Citizen at Birth (CAB) does NOT equal Natural Born Citizen (NBC)
While a natural born citizen is obviously a citizen at birth, not all citizens at birth are natural born citizens. The two legal terms of art are not identical and are not equal.
There is absolutely nothing in that U.S. Statute, USC Title 8 Section 1401, that grants “natural born citizenship” to anyone. The legal term of art “natural born citizen” is not even mentioned in that law. USC Section 1401 only determines by law who is a “citizen” or a “national” of the U.S. at birth, i.e., a basic “citizen at birth”. The Section 1401 law is a naturalization law which grants citizenship by law, not by nature. The legal term of art “citizen at birth” is not the same legally as the legal term of art “natural born citizen”. Simply note that in one case we are talking about who is at least an ordinary, basic “citizen” at birth with no adjectives in front of the word citizen, and in the other case we have two very important adjectives placed in front of the word citizen by the framers of the Constitution, i.e., “natural born” citizen. That specific type of citizenship and “legal term of art” was codified by Vattel in his legal treatise “The Law of Nations”, published in 1758, in which he said that … a natural born citizen is a person born in the country to parents who are both citizens of the country. And this group or class of citizens are the most populous group of any nation.
Most citizens of the USA are natural born citizens. Most citizens of the USA were born in the USA to two parents who were citizens of the USA. And that is the pool of citizens that must be chosen from for the singular most powerful office in our nation, the President and Commander-in-Chief of our military. Simple citizenship at birth by being born in the USA without regard to the citizenship status of both your parents … or by naturalization and swearing an oath to this country and renouncing all allegiances foreign kings, princes, and potentates later as an adult, is adequate for the offices of Senator, Representative, or a Governor of a state. But it is not sufficient to be the President under Article II, to Constitutional standards. Article II requires that the person to be eligible to be President must be a “natural born citizen”. And that means that person must be born in the USA … AND … both his parents must be citizens of the USA.
Natural born citizenship status in a nation is granted by the facts of nature of your birth. No law or statute is necessary to grant it. The nations can make any law they wish to make a person a citizen at birth or later. But natural born citizenship can only be conveyed by nature by the facts at birth of the child. If you are born in the country of two citizen parents you are “naturally” … a “natural born citizen” … a citizen too … but a specific kind of citizen who is eligible to be the President and Commander-in-Chief of our military since the child when born has sole allegiance to this country and there is no claim on him/her by a foreign country or power as to their citizenship at birth by that country too. Natural born citizens have unity of citizenship at birth. A natural born citizen is NOT a dual citizen at birth. A natural born citizen has no divided loyalty issues by his birth since the child was born in the country to two citizens of the country.
See this chart showing the five types of citizenship mentioned in the U.S Constitution:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/
And natural born citizens are not rare in the USA. The natural born citizens are by far the most populous group in the nation. And it from this group, under Article II of our Constitution, we are to choose our President and Commander-in-Chief, the group with sole allegiance at birth to the USA and only the USA, not someone who has foreign and/or dual citizenship and divided loyalties at and by birth. Obama is not a natural born citizen of the USA and he is not eligible to be the President under Article II of our U.S. Constitution. He is a Usurper.
Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
CDR USNR Retired
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner et al vs Obama & Congress et al
July 17, 2009 at 11:45 am |
Nicely done Charles,
Alot has been going on the last few days on this issue. Everything I saw in print after Orly's hearing in GA purposely misrepresented the issue. So we have a media that is willing to lie to the public. At first I thought they weren't getting the story straight but at this point its become preety obvious what they are doing.
The Gov. retaliation against the officer is disheartening. Our Gov. is now going after people they don't like to hurt them. This is a sad state of affairs.
Anyway if the Supreme Ct decides this issue is important enough, the new Supreme Ct. Justice will be detrimental.
What people don't understand is there is no legal system if you are counting on the Supreme Ct.. The appeals ct. is the last ct. for 99% of the cases. If you factor in getting an attorney for all this, the legal system is just not available for almost everyone.
The appeals ct. is very important. And Sotomayer was reversed 8 out of 10 times.
We would all go broke if we had to sue our Gov. everytime they broke the Constitution,
I hope this weeks events have helped your stratedgy.
July 17, 2009 at 11:45 am |
Nicely done Charles,
Alot has been going on the last few days on this issue. Everything I saw in print after Orly's hearing in GA purposely misrepresented the issue. So we have a media that is willing to lie to the public. At first I thought they weren't getting the story straight but at this point its become preety obvious what they are doing.
The Gov. retaliation against the officer is disheartening. Our Gov. is now going after people they don't like to hurt them. This is a sad state of affairs.
Anyway if the Supreme Ct decides this issue is important enough, the new Supreme Ct. Justice will be detrimental.
What people don't understand is there is no legal system if you are counting on the Supreme Ct.. The appeals ct. is the last ct. for 99% of the cases. If you factor in getting an attorney for all this, the legal system is just not available for almost everyone.
The appeals ct. is very important. And Sotomayer was reversed 8 out of 10 times.
We would all go broke if we had to sue our Gov. everytime they broke the Constitution,
I hope this weeks events have helped your stratedgy.
July 17, 2009 at 12:08 pm |
Orly's plaintiff is ripe to file a Quo Warranto.
Apparently I don't know what a motion day is.
The original motion day was July 20The new motion day is Aug. 3. You will file two weeks prior to that, which is July 20th????
It was also referred to as a motion decsion day.
July 17, 2009 at 12:08 pm |
Orly's plaintiff is ripe to file a Quo Warranto.
Apparently I don't know what a motion day is.
The original motion day was July 20The new motion day is Aug. 3. You will file two weeks prior to that, which is July 20th????
It was also referred to as a motion decsion day.
July 17, 2009 at 3:21 pm |
In other words if a war were to break out between the United States of America and Cuba and we had a Commander-In-Chief who was born in Florida of one United States citizen and one Cuban, that Commander-In-Chief may not want to do everything possible to win that war against the homeland of one of his or her parents. That Commander-In-Chief may hold back an all out assault on the invading country. Divided loyalties if you will. I will be back with further redaction of this problem as the Lord sees fit.
July 17, 2009 at 3:21 pm |
In other words if a war were to break out between the United States of America and Cuba and we had a Commander-In-Chief who was born in Florida of one United States citizen and one Cuban, that Commander-In-Chief may not want to do everything possible to win that war against the homeland of one of his or her parents. That Commander-In-Chief may hold back an all out assault on the invading country. Divided loyalties if you will. I will be back with further redaction of this problem as the Lord sees fit.
July 17, 2009 at 4:58 pm |
That is how Obama supporters like to frame the question of what is a Natural Born Citizen. They say "who, in other words is a U.S Citizen at Birth?" Which, of couse, is totaly wrong. The question should be, "who is a US citizen at birth and is NOT SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION of any other Foreign Power." I mean, look at all the people that would be a NBC if it were according to Section 1401!! Certainly the main reason for the requirement, which is to prevent Foreign Influence on the office, would be compromised! Could the framers have possibly meant for Anchor Babies, when they were looking to prevent foreign influence, to be POTUS? IT IS INCONCEIVEABLE.
July 17, 2009 at 4:58 pm |
That is how Obama supporters like to frame the question of what is a Natural Born Citizen. They say "who, in other words is a U.S Citizen at Birth?" Which, of couse, is totaly wrong. The question should be, "who is a US citizen at birth and is NOT SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION of any other Foreign Power." I mean, look at all the people that would be a NBC if it were according to Section 1401!! Certainly the main reason for the requirement, which is to prevent Foreign Influence on the office, would be compromised! Could the framers have possibly meant for Anchor Babies, when they were looking to prevent foreign influence, to be POTUS? IT IS INCONCEIVEABLE.
July 17, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
Mr. Appuzo,
I know that you are busy, but could you do a piece on Wong Kim Ark? I ran across this quote while researching Horace Gray.
” Thus his associates were not surprised by his opinion in UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK (1898), confirming the CITIZENSHIP claim of a Chinese child born in the United States, even though he had also spoken for the Court in Elk v. Wilkins (1884), denying the same claim when filed by an American Indian who had left a government reservation and renounced all privileges of tribal membership. In Gray’s view, the anomalous status of Indians as wards of the nation had already been fixed by nine decades of administrative usage. But the status of persons born of unnaturalizable ALIENS was a new question in American law.”
I find this very interesting. The very narrow ruling that this would represent, that Children of UNNATURALIZEABLE Aliens residing and working in the US, could be considered Citizens (Not Natural Born). If you remember Wong's parents could not be Naturalized because of a Treaty with China, although they lived and worked here for years. This line of thinking goes to the example of Children of pre 1866 Slaves, which he equated Wong with. This ruling has since been overruled, I would think, by Perkins v. Elg 33 years later, which held that treaties between, and laws of, Foreign nations must be considered in Citizenship cases (which of course applies to Obama with the BNA 1948). If you look at the case in this light, it is obvious that Gray was not evicerating his own ruling in Elk about jurisdiction, but was making a narrow ruling in a specialized case. The Law should take another look at this ruling, since it is being abused to muddy Jurisdiction, and allow anchor babies automatic US citizenship, when they certainly should not be automatic citizens.
July 17, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
Mr. Appuzo,
I know that you are busy, but could you do a piece on Wong Kim Ark? I ran across this quote while researching Horace Gray.
” Thus his associates were not surprised by his opinion in UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK (1898), confirming the CITIZENSHIP claim of a Chinese child born in the United States, even though he had also spoken for the Court in Elk v. Wilkins (1884), denying the same claim when filed by an American Indian who had left a government reservation and renounced all privileges of tribal membership. In Gray’s view, the anomalous status of Indians as wards of the nation had already been fixed by nine decades of administrative usage. But the status of persons born of unnaturalizable ALIENS was a new question in American law.”
I find this very interesting. The very narrow ruling that this would represent, that Children of UNNATURALIZEABLE Aliens residing and working in the US, could be considered Citizens (Not Natural Born). If you remember Wong's parents could not be Naturalized because of a Treaty with China, although they lived and worked here for years. This line of thinking goes to the example of Children of pre 1866 Slaves, which he equated Wong with. This ruling has since been overruled, I would think, by Perkins v. Elg 33 years later, which held that treaties between, and laws of, Foreign nations must be considered in Citizenship cases (which of course applies to Obama with the BNA 1948). If you look at the case in this light, it is obvious that Gray was not evicerating his own ruling in Elk about jurisdiction, but was making a narrow ruling in a specialized case. The Law should take another look at this ruling, since it is being abused to muddy Jurisdiction, and allow anchor babies automatic US citizenship, when they certainly should not be automatic citizens.
July 17, 2009 at 7:28 pm |
To Charles,
On a recent blog, I discovered the quote of Lynch v. Clark, 1844 in NY, where it was implied that the judge found Ms Lych a NBC because she was born in NY and of alien parents.
Any knowledge of how important this case is in history?
Thanks for all you do.
July 17, 2009 at 7:28 pm |
To Charles,
On a recent blog, I discovered the quote of Lynch v. Clark, 1844 in NY, where it was implied that the judge found Ms Lych a NBC because she was born in NY and of alien parents.
Any knowledge of how important this case is in history?
Thanks for all you do.
July 17, 2009 at 7:38 pm |
To Mario and Charles,
I heard from a friend who had a friend who had access to the halls of congress in December 2008.
He said that every member of congress due about the eligibility issue but were scared to death to overturn the election. They ran to the woods for cover.
Which is why my letters were ignored by congress because they were all cowards to challenge the ONE.
I found it interesting they knew. I had always thought they were too busy to understand the issue.
July 17, 2009 at 7:38 pm |
To Mario and Charles,
I heard from a friend who had a friend who had access to the halls of congress in December 2008.
He said that every member of congress due about the eligibility issue but were scared to death to overturn the election. They ran to the woods for cover.
Which is why my letters were ignored by congress because they were all cowards to challenge the ONE.
I found it interesting they knew. I had always thought they were too busy to understand the issue.
July 17, 2009 at 8:22 pm |
Guy4013:
Sure they knew and were just too lilly-livered to do anything about it.
That's why for my money all 535 of the Beltway Bastards should be replaced as soon as possible – and I do mean NO EXCEPTIONS as harsh as thay may sound.
I believe the founders always believed that those in Congress should serve a term or two and then return to get a dose of the real world to helo focus their thinking on what the people really want … IOW, term limits.
July 17, 2009 at 8:22 pm |
Guy4013:
Sure they knew and were just too lilly-livered to do anything about it.
That's why for my money all 535 of the Beltway Bastards should be replaced as soon as possible – and I do mean NO EXCEPTIONS as harsh as thay may sound.
I believe the founders always believed that those in Congress should serve a term or two and then return to get a dose of the real world to helo focus their thinking on what the people really want … IOW, term limits.
July 17, 2009 at 8:36 pm |
Guy,
Thank for the feedback. I agree with you on the assessment of things in Congress. All afraid of being called the R word if they spoke the truth, etc., is part of it too. I believe they knew exactly what the problems were with Obama's and McCain's lack of NBC status and thought they could get away with it. They both made a pack with the devil amongst themselves down there in DC and against the people and the Constitution. And then when the people started protesting about this they all went into the CYA mode. This has all been orchestrated at the highest levels of the DNC and RNC who put party politics and personal political goals above the Constitution and the Country in the 2008 elections for President. Obama, McCain, and Calero on the ballot for President last year all were not Article II Natural Born Citizens to Constitutional Standards! The political parties knew what they did which is why they did not answer my letters and FAXes and which ultimately lead to my lawsuit against Congress and Obama et al. And they all CYA'd for each other all through this mess since then. And the press is in the tank protecting them all in DC. The 4th branch of government, the so called free press in the USA, as well as the Department of Justice should be on our side (We the People) in this in digging for the truth and protecting the Constitution which many in this cover up swore to support and defend against all enemies FOREIGN and DOMESTIC. And they did not and are still not doing so.
Also, I'm not a lawyer and thus not familiar with many cases other than the key ones in this case about natural born citizenship which have all been put forward here and in other threads here.
I am sure Mario will see you question about the case you mention and if he has the time will answer you.
But we are all busy as beavers this week. The opposition filing date is Monday. So Mario is very, very busy.
And I'm working on various projects in support of publicity and education about this legal battle and the fund raising efforts for that.
http://www.protectourlibery.org
There is still a wee bit to raise online for the current series of advertorials, Series 2. If you all want to see the advertorial continuing in the Washington Times Weekly Edition, pop on by that website and click on the "Donate" button and contribute what you can. I thank you and all patriots will thank you.
We will win this. I am confident that in the end truth and the Constitution will be upheld.
God bless America and protect us all in this endeavor to save our Constitution and the Republic.
Charles
July 17, 2009 at 8:36 pm |
Guy,
Thank for the feedback. I agree with you on the assessment of things in Congress. All afraid of being called the R word if they spoke the truth, etc., is part of it too. I believe they knew exactly what the problems were with Obama's and McCain's lack of NBC status and thought they could get away with it. They both made a pack with the devil amongst themselves down there in DC and against the people and the Constitution. And then when the people started protesting about this they all went into the CYA mode. This has all been orchestrated at the highest levels of the DNC and RNC who put party politics and personal political goals above the Constitution and the Country in the 2008 elections for President. Obama, McCain, and Calero on the ballot for President last year all were not Article II Natural Born Citizens to Constitutional Standards! The political parties knew what they did which is why they did not answer my letters and FAXes and which ultimately lead to my lawsuit against Congress and Obama et al. And they all CYA'd for each other all through this mess since then. And the press is in the tank protecting them all in DC. The 4th branch of government, the so called free press in the USA, as well as the Department of Justice should be on our side (We the People) in this in digging for the truth and protecting the Constitution which many in this cover up swore to support and defend against all enemies FOREIGN and DOMESTIC. And they did not and are still not doing so.
Also, I'm not a lawyer and thus not familiar with many cases other than the key ones in this case about natural born citizenship which have all been put forward here and in other threads here.
I am sure Mario will see you question about the case you mention and if he has the time will answer you.
But we are all busy as beavers this week. The opposition filing date is Monday. So Mario is very, very busy.
And I'm working on various projects in support of publicity and education about this legal battle and the fund raising efforts for that.
http://www.protectourlibery.org
There is still a wee bit to raise online for the current series of advertorials, Series 2. If you all want to see the advertorial continuing in the Washington Times Weekly Edition, pop on by that website and click on the "Donate" button and contribute what you can. I thank you and all patriots will thank you.
We will win this. I am confident that in the end truth and the Constitution will be upheld.
God bless America and protect us all in this endeavor to save our Constitution and the Republic.
Charles
July 17, 2009 at 9:11 pm |
To Guy 4013,
Lynch is a circuit court case, not Supreme Court, and has virtually no weight of precedent in matters of the constitution, especially since Perkins v. Elg was a SCOTUS case almost 90 years later. Lynch is a favorite case of the Obama crowd to use as evidence, but it does not hold water.
July 17, 2009 at 9:11 pm |
To Guy 4013,
Lynch is a circuit court case, not Supreme Court, and has virtually no weight of precedent in matters of the constitution, especially since Perkins v. Elg was a SCOTUS case almost 90 years later. Lynch is a favorite case of the Obama crowd to use as evidence, but it does not hold water.
July 17, 2009 at 9:40 pm |
The WONG court specifically stated that Lynch v. Clarke, (1844) 1 Sandf. Ch. 583 unequivocally established that "all children, born within the dominion of the United States, of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office, became citizens at the time of their birth [NOT NATURAL BORN CITIZENS]".
A "citizen of the United States at birth" is NOT synonymous with a "natural born citizen" of the United States.
UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM ARK., 18 S. Ct. 456, 169 U.S. 649 (U.S. 03/28/1898)
[1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
[13] The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, …becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
[35] That all children, born within the dominion of the United States, of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office, became citizens at the time of their birth, [NOT NATURAL BORN CITIZENS] does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than fifty years after the adoption of the Constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the Court of Chancery of New York, and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clarke, (1844) 1 Sandf. Ch. 583.
July 17, 2009 at 9:40 pm |
The WONG court specifically stated that Lynch v. Clarke, (1844) 1 Sandf. Ch. 583 unequivocally established that "all children, born within the dominion of the United States, of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office, became citizens at the time of their birth [NOT NATURAL BORN CITIZENS]".
A "citizen of the United States at birth" is NOT synonymous with a "natural born citizen" of the United States.
UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM ARK., 18 S. Ct. 456, 169 U.S. 649 (U.S. 03/28/1898)
[1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
[13] The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, …becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
[35] That all children, born within the dominion of the United States, of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office, became citizens at the time of their birth, [NOT NATURAL BORN CITIZENS] does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than fifty years after the adoption of the Constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the Court of Chancery of New York, and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clarke, (1844) 1 Sandf. Ch. 583.
July 17, 2009 at 10:08 pm |
Charles,
About the guy who says that Congress knew;
I believe this to be true.
It is on the record and you can actually find it, that several congressman (No Senators that I have been able to find) were strongly considering objecting to Joint Session of Congress Electoral Vote and even said this publically in statments.
However, no objection were ever made not withstanding Chaney's screw up of not asking for any objections.
You should be able to find some the statements on the internet from Congressman strongly considering to object.
It certainly might be helpful try to add those statements to the court record to show that Congress was well aware of the problem, had considered it and DID NOTHING.
July 17, 2009 at 10:08 pm |
Charles,
About the guy who says that Congress knew;
I believe this to be true.
It is on the record and you can actually find it, that several congressman (No Senators that I have been able to find) were strongly considering objecting to Joint Session of Congress Electoral Vote and even said this publically in statments.
However, no objection were ever made not withstanding Chaney's screw up of not asking for any objections.
You should be able to find some the statements on the internet from Congressman strongly considering to object.
It certainly might be helpful try to add those statements to the court record to show that Congress was well aware of the problem, had considered it and DID NOTHING.
July 17, 2009 at 10:19 pm |
Look up John Linder, Congressman from GA. According to him, he was planning to object but never did. While some may argue that it also takes one Senator too to object and its possible that Linder could not find a Senator to join in his objection (which is why is Linder's objection never went anywhere), one can certainly argue that Linder had the duty to raise this issue with all senators if not at the very least his senators from Georgia. It not clear if Linder did this, but the duty was there and Senators had the constitutional duty to consider Linder's objection.
Where were our Senator's duty of due dilligence to consider this matter.
Senators simply relying on FactCheck and Snopes is not acceptable.
July 17, 2009 at 10:19 pm |
Look up John Linder, Congressman from GA. According to him, he was planning to object but never did. While some may argue that it also takes one Senator too to object and its possible that Linder could not find a Senator to join in his objection (which is why is Linder's objection never went anywhere), one can certainly argue that Linder had the duty to raise this issue with all senators if not at the very least his senators from Georgia. It not clear if Linder did this, but the duty was there and Senators had the constitutional duty to consider Linder's objection.
Where were our Senator's duty of due dilligence to consider this matter.
Senators simply relying on FactCheck and Snopes is not acceptable.
July 17, 2009 at 10:53 pm |
Here is the definition of Natural Born Citizen for Dummies and Obots.
Contrary to what Al Gore and the Democrats say, if something needs to be created by law it is not natural. When something is made by man we say it has artificial ingredients and it is not "all natural."
Even the most die hard vegan obots should comprehend this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
July 17, 2009 at 10:53 pm |
Here is the definition of Natural Born Citizen for Dummies and Obots.
Contrary to what Al Gore and the Democrats say, if something needs to be created by law it is not natural. When something is made by man we say it has artificial ingredients and it is not "all natural."
Even the most die hard vegan obots should comprehend this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
July 17, 2009 at 11:01 pm |
James:
There is actually a video clip of Cheney (with Pelosi benind him) doing the so-called "certification" of the vote after which as I understand it he should have asked for any objections.
He not only did not so ask, but the clip clearly shows one representative near the center of the seating energetically waving his hand in the air as if trying to get Cheney's attemtion and be heard. At about that time, Pelosi started clapping – which was then echoed by others and the guy was never allowed to be heard.
Cheney NEVER asked for any objections though it looks to me like there was clearly at least one. The Obama pals will perhaps say the man just wanted permission to be excused for a bathroom break … I don't think so.
I think all 535 (and then some, probably) were in on the "game". AFAIC – we "owe" them BIG TIME!!!
July 17, 2009 at 11:01 pm |
James:
There is actually a video clip of Cheney (with Pelosi benind him) doing the so-called "certification" of the vote after which as I understand it he should have asked for any objections.
He not only did not so ask, but the clip clearly shows one representative near the center of the seating energetically waving his hand in the air as if trying to get Cheney's attemtion and be heard. At about that time, Pelosi started clapping – which was then echoed by others and the guy was never allowed to be heard.
Cheney NEVER asked for any objections though it looks to me like there was clearly at least one. The Obama pals will perhaps say the man just wanted permission to be excused for a bathroom break … I don't think so.
I think all 535 (and then some, probably) were in on the "game". AFAIC – we "owe" them BIG TIME!!!
July 17, 2009 at 11:57 pm |
Holy Cow!!!!
They Just had Orly Taitz and Alan Keyes on Lou Dobbs CNN in LIVE Debate.
Fantastic!!!!
Charles and Mario,
You have to find someway of getting to Lou Dobbs.
July 17, 2009 at 11:57 pm |
Holy Cow!!!!
They Just had Orly Taitz and Alan Keyes on Lou Dobbs CNN in LIVE Debate.
Fantastic!!!!
Charles and Mario,
You have to find someway of getting to Lou Dobbs.
July 18, 2009 at 12:08 am |
Mario and Charles,
He is some important information and links that might be helpful in contacting Lou Dobbs.
It might also be helpful to contact Orly Taitz for further contact information:
General Contact Information:
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?9
Dobbs Radio Contact Form
http://www.loudobbsradio.com/help#form6
Dobbs also lives in Sussex County, New Jersey
You show also consider sending a personal telegram to Lou Dobbs.
Lou Dobbs is getting highly interested in this issue.
Make Haste and contact Lou Dobbs ASAP before he loses interest in the matter.
You might also track down people who can put in direct contact with Lou Dobbs.
You input into this matter should completely win over Lou Dobbs.
Good Luck and God Bless with your efforts!
July 18, 2009 at 12:08 am |
Mario and Charles,
He is some important information and links that might be helpful in contacting Lou Dobbs.
It might also be helpful to contact Orly Taitz for further contact information:
General Contact Information:
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?9
Dobbs Radio Contact Form
http://www.loudobbsradio.com/help#form6
Dobbs also lives in Sussex County, New Jersey
You show also consider sending a personal telegram to Lou Dobbs.
Lou Dobbs is getting highly interested in this issue.
Make Haste and contact Lou Dobbs ASAP before he loses interest in the matter.
You might also track down people who can put in direct contact with Lou Dobbs.
You input into this matter should completely win over Lou Dobbs.
Good Luck and God Bless with your efforts!
July 18, 2009 at 12:16 am |
James,
Some times I think you think we're here twiddling our thumbs. You don't have to write the same thing over and over again.
I have written to Lou Dobbs, both the TV show and the Radio show twice this week. I wrote to both the producer and Lou Dobbs personally. Thus far, no reply.
James, how many times have you written to the Lou Dobbs Radio show and TV show this week asking that he invite us on his shows?
July 18, 2009 at 12:16 am |
James,
Some times I think you think we're here twiddling our thumbs. You don't have to write the same thing over and over again.
I have written to Lou Dobbs, both the TV show and the Radio show twice this week. I wrote to both the producer and Lou Dobbs personally. Thus far, no reply.
James, how many times have you written to the Lou Dobbs Radio show and TV show this week asking that he invite us on his shows?
July 18, 2009 at 12:18 am |
James, that interview was super disappointing. Keyes gave a brilliant answer, but the hostess played the same dummy lines. Lou understands how there is NO VERIFICATION to run for (most) state(s) and none to run for President that takes place.
They had little time and the other two buffoons just went to ad hominem. I'm about to write Lou a letter.
July 18, 2009 at 12:18 am |
James, that interview was super disappointing. Keyes gave a brilliant answer, but the hostess played the same dummy lines. Lou understands how there is NO VERIFICATION to run for (most) state(s) and none to run for President that takes place.
They had little time and the other two buffoons just went to ad hominem. I'm about to write Lou a letter.
July 18, 2009 at 12:22 am |
Hmmm!!! The electronic execution of incriminating evidence continues – in this case on FactCheck.com (the Annenberg site).
Some of the statements which had been pointed to by the late lamented FightTheSmears.com (before its complete execution) about Mr. O. "being governed by the BNA of 1948" are no longer there but they have missed something and mum's the word.
So kiddies, keep all your archived websites that have the stuff on them just in case they are needed to make up subpoenas for testimony from those operating these sites.
And keep your eyes peeled for other data "gone missing".
July 18, 2009 at 12:22 am |
Hmmm!!! The electronic execution of incriminating evidence continues – in this case on FactCheck.com (the Annenberg site).
Some of the statements which had been pointed to by the late lamented FightTheSmears.com (before its complete execution) about Mr. O. "being governed by the BNA of 1948" are no longer there but they have missed something and mum's the word.
So kiddies, keep all your archived websites that have the stuff on them just in case they are needed to make up subpoenas for testimony from those operating these sites.
And keep your eyes peeled for other data "gone missing".
July 18, 2009 at 12:23 am |
I just emailed Lou Dobbs telling him he should interview you and Mario. He are some the following email addresses you can try:
CNN.Prog.Replies@cnn.com
lou@loudobbsradio.com
loudobbstonight@turner.com
I can starting writing on blogs telling everyone that Lou Dobbs must interview Charles Kerchner and Mario Apuzzo if you want me to.
I encourage others to start posting similiar blog entries here and everywhere
Lou Dobbs must interview Charles Kerchner and Mario Apuzzo.
Orly Taitz and Alan Keyes probably have the contact information for Lou Dobbs.
July 18, 2009 at 12:23 am |
I just emailed Lou Dobbs telling him he should interview you and Mario. He are some the following email addresses you can try:
CNN.Prog.Replies@cnn.com
lou@loudobbsradio.com
loudobbstonight@turner.com
I can starting writing on blogs telling everyone that Lou Dobbs must interview Charles Kerchner and Mario Apuzzo if you want me to.
I encourage others to start posting similiar blog entries here and everywhere
Lou Dobbs must interview Charles Kerchner and Mario Apuzzo.
Orly Taitz and Alan Keyes probably have the contact information for Lou Dobbs.
July 18, 2009 at 12:24 am |
Lemon,
You should tell them they MUST interview Charles Kerchner and Mario Apuzzo.
July 18, 2009 at 12:24 am |
Lemon,
You should tell them they MUST interview Charles Kerchner and Mario Apuzzo.