Obama Citizenship

Mario Apuzzo: Tea Parties, Eligibility and Conspiracies

By Phil

Mario Apuzzo, attorney for Plaintiffs in Kerchner v. Obama, recently wrote a couple of postings conslidating thoughts on how the Establishment — be it Democrat, Republican or otherwise — feels threatened about confronting especially controversial issues and will even go out of its way to re-state observations in an effort to downplay any sort of activist follow-through.

The first compares the recent tea parties with the question of eligibility:

Clearly, many politicians and media representatives now in power feel threatened by the Tea Party Movement. They will try everything to discredit it, just like they have attempted to do with the Obama eligibilty issue. They attack it by giving it an appropriate name (it is the tea bagging and birthers, tin-foil hat movement). They attack it by misstating who motivated it and who is funding it (the rich invented and are funding it), who is behind it (sore-loser Republicans, racists, right-wing extremists, rednecks, white-power extremists), and whether it is really sincere (it is only Constitutional pseudo law). The picture that these individuals paint is that they and only they are the real representatives of the little, working-class guy and gal. How dare any other party or group attempt to try to take over their role as the protector of the underdog? Yes, indeed, those in power want the public to believe that they alone can and will help the majority of people better their lives. By making the public believe that, those in power only perpetuate their own power. 

Those in power would rather stay in power and protect their own political and media jobs rather than do what is best for America today and in future years. As to the politicians, the American public should send all these opportunists, regardless of political party, packing back home to real jobs. As to the media, the public should relegate those media outlets that have either never learned or forgotten what correct media reporting is to the realm of irrelevancy.

The second addresses the issue of the eligibility question being a conspiracy (excerpted):

A commentator recently stated:
“B]ut uh, until there is a link to some primary record of his mom being Kenya [sic] at or around the time of his birth then it’s just a whack conspiracy theory.”

The conspiracy motivation is also constantly repeated on various pro-Obama blogs, mainsteam media reports, political discourse at all levels, and even in at least one Federal Court decision dismissing a case filed against Obama. A conspiracy theory is fed by “facts” that are in dispute. That is why it is called a theory.

But these facts are not in dispute: under the British Nationality Act 1948(BNA 1948), Obama?s father was a British citizen/subject when he was born in the English colony of Kenya. Obama?s father continued to be such and not a U.S. citizen when Obama was born in 1961. Under the same BNA 1948, at birth, regardless of where he was born, Obama also became a British citizen/subject by descent from his British father. …

It is public knowledge that Obama has admitted in his writings and otherwise that when he was born, his father was a British citizen/subject and not a United States citizen and that at that time he himself also became such. In fact, his father was not even a permanent resident of the United States, but rather only a student who would probably have been here only on a temporary student visa. Hence, not only was Obama’s father not a United States citizen but Obama himself was born a British subject/citizen. Hence, clearly, Obama is not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen,” regardless of where he may have been born, regardless of what his original long-form Birth Certificate may say, regardless of to which countries he may have travelled, regardless of how many passports he may have acquired and used, regardless of whether or not he registered for the military service, regardless of what any of his school or medical documents say, regardless of what foreign schools he attended, and regardless of whether he was ever adopted by some foreign national. The real operative facts are not in dispute. I fail to see where the conspiracy is.

I will remind my readers that two forensics experts — Sandra Ramsey Lines and Dr. Ron Polarik (mentioned here) — have both gone on record to dispute the online certification of live birth as being inconclusive with respect to any governmental authority using such to establish eligibility. Further, as I and attorney Leo Donofrio mentioned months ago, FactCheck.org specifically admits that, at birth, Barack Hussein Obama was a British citizen.

A current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here.

-Phil

Full post as published by The Right Side of Life on April 18, 2009 (boomark / email).