Open Letter from American Citizen to Barack Hussein Obama

Open Letter from American Citizen to Barack Hussein Obama | by Thomas W. Arnold III | @ ThePostEmail.com

April 25, 2022

Mr. Barack Hussein Obama:

On April 22, 2022, a Washington Examiner news article by Paul Bedard titled “Obama:  Most ‘Consequential’ Decision was not Fighting ‘Birther’ Claims”) stated that you and some of your former and/or present staff regret that you did not stand up stronger to “birthers” and more aggressively oppose their so-called “conspiracy theories” about your place of birth and whether or not you were/are a Muslim.  Oh, really!  Personally, I (an unashamed “birther”) believe that getting into some kind of contentious political skirmish over your background would have absolutely been the wrong thing for you to do (then or now).  You wouldn’t have a chance of winning!  Why not?  Continue reading, and I think you will find out. …. https://www.thepostemail.com/2022/04/25/open-letter-from-american-citizen-to-barack-hussein-obama/

# # # #

CDR Charles Kerchner, P.E. (Retired)
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com
http://www.scribd.com/user/52640192/protectourliberty/lists
http://www.protectourliberty.org

How “Birthright Citizen” Went Off the Rails! — The Gestation of Birthright Citizenship, 1868-1898: States’ Rights, The Law of Nations, and Mutual Consent | by Bernadette Meyler | Cornell Law School

How “Birthright Citizenship” went off the rails under the influence of the progressive ideological movement in the USA regarding recognizing citizenship in the USA as simply due to being born here as the sole determining factor. This paper covers the key gestation period for that thought in the last half of the 19th century. And it continued to get manipulated and loosened even more since 1898 via misinterpreting the true holding of Wong Kim Ark (1898) Supreme Court decision (parents had to be legally domiciled permanent residents of the USA to give children born in the USA birthright citizenship) to where we are now, i.e., even illegal aliens’ children are considered to have “birthright citizenship”. Read the below paper to learn how it all started and evolved in the last half of the 19th Century, with some writings of that era for and against the interpretation as to whom has “birthright citizenship”, and the progressives and liberals point of view of why they think this is good.

The Gestation of Birthright Citizenship, 1868-1898: States’ Rights, The Law of Nations, and Mutual Consent – by Bernadette Meyler, Cornell Law School – Spring 2001

This paper on Birthright Citizenship in the last half of the 19th century was brought to my attention by a researcher of citizenship law. Some key excerpts written by scholars, politicians, and various courts battling over the liberalization of “birthright citizenship”, and cited in this paper covering the time frame of the last half of the 19th century, are pointed out by him and herewith shared below. You can get a copy and read the full paper on the pros and cons of the debate on the subject of “birthright citizenship” during that time frame here or here .

Some important excerpts pointed out by the researcher (with some additions by the editor) are listed below with some key words and phrases which were highlighted by him, are in this format marked with italics and bold type for emphasis by the editor:

PDF document p. 14: In McKay v. Campbell, the U.S. District Court for the district of Oregon considered whether the plaintiff could be deemed a U.S. citizen, and should be allowed to vote. The defendants argued that McKay was British, since he was the child of a British subject, and had been born at a point when Britain and the United States had agreed-for the moment-to occupy the territory jointly.  Judge Deady, evaluating the case, narrowed the issue to that of birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment, which he interpreted in terms of the common law; as he asserted, eliding jurisdiction and allegiance, “The case turns upon the single point – was the plaintiff born subject to the jurisdiction of the United Statesunder its allegiance? Citing Calvin’s Case, the Judge recalled Lord Coke’s statement that “To make a subject born, the parents must be under the actual obedience of the king, and the place of birth be within the king’s obedience, as well as within his dominion.  According to Judge Deady’s reading of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is “nothing more than declaratory of the rule of the common law,” and, therefore, the citizen’s allegiance at birth must be evaluated.  In McKay’s case, “The child, although born on soil … subsequently acknowledged to be the territory of the United States, was not at the time of its birth under the power or protection of the United States, and without these the mere place of birth cannot impose allegiance or confer citizenship.

PDF document p. 17: The contrast that Stoney drew between national allegiance and national jurisdiction did not respond to a common law interpretation of allegiance, but instead to an internationalist one, which would insist that the allegiance of the parent governs the child as well.

Image added by the editor. Click on image for more on the importance of the Law of Nations and Natural Law in regards to citizenship of a country and allegiance requirements and claims of same. The Law of Nations is cited in our U.S. Constitution. Vattel’s Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law greatly influenced many of the founders of our nation such as Franklin, Jefferson, and Washington and the framers of our U.S. Constitution.

PDF document p.28: As Morse quoted Justice Marshall, “The law of nations … is a law founded on the great and immutable principles of equity and natural justice.” The following were included among the numerous works on the subject cited in treatises and articles on citizenship: Bar, International Law; Field, International Code; Foelix, Droit International Prive; Savigny on Private International Law; Phillimore, International Law; Story, Conflict of Laws; and Vattel, Law of Nations.

PDF document p. 29: the subject of citizenship being national, questions relating to it are to be determined by the general principles of the law of nations.

PDF document p. 44: The words ‘not subject to any foreign power’ do not in themselves refer to mere territorial jurisdiction, for the persons referred to are persons born in the United States. All such persons are undoubtedly subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and yet the act concedes that nevertheless they may be subject to the political jurisdic­tion of a foreign government.

# # # #

CDR Charles Kerchner, P.E. (Retired)
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com
http://www.scribd.com/user/52640192/protectourliberty/lists
http://www.protectourliberty.org

Other suggested reading and viewing on being a “natural born Citizen” of the United States:

1.  A chart which lists and explains the five (5) Citizenship terms used in the U.S. Constitution.

2. Being a “born Citizen” or “Citizen at Birth” is not identically the same as a being a “natural born Citizen”.

3. Read this essay regarding the constitutional term natural born Citizen” and basic logic, i.e., trees are plants but not all plants are trees. “Natural born Citizens” are a subset of “born Citizens (citizens at birth)”. Adjectives mean something.  All “natural born Citizens” are “born Citizens (citizens at birth) but not all “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” are “natural born Citizens”:  https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/of-natural-born-citizens-and-citizens-at-birth-and-basic-logic-trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab/ 

4. A Euler Diagram which logically shows the kinds of U.S. Citizens and their set and subset relationships: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2018/06/16/natural-born-citizen/

5. The “Three Legged Stool Test” for being a Natural Born Citizen: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2013/11/15/the-three-legged-stool-test-analogy-for-natural-born-citizenship-of-the-united-states-to-constitutional-standards/

6. Article II Presidential Eligibility Facts:  http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html  or  https://www.scribd.com/document/161994312/Article-II-Presidential-Eligibility-Facts 

7. Watch these videos (Parts I and II) by the renowned constitutional scholar Dr. Herb Titus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8  and  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoaZ8WextxQ

8. Read, download, and print a PDF copy of this White Paper by CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) about the “natural born Citizen” term and presidential eligibility clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution here: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/The-Who-What-When-Where-Why-and-How-of-NBC-Term-in-Constitution.pdf

9. Read the dozen of legal essays and court briefs written by constitutional and citizenship expert Attorney Mario Apuzzo on being a “natural born Citizen of the United States” and the pretenders and usurpers in three major political parties (Democrat, Republican, and Socialist parties) – who invalidly claimed such birth status – at his legal blog:  http://puzo1.blogspot.com

The Obama Fraud ……

The Obama Fraud …… | by Bob68 | @ThePostEmail.com

(Feb. 12, 2022) — Here are a few questions [and answers] related to why both parties panicked when Donald Trump defeated the planned-and-promised-in-2008-after-Obama cover president, Hillary Clinton:

Why did Democrats and many Republicans panic when Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton in 2016? Would they have reacted the same if some other Republican had defeated Hillary? There is more than one answer, but consider this which applied to only one Republican candidate, Donald Trump.  Private citizen Donald Trump, you may remember, offered the putative president Barack Hussein Obama $5 million to show his passport and school records, with the money to go to Obama’s favorite charity. Even today $5 million is a lot of money, and Obama could have ended any chance of Trump eventually running for president by showing those records. Trump would have been humiliated as the Obama media repeatedly showed Donald Trump handing a $5 million check to Obama. Obama ignored the offer and some of Obama’s apologists said Obama, the assumed president, could not get the records. I find that impossible to believe.

IMO the obvious reason the records were not shown and Donald Trump’s presidential aspirations not ended is that Obama and others are hiding information he and his supporters, protectors and controllers fear even today may be revealed and acted on. Obama’s installers knew Obama would need cover after he left the office he usurped, and I believe in 2008 they made Hillary Clinton an offer she had better not refuse to be that cover and not show the proof she claimed she had of Obama’s ineligibility. The offer was to drop out of the 2008 Democrat primary to insure an Obama victory and be rewarded with having her multi-million-dollar campaign debt paid, the Secretary of State ($$$) job in Obama’s administration and, to fulfill Hillary’s dream of being president, she was promised the much-needed after-Obama “cover” presidency.

It was time for the Soros-funded, Brennan- and CIA-created Barack Hussein Obama to be installed. Obama was the perfect race-protected (black leadership had a meeting and declared Obama was “black enough”), and once sworn in, ineligibility-protected candidate to be installed in 2009, and no one was going to get in the way, not even Hillary Clinton. Obviously, those who prepped and installed Obama knew they needed to plan ahead to cover what Obama was going to be told to do during his years as America’s putative president. They believed Hillary would be the perfect after-Obama cover. Hillary’s lackluster 2016 campaign against Donald Trump likely came from her overconfidence. Hillary knew powerful people had installed and protected Obama and the same people who installed Obama would get her elected president no matter who she was running against, and with that person being Obama’s biggest nemesis, Donald Trump, her winning was a cinch……

Why did both parties panic when Hillary lost to Donald Trump?  When John Roberts swore in the ineligible con-artist, Barack Hussein Obama in 2009 and both parties said and did nothing to try to prevent it, they effectively gave America’s government and her military to her enemies through the Soros-funded, Brennan- and CIA-created Barack Hussein Obama. Both parties had to cover for Obama because they had, as a minimum, all violated their sworn oath to protect the Constitution. That seems serious to me. The Obama media created the derogatory word “birther” to call anyone who wanted proof Obama was eligible, and not just a badly forged and very belatedly-shown claimed birth certificate. Courts and judges were never going to rule the race- and ineligibility-protected candidate Obama was ineligible, especially not after he was sworn in to be America’s putative president by the Chief Justice of America’s highest court, John Roberts. Americans slowly learned of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, and later the Cloward-Piven Strategy.  Obama was even told by Republican leadership he would not be impeached……something Obama already knew………and why. … continue reading at: https://www.thepostemail.com/2022/02/12/the-obama-fraud/

# # # #

More Obama Fraud Information Here: https://www.scribd.com/user/52640192/protectourliberty/lists

CDR Charles Kerchner, P.E. (Retired)
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com
http://www.scribd.com/user/52640192/protectourliberty/lists
http://www.protectourliberty.org

Other suggested reading and viewing on being a “natural born Citizen” of the United States:

1.  A chart which lists and explains the five (5) Citizenship terms used in the U.S. Constitution.

2. Being a “born Citizen” or “Citizen at Birth” is not identically the same as a being a “natural born Citizen”.

3. Read this essay regarding the constitutional term natural born Citizen” and basic logic, i.e., trees are plants but not all plants are trees. “Natural born Citizens” are a subset of “born Citizens (citizens at birth)”. Adjectives mean something.  All “natural born Citizens” are “born Citizens (citizens at birth) but not all “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” are “natural born Citizens”:  https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/of-natural-born-citizens-and-citizens-at-birth-and-basic-logic-trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab/ 

4. A Euler Diagram which logically shows the kinds of U.S. Citizens and their set and subset relationships: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2018/06/16/natural-born-citizen/

5. The “Three Legged Stool Test” for being a Natural Born Citizen: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2013/11/15/the-three-legged-stool-test-analogy-for-natural-born-citizenship-of-the-united-states-to-constitutional-standards/

6. Article II Presidential Eligibility Facts:  http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html  or  https://www.scribd.com/document/161994312/Article-II-Presidential-Eligibility-Facts 

7. Watch these videos (Parts I and II) by the renowned constitutional scholar Dr. Herb Titus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8  and  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoaZ8WextxQ

8. Read, download, and print a PDF copy of this White Paper by CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) about the “natural born Citizen” term and presidential eligibility clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution here: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/The-Who-What-When-Where-Why-and-How-of-NBC-Term-in-Constitution.pdf

9. Read the dozen of legal essays and court briefs written by constitutional and citizenship expert Attorney Mario Apuzzo on being a “natural born Citizen of the United States” and the pretenders and usurpers in three major political parties (Democrat, Republican, and Socialist parties) – who invalidly claimed such birth status – at his legal blog:  http://puzo1.blogspot.com

The Scientific Misconduct Story Behind Ivermectin

Dr. Joseph Mercola, public domain

(Jan. 26, 2022) — In mid-February 2021, Dr. Andrew Hill at Liverpool University published a scientific meta-analysis of six randomized controlled trials involving the use of ivermectin in 1,255 COVID-19 patients. (The paper was initially posted on a preprint server.)

The review, which was funded by the World Health Organization and UNITAID, found that ivermectin increased viral clearance and reduced COVID-19 deaths by 75%. This is a rather massive benefit, yet the conclusion of the paper was dismissive, saying additional large clinical trials were needed to make a determination about whether or not to recommend its use.

In mid-February 2021, Dr. Andrew Hill at Liverpool University published a scientific meta-analysis of six randomized controlled trials involving the use of ivermectin in 1,255 COVID-19 patients. (The paper was initially posted on a preprint server.)

The review, which was funded by the World Health Organization and UNITAID, found that ivermectin increased viral clearance and reduced COVID-19 deaths by 75%. This is a rather massive benefit, yet the conclusion of the paper was dismissive, saying additional large clinical trials were needed to make a determination about whether or not to recommend its use.

Hill Accused of Scientific Misconduct

In early April 2021, Hill and his coauthors were accused of scientific misconduct by a French civic group called the Association BonSens. The TrialSite News video report from April 5 above reviews the details of this story. BonSens — labeled by some a “controversial group” based on its anti-mask mandate stance — accused Hill of data manipulation to downplay the usefulness of ivermectin.

Continue reading this informative article at: https://www.thepostemail.com/2022/01/26/the-scientific-misconduct-story-behind-ivermectin/

# # # #

CDR Charles Kerchner, P.E. (Retired)
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com
http://www.scribd.com/user/52640192/protectourliberty/lists
http://www.protectourliberty.org

%d bloggers like this: