Three little words: Natural Born Citizen.

Earlier this year, a judge gave the Obama Administration 60 days to reply to the charges of his non-NBC citizen status. The procedures, before halted, seemed somewhat similar to following this excerpt from 1956's US v. Minker.


United States v. Minker, 350 US 179 - US: Supreme Court 1956

@196-197

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, concurring.

... Congress has provided a special judicial procedure which must be followed, if a citizen is denaturalized.

That procedure is contained in § 340 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. 66 Stat. 163, 8 U. S. C. § 1451.

It provides for canceling a certificate of naturalization on the ground that it was procured "by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation."

§ 340 (a). Suit may be brought by the United States Attorney in the District Court "upon affidavit showing good cause." Id. The citizen whose citizenship is challenged has 60 days "in which to make answer to the petition of the United States." § 340 (b).



There is no pretrial administrative procedure provided in the section governing denaturalization. One can search § 340 in vain for any suggestion that the judicial procedure is supplemented by a pretrial procedure. So to hold would make the 60-day period for answer "empty words." as Judge Foley ruled in Application of Barnes, 116 F. Supp. 464, 469. As Judge Hastie, writing for the court below in the Minker case, said, the administrative pretrial procedure is not consistent with the safeguards which Congress has provided in the judicial proceedings. 217 F. 2d 350, 352. I agree with that view and would, therefore, read 197 § 235 (a) to exclude witnesses who are potential defendants in § 340 cases.


There is another reason for reading the section narrowly. When we deal with citizenship we tread on sensitive ground. The citizenship of a naturalized person has the same dignity and status as the citizenship of those of us born here, save only for eligibility to the Presidency. He is a member of a community included within the protection of all the guarantees of the Constitution. Those safeguards would be imperiled if prior to the institution of the proceedings the citizen could be compelled to be a witness against himself and furnish out of his own mouth the evidence used to denaturalize him. I would require the Government to proceed with meticulous regard for the basic notions of Due Process which protect every vital right of the American citizen.

So in any trial or challenge of Obama, the (what Rush Limbaugh calls) "chickified" judges do whatever they can to stop the procedure from going forward, joining the defendant Obama in resisting his prosecution, because some of the greatest evidence against him is out of his own mouth.

1) That his father was a Kenyan citizen who studied in but never emigrated his citizenship to the United States.

2) That he considered himself a dual citizen, owing allegiance to more than one country.

3) He was born in Queen's Hospital, he was born in Kapi'olani hospital, he was born in Indonesia (re: Tammy Duckworth).



In Mar Gong v. Brownell, 209 F. 2d 448 - US: Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1954

448…Plaintiff's complaint asserted that he was a citizen of the United States because he was the son of Mar Kwock Tong, an American citizen who has lived and resided in the United States since 1924.[2]

449 There is no question of the citizenship of Mar Kwock Tong; his father had been a natural born citizen of the United States….

But we are never told what constitutes an NBC status for Mar Kwock Tong.

In the DC Circuit Court, the Obama lawyers wish to ambush Taitz, Apuzzo, Donofrio, and Berg with

Liacakos v. Kennedy, 195 F. Supp. 630 - US: Dist. Court, Dist. of Columbia 1961, (June 29, 1961) which has ruled to the effect that simply by being born in the US, regardless of parental citizen status, the DC Circuit believed the child attained an NBC status. There were no US Supreme Court citations other than one casual and non-helpful off-handed reference to Perkins v Elg, 307 US 325; http://supreme.justia.com/us/307/325/ and a liberal reinterpretation of summary intent of that decision in order to back that Liacakos v. Kennedy claim up.


Liacakos v. Kennedy appears to be the ONLY case that the Obama defense team can spearhead their defense of Obama to. Thus, the Bauer and Perkins Coie strategy, which will be on the taxpayer's dime (should the case proceed to the DC Court when Bauer assumes his role as taxpayer funded White House Counsel) , will be to have the lower Circuit Court pitted against itself, so that it refuses even hearing or considering the dozens of higher US Supreme Court cases stating to the contrary of that DC Circuit Court's ruling.


That is, the three litle words of Obama are "Usurpation of Power", and motions should be used by the birther lawyers to by-pass the DC Circuit and go directly to the US Supreme Court because of DC Circuit pre-disposition toward bias, and because of illegal advantage of taxpayer dollars to fund Obama's defense for a pre-election issue.


If the Obama left could sue Sarah Palin frivolously and stick her personally with lawyer expenses, Obama deserves no less for genuine legal issues pertaining to his de facto lack of eligibilty to serve in the Presidency. Maybe those older leftist idiot idealogues that blindly support Obama could learn from something a Liberal Comedian recited 40 years ago, an explanatory Pledge of Allegiance.