by Cmdr. David LaRocque, USN, Ret., January 17, 2009
Dave has been relentlessy pursuing his Congressman about his and Congress’ lack of concern about Obama’s failure to establish his eligibility for office and our institutions’ failure to do anything at all about it. This will not go unopposed. Initially, I believed Dave was on a fool’s errand, that these people have made up their minds and think that they can continue to stonewall us. But, several things have changed. Obama and Congress’ outrageous, destructive, possibly treasonous behavior, has created serious concerns in the minds of many millions of patriots and many more who simply don’t want to see their security and freedoms further eroded. More information about Obama’s probable ineligibility, his frantic attempts to block release of any relevant data, complicity by others of a cover-up, discouragement and even intimidation of attempts to expose him, have become outrageous and intolerable and need to be exposed for all the world to see. Attempts at redress through the courts have been thwarted, to date, on technicalities. This is probably the greatest political scandal in U.S. history.
Dave is laying the groundwork to ensure that Congress has been informed about the facts, our demands and has no further “cover.” Think of the impact of thousands of people approaching their Congresscritters in a similar fashion. This issue will be an additional reason to vote hundreds of them out of office.
To: Christy Guerin, District Director, Office of Congressman Brian Bilbray,
50th District, California
Christy,
I would like to join Bill Lolli in thanking you for the time you gave usyesterday to hear our concerns regarding the eligibility of the president and the serious threat to Constitutional government which this state of affairs poses to our nation. As I stated on our departure, I felt that you listened carefully to the information we presented, and that you were quite
sincere in your own feelings of concern for our country. I concur in Bill’s statement of the actions Congressman Bilbray could takon this matter. If Representative Bilbray is not willing to take these minimum steps to protect and defend the Constitution, then I have to wonder how seriously he has committed himself to the obligations he incurredpursuant to his oath of office as a member of the United States Congress. I don’t mean to sound harsh or gratuitously critical of Representative Bilbray. Rather, it is my extreme concern regarding the future of our nation that compels me to challenge my representative to demonstrate his loyalty in this time of crisis in our nation. The courts have made clear that they will
not act. It is only the Congress that can act. We must have patriots in the Congress who will speak out now or this nation may not survive as we know it
until the next presidential election in 2012. The Communists and radicals in control of our government are methodically tearing this nation apart and trampling on the Constitution with frightening speed. We the people need the help of our representatives in Congress who are true patriots to stop this madness before the nation is lost. In my comments in your office I mentioned the two parts of the definition of the “natural born citizen” as used in Article II Section 1 of the United States Constitution. An enormous amount of research has been conducted since the recent presidential election on this subject. Two brilliant attorneys and constitutional scholars, Mario Apuzzo (http://puzo1.blogspot.com) and
Leo Donofrio (http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com) have produced some of the most the most thorough and well-documented research on the Article II
requirement. I have pasted below several relevant recent postings from these sites on the meaning of the term “natural born citizen”. The facts are that Barack Obama has refused to provide legally acceptable documentation of his claimed American birth, while he has publicly acknowledged his dual citizenship at birth through a British father. The
founders were quite concerned about the possibility of foreign influence in the office of the president (most particularly British influence), and required that both parents of a presidential candidate be U.S. citizens in accordance with the definition of natural born citizen laid out by Vattel in his treatise titled “The Law of Nations” (”born in the country of parents who are citizens”) . It is beyond the scope of this message to tie Vattel’s definition to the work of the Framers at the Constitutional Convention in
1787, but it is easily found in the writings of Apuzzo and Donofrio. I would like to insert here a statement made by Rep. John Bingham, the
principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment, in a speech before the House of Representatives on March 9, 1866: ” [I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is
simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…. . . ” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bingham
So, regardless of the location of his birth, Obama’s British citizenship at birth clearly disqualifies him from serving in the office of president of the United States. If this is true, then we have an illegitimate president in the White House. This also means that military actions carried out under his orders as commander-in-chief are not legal. Just think about the
implications of that statement. Christy, if for no other reason, we owe it to our Marines and soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan to clear up this matter promptly. It is unconscionable that they have been put in this position. It is our responsibility to protect them from the potentially disastrous consequences of a massive election fraud which put them under the command of an ineligible and fraudulent commander-in-chief. Your commitment to present our concerns directly to Congressman Bilbray was
most appreciated. We look forward to hearing from you regarding the outcome of that discussion, and what specific acts Congressman Bilbray will undertake to press for a resolution of this urgent and serious constitutional crisis.
I truly believe that the very future of our nation is at stake, and that no
time can be wasted to save it.
David F. LaRocque
Captain TWA (ret)
Commander USNR (ret)
Carlsbad, CA
****************************************************************************
Sunday, November 15, 2009
New “Citizen vs. Natural Born Citizen” Pictorial Advertisement in Washington Times National Weekly - pg 5 - Monday 16 Nov 2009 Issue
<http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/11/new-citizen-vs-natural-born-citizen.html>
New “Citizen vs. Natural Born Citizen” Full Page, Full Color, Pictorial Advertisement in Washington Times National Weekly - pg 5 - Monday 16 Nov 2009 Issue:
Many people do not know there is a difference between a “Citizen” and a “natural born Citizen.” Being a “Citizen” of any type, whether an Article II natural born Citizen
<http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-US-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same> , 14th Amendment
born Citizen
<http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-US-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same> , 14th Amendmentnaturalized Citizen,
<http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-US-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same> or statutory born Citizen under a Congressional Act
<http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-US-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same> , means you are a member of the society and entitled to all its rights and privileges. But under our Constitution to serve in the singular most powerful office in our government, that is to be the President and Commander-in-Chief of our military under our Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, of our Constitution you need to be a “natural born Citizen.” Being a “natural born Citizen” cannot
be conveyed by any laws of man and can only be conveyed by the facts of nature at the time of your birth and circumstances of your birth, i.e., being born in the country to two citizens
<http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html>
of the country. (Legal Treatise “Law of Nations and Natural Law
<http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.html> ” Section 212 by E. Vattel 1758, SCOTUS Decision Venus 1814, SCOTUS
Decision Minor v Happersett 1874). This new advertorial is designed to help educate the public pictorially about the fact that Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the USA and thus is ineligible under our Constitution to the office he sits in. He is a Usurper who was allowed to be put there by
millions in foreign money, a corruptly lead Congress, and an enabling main stream media. This is a constitutional crisis and a national security
<http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/why-natural-born-citizen-clause-is.html>
concern that must be addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court or our Republic, Constitution, and Liberties are in great danger.
Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., CDR USNR (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/ … help the cause:
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
****************************************************************************
*************
Justice Horace Gray Clearly Indicated Wong Kim Ark Was Not a Natural BornCitizen.
<http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/justice-horace-gray-clearly-indicated-wong-kim-ark-was-not-a-natural-born-citizen/>
[Update in red below 10:25AM]
The SCOTUS decision in Wong Kim Ark
<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649>
has caused more confusion regarding the natural born citizen issue thanany other case in US history. One particular passage has been fervently relied upon by Obama eligibility supporters in claiming the case establishes children of aliens - born in the US - as natural-born citizens. I can understand such reliance. The passage below has been confusing for me as well. Yet, I never truly believed SCOTUS was stating that Wong Kim Ark could be President and Commander In Chief. I just couldn’t find the words
to thoroughly distinguish the case. However, it finally became clear today. The words of the passage suddenly re-arranged the focus of the majority’s intent. Here’s the infamous
passage: The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental
rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens…Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate…and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’
It appears at first glance that the passage claims children of aliens born on US soil are themselves natural-born citizens. And that’s certainly the hard line taken by Obama eligibility supporters. But a closer inspection reveals this is not what the court held.
Have another look: “…and his child… ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the
natural-born child of a citizen…”
Justice Gray does a very revealing compare and contrast here:
- he compares two children
- on the one hand, he mentions the US born child of a resident alien
- on the other hand, he mentions the “natural-born” child of a citizen
‘
Do you see the difference? He clearly states that only one is natural-born: the child of the citizen. He says that both are citizens. But only the child of the citizen is natural born - for this is what he is comparing the other one to. So the holding indicates Wong Kim Ark was as much a citizen as any other citizen despite not being natural-born.
- The Court does not say that the child of the alien is a natural-borncitizen. Had the court intended to state that both were natural born, they would havesaid:
“…and his child, if born in the country, is as much a natural-born citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”
But that’s not what they said.
- By the Wong Kim Ark decision, both children - the alien born and the natural born - are entitled to the same rights and protections as citizens.
- But only one satisfies the requirements to be President: the natural born child.
- This is because natural born citizen status is only required for one purpose: to be President. There’s no other legal attachment to nbc status.
Being eligible to be President is not a right or protection of citizenship. For example, not all natural born citizens can be President. Those who are not 35 years old and/or have not been residents in the US for 14 years - though they may be natural born citizens - are NOT eligible to be President.
Here’s the final holding of the case:
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question…whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States…becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. (Emphasis added.)
This is the core holding of the case. It states that only one question is presented: whether the child is a citizen. The single question presented is not whether the child is a natural-born citizen. If Justice Gray and the majority deemed Wong Kim Ark to be a natural-born citizen then that’s what they would have said. But they didn’t. And this in a very detailed and thorough opinion where “natural-born” was used to compare and contrast the children of citizens to the children of aliens.
I still don’t agree with the Court’s analysis of the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language in the 14th Amendment, but I’ll save that for
another post. My analysis above doesn’t conclusively establish that Obama is not eligible to be President. His case is distinguished from Wong Kim Ark’s in that Obama’s mother was a US citizen. His father was never a US citizen and as such Obama (admits) he was governed by Great Britain at birth. This presents a unique question of first impression for the Supreme Court. Based upon my review of history and law, I don’t believe Obama is eligible to be President. But it’s certainly not an easy decision either way you
look at it. Yet, this is the kind of difficult decision our Supreme Court exists to answer.
I continue to press this issue for fear that it will continue to erode the chain of command. The brave men and women of our military deserve to know for certain that their Commander is Constitutionally eligible to lead them. SCOTUS ought to revisit Cort Wrotnowski’s case if they truly care about the
future of this nation and the health of our republic… which is being torn apart by this issue as we speak.
I personally don’t care who the President is anymore. I’ll never care again. Both McCain and Obama have damaged the office and this nation severely by their willingness to put us through this. It doesn’t matter who the President is. We’ll still be at war. We will still have poverty, hatred, racism, fascism, sarcasm, nukes, etc… the new boss is the same as
the old boss. We do get fooled again. Everytime. But if we let this sit and the chain of command erodes… Goodbye Ms. American Pie.