claimed by Obama’s sister to by his birth place) have publicly stated that they cannot release the needed details of Obama’s birth, including whether his deceased mother was even a maternity patient in any of those hospitals, because of Obama’s state and federal privacy rights. Not being successful, some of these concerned citizens, feeling duty bound to the Constitution and our country, have filed law suits and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) actions against Obama and others to obtain this information.
Given that Obama and/or his agents have already publicly released some information regarding his place of birth, one commentator, William, has asked me on my blog ( http://puzo1.blogspot.com/. ) whether Obama has waived his privacy rights to such birth information. At least two arguments can be advance that Obama has waived any privacy right that he might have in his birth information located in the State of Hawaii and in its hospitals. One is that he has waived his privacy rights to his alleged long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate by posting his COLB on the internet for the world to see. A problem with this argument is that the COLB does not disclose all his private information (name of hospital, doctors, etc.) and he can argue that his waiver is only as to the information contained on the COLB and no more. As a response, it can be argued that Obama waived his privacy right as to the identity of the hospital in which he was born given that he allegedly wrote a letter dated January 24, 2009 to Kapi’olani Medical Center in which he acknowledge being born there and which letter the hospital posted on its web page (suspiciously posting not a scan of an actual paper letter but only a computer-generated image created with HTML code) for the world to see. For more details, see the WND story on the letter at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=104146. I have grave doubts whether this letter is authentic given that both Obama and U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie D-Hawaii, who allegedly gave the letter to the hospital and publicly read the letter during the hospital’s centennial celebration, refuse to confirm whether this letter is real.
The second argument is more powerful and convincing. Under Article II, a would-be President must be a “natural born Citizen” to be eligible for the Presidency. Hence, any candidate knows that such “natural born Citizen” status is required to hold the public Office of President. No one winning an election and wanting to fill that public office has a reasonable expectation of privacy as to where he/she was born given that job’s eligibility requirement that one must be a “natural born Citizen.” See my article on this blog entitled, Obama’s Personal Right To Privacy Cannot Trump The Right Of The People To Know Who Their President Is, at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2008/12/obamas-personal-right-to-privacy-cannot.html. Of course, that person’s obligation to prove his/her “natural born Citizen” status includes providing credible, competent, and sufficient documentary and other evidence of, among other things, place of birth. Clearly and without doubt, the public interest in knowing that the President-elect is eligible for the office he/she seeks to fill by far out weighs any privacy interest that the person may have in his/her birth documents. It is also clear that knowing who the person is who will occupy the Office of President and Commander in Chief concerns national security and the safety of the United States and the whole world. It is not reasonable to believe that such a person’s privacy interest would out weigh the People’s need to safeguard national security and for self-preservation. Simply put, it would be beyond absurdity to honestly contend that such a person has a right to shield from the same People that he/she is constitutionally duty bound to serve and protect information that he/she must provide to them to show that he/she is qualified for that singular and all-powerful public position which would vest him/her with great power to affect every aspect of the People’s lives.
But underneath the privacy rights question lurks a much more serious concern. We can see the absurdity of Obama sitting on privacy rights to conceal his long-form birth certificate from the public. It is downright despicable for our media and Congress and others to apologize for Obama and let him get away with it. They know full well that he has no such privacy rights. The birth information and documents that Obama refuses to reveal to the public surely are revealing of whether his is eligible to hold the Office of President. Why has the media not filed any legal actions against Obama, the State of Hawaii, and other parties, seeking to legally lift any privacy barriers to Obama’s birth information as it has so many times in the past filed actions against others running for public office who sought to prevent the public from learning details of some aspect of their private lives? What is a travesty of justice is that Obama was probably able to win his U.S. Senate seat because the media (Chicago Tribune) filed a legal action against rival Republican Jack Ryan in which it was successful in getting the “kinky sex” details of his divorce released to the public. Why the media in our country would believe what type of sex two consenting married adults practice is more important than making sure that the national security of our country is protected is beyond comprehension and represents the quintessence of warped priorities. I do not believe that anyone who truly cares about our country and Constitution can express enough in words the outrage that he/she feels about how cowardly our political leaders and media have acted with Obama on the question of his place of birth.
Congress has abdicated its constitutional oath and the media, the so-called fourth branch of our government, has failed to perform its journalistic duty to the People of the United States to assure them that Obama’s election to the highest and most powerful office in the land adhered to our Constitution and laws. Congress has been given a chance to correct its failings and still it refuses to perform its constitutional obligation. With the assistance of its media cronies and others, they all ridicule and suppress the efforts of those who are fighting to make sure that our Constitution has been respected in the last Presidential election and that our nation is safe with Obama currently occupying the Presidency and being the Commander in Chief of our military might.
We must then ask ourselves why Congress and the media have not pressed Obama for the necessary and relevant birth information for at least the sake of the integrity of the Presidential election process and the safety of our nation? Moreover, Obama cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen” because under the British Nationality Act of 1948 when Obama was born in 1961 his father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was born a British subject/citizen. See Obama, the Putative President of the U.S., Is Currently Also a British Citizen, located at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/obama-president-of-us-is-currently-also_29.html. Like a naturalized citizen who is not eligible to be President, Obama was born with an allegiance to a foreign power and is therefore not eligible to be President and more so not eligible to be the leader of our military men and women. To allow Obama to hide his birth information and to not challenge him for not being an Article II “natural born Citizen” is nothing more than at best, politicians and those in their coterie allowing corrupt party politics, self-interest, and/or cowardice to blind their constitutional duty to protect and defend our country and Constitution, at worst, part of someone’s plot to attack and destroy the United States from within, or both. Given that any attack on the United States will most likely come from within, these latter two scenarios must be given serious consideration and ruled out only after sufficient evidence exists to so rule them out. Hence, the deliberate or reckless failing by those who are supposed to protect and defend our country and Constitution is tantamount to treason.
All members of Congress that have allowed and continue to allow the raping of our Constitution and the placing of our nation at risk to being attacked from within need to be removed from Congress, without any exceptions. As to what to do with those members of the media and others who have failed and continue to fail to do their job to adequately protect and defend our Constitutional Republic, that is a question for another day.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg, New Jersey 08831
October 18, 2009
Obama's attorneys are desperately scarmbling for technicalitiesto knock this case out, claiming he hasn't been nominated, so the case is inappropriate. Plaintiff attorney for Mike Voeltz, Larry Klayman countered with statute language seeming to indicate that a nomination HAS taken place and added that law must be interpreted in the voters' interests and it is very clearly NOT in their interests to be given an ineligible candidate to vote for.
ReplyDeleteI was at the hearing because I work nearby. There was some good lawyering on both sides but the judge didn't buy the 2 parent theory from Klayman. Thought it was non sensical. IO have no doubt this judge will dismiss with leave to amend but it will eventually go nowhere.
ReplyDelete