Enter your email address to subscribe to Irregular Times and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 375 other subscribers

Irregular Times Newsletters

Click here to subscribe to any or all of our six topical e-mail newsletters:
  1. Social Movement Actions,
  2. Credulity and Faith,
  3. Election News,
  4. This Week in Congress,
  5. Tech Dispatch and
  6. our latest Political Stickers and Such

Contact Us

We can be contacted via retorts@irregulartimes.com

Waiting for Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire to start investigating Rick Santorum

In a presidential debate last night, former senator and current 2012 contender Rick Santorum reminded his audience that his father was not born in the USA. No, Aldo Santorum was born and spent a fair amount of his childhood in Italy. Under jure sanguinis laws in Italy, Aldo Santorum’s descendents including Rick Santorum appear to qualify for Italian citizenship. Rick Santorum could be a dual citizen.

Now, to normal everyday Americans like you and me, such information doesn’t merit more than a shrug. So what if Rick Santorum is technically qualified to be an Italian citizen? He was born in the USA, and that makes him a natural born citizen, and that qualifies him to run for and serve as President of the United States. Period. End of story.

But if you’re a “birther,” one of the people who subscribes to the conspiracy theory that Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen and therefore ineligible to be president, then this news about Rick Santorum should generate much ado… thousands and thousands of words of ado, even!

Why? According to birther leader Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire (yes, that’s what she calls herself), such dual citizenship makes one ineligible to “natural born citizen” status:

The State Department is maintaining a “counter-misinformation” page on an America.gov blog that attempts to “debunk a conspiracy theory” that President Obama was not born in the United States, as if the topic were equivalent to believing space aliens visit Earth in flying saucers.

However, in the attempt to debunk the Obama birth-certificate controversy, the State Department author confirmed Obama was a dual citizen of the U.K. and the U.S. from 1961 to 1963 and a dual citizen of Kenya and the U.S. from 1963 to 1982, because his father was a Kenyan citizen when Obama was born in 1961.

In a number of court cases challenging Obama’s eligibility, dual citizenship has been raised as a factor that could compromise his “natural born” status under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. The cases argue dual citizenship would make Obama ineligible even if documentary evidence were shown the public, such as the hospital-issued long-form birth certificate that indicates the place of his birth and the name of the attending physician.

These cases have been dismissed by judges who found their arguments to be woefully insufficient, but never mind that. Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire has an ally in Joseph Farah. He’s not just Editor of the right-wing website WorldNetDaily, he’s Editor in Chief (but sorry, no Esquire). Editor in Chief Joseph Farah makes the same assertion:

“It raises far more questions than it answers,” said an almost breathless Joseph Farah, editor-in-chief of WorldNetDaily, an online site that has printed hundreds of items questioning Obama’s citizenship.

Even if real, Farah said, the document raises questions about Obama’s eligibility to be president. Because Obama’s father was African, Farah contended the president might have had “dual citizenship” and therefore might not be a “natural-born” citizen, the eligibility requirement in the Constitution. He suggested it is necessary to revisit the intentions of the Framers.

There’s nothing in the Constitution about “dual citizenship”, but let’s ignore that fact for a moment. Let’s take the word of Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire and Editor in Chief Joseph Farah when they say their charges against Barack Obama’s legitimacy stem not from personal animus, not from partisan targeting, and not from racism, but rather from a sincere belief that dual citizenship renders a person ineligible.

If that’s really true, then how should they respond to the news that under Italian law, Rick Santorum has the right to dual citizenship? With demands for an investigation! With court cases! With hundreds and thousands of indignant posts!

And think about it: have you ever even seen Rick Santorum’s birth certificate??? How do you know he wasn’t born in Sicily? And “Rick” is a nickname, isn’t it? What’s his real name? Guido???? Silvio???? You don’t know!

Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire and Editor in Chief Joseph Farah have not yet begun their investigations of Rick Santorum. Oddly enough, Farah writes nice things about Rick Santorum and Taitz appears to have had him over for dinner. But these must be mere tactical feints, because these are well-meaning and sincere people after all. I am sure the onslaught of investigations, demands and lawsuits against Rick Santorum from Dr. Esquire and Editor Chief will shortly commence.

52 comments to Waiting for Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire to start investigating Rick Santorum

  • theotherjimmyolson

    We call that sarcasm where I come from pardner. Penobscot, by the way.

  • Elegy

    Natural Born Citizenship has nothing to do with the birthplace of the parents, only that the parents are U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth. If Santorum’s father was not a US citizen at the time of Rick’s birth, he isn’t and could never be a natural born citizen just like Obama, Jindal and Rubio. It’s pretty astonishing that most people in this nation were never taught a basic, simple term in the Constitution.

    • One’s natural born citizenship has nothing to do with the birthplace of one’s parents.

      One’s natural born citizenship has nothing to do with the citizenship of one’s parents.

      The only criterion for natural born citizenship is being born in the United States.

      See the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

      • Vigilannie

        You are wrong….if you were born in the U.S. it just makes you a CITIZEN only! NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!

      • drkate

        wrong. 14th amendment did not alter Article II section 1., clause 5. When will you idiots become informed?

        • I’m going to become informed on Tuesday, at 2:00 PM. How about everyone else here?

        • Article II Section 1 Clause 5 only says “Natural Born Citizen.” Article II Section 1 Clause 5 does not define “Natural Born Citizen.” The 14th Amendment describes citizenship in terms of natural birth, and the courts have clearly ruled that the meaning of this has to do with people who are born in the USA. Nothing about who your parents are.

          I don’t like the word “idiot.” But anyone who has read up on the subject should know this.

        • JManuola

          Sorry, Jim, but you’re wrong. The 14th Amendment did NOTHING with regards to the natural born citizen clause of Art. II. You cannot simply declare that the terms “citizen at birth” and “natural born citizen” are one and the same simply because it suits you to do so.

          And no, the Supreme Court has NEVER fully disposed of the issue of what is or is not a Natural Born Citizen. They have addressed the issue on a few occasions in so far as it suited their need to answer the prevailing question before the Court at the time. But they have never fully disposed of the issue.

      • Ralph

        14th amendment has nothing to do with NBC that merely states if a person is born in USA of one parent citizen is a native born not Natural Born wake up. Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 specifically states Natural Born and neither one of them are Natural Born.

  • July6000

    It might be helpful to consult with people alive in 1787.

    “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.” William Rawle, 1826 “A View of the Constitution of the United States

    Mr. Rawle in the same paragraph writes,

    “Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.”

    So “place of birth” creates the quality of being “natural born”.

    This is a reflection of the belief of James Madison,

    “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; “ James Madison, 1789, Speech on the floor of the House of Representatives.

    Rawle’s statement is also a reflection of the laws of State of Connecticut as described by Zephaniah Swift,

    “The children of aliens born in this state are considerded as natural born subjects and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens. “ Zephaniah Swift, 1795, “A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: in Six Books”

    BTW, William Rawle was a Philadelphia lawyer (he founded the law firm of Rawle and Henderson, the oldest law firm in the United States). He was appointed by President Washington to be the first U.S. Attorney for the District of Pennsylvania.

    Zephaniah Swift was a member of the Connecticut legislature, U.S. Congressman and eventually the Chief Justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court

    • JManuola

      William Rawle is surely entitled to his opinion. But, like your opinion and mine, his lacks any sense of constitutional authority. Rawle was little more than an abolitionist who was advocating for the emancipation of blacks. A dozen other writers at the same time would wholeheartedly disagree with Rawle on this matter…including historian David Ramsey, and many others.

    • Barb

      Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “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.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

      This obviously refers to the parents having to be U.S citizens.

      • What it “obviously refers to” is one member of the U.S. House of Representatives talking about what he thinks about an issue in 1866.

        • Tommy Thompson

          John Bingham was the main author of the 14th amendment…I would think he understands this issue pretty good..LOL Obama’s placement on the ballots in each state is now being challenged. This means the end of the fraud. Obama is NOT a natural born citizen. He will have to prove he is eligible to be on the ballot and there is no case anywhere that has ever declared a “dual citizen” as a natural born citizen. Everyone may want to research the term “Constitutional natural born citizen”. The game is over…..

        • OMG, John Bingham is not a member of the Supreme Court. ROTFLMAO.

  • Dear Jim,

    Long time, no see.

    The 14th Amendment as construed in the Wong Kim Art case established the legal precedent of “citizenship”, not an A2S1 natural-born Citizen. In fact the question that Minor did not answer was answered by the Wong Kim Ark case, wherein children born of resident alien parents long domiciled in the United States are “citizens of the United States” under the 14th Amendment.

    But far importantly as it related to Obama’s A2S1 NBC status, the Wong case recognized the legal precedent set in Minor vs Happersett , which is the only US Supreme Court case that directly construed Article II, natural born Citizen, in that a person born within the jurisdiction of two citizens is an A2S1 natural born Citizen.

    I can give you more material on the Minor case and why it is considered legal precedent and not dictum if you would like.

    We are also facing the same problem with Sen. Rubio and Gov. Jindal, although to their credit, neither have stated they want to run for either President or Vice-President.

    Lastly, I would suggest to check the record in this regard: Every President and Vice-President starting with George Washington and John Adams have observed the two-citizen rule, with the exception of Chester Arthur and Barack Obama, even after the 14th Amendment.

    As to Rick Santorum, I’ll check it out. If his father was naturalized before Rick’s birth, he would be a natural born Citizen.

    I hope this helps.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • Just a brief follow up. I really haven’t found out exactly when Aldo became a naturalized citizen. But I did find out that Aldo, along with his mother, Maria, Pietro Santorum, and Aldo’s older brother Bruno and younger sister Carla, moved to the Johnstown area when he was 7 to join his father, who came to the United States five years earlier.

    Aldo joined the Army Air Corps in 1942 after high school, serving most of World War II in the South Pacific where his main job was repairing airplanes.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • JManuola

      David, I’ll try to find the law but I do believe the naturalization laws at that time would have instantly made Rick’s father a naturalized citizen as a result of being the minor child of someone who had become naturalized.

  • By the way, Jim; if you haven’t really looked into the Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), I urge you to do so on its own merits. It’s a fascinating case…a classic example of judicial restraint; sadly, unknown by many of our jurists today.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • David Farrar

    Dear Jim,

    Let me ses if I can expond on your point. As I am sure you are well aware, I am taking this directly from a longtime Democratic Obama foe, Leo C. Donofrio, Esq. from his website Natural Born Citizen where he states in part: ” A more careful reading of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Minor makes it clear that it did not construe the 14th Amendment with regard to the citizenship of the woman who wished to vote. The question presented in the Minor case was whether, since the adoption of the 14th Amendment, women had gained the right to vote. The Supreme Court in Minor held that nowhere in the Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, was anyone, man or woman, granted a right to vote. And it was only this part of the Minor case which was superseded by the 19th Amendment.

    The other issue decided by the Court in Minor required the Supreme Court to determine if the woman was, in fact, a US citizen. As to this determination, the Court did not construe the 14th Amendment. In fact, the Court specifically avoided construing the 14th Amendment with regard to her citizenship. Instead, the Supreme Court in Minor chose to construe Article 2 Section 1:

    “There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ‘ are expressly declared to be ‘citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.’ But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position …

    “The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States”…

    The Minor Court made a certain, direct determination that Mrs. Minor was a US citizen before the adoption of the 14th Amendment by taking judicial notice that Mrs. Minor was a person born within the jurisdiction of two citizen parents, she was a “natural born” Citizen.

    The Court then, having determined that she was a US citizen, avoided any construction of the 14th Amendment as to her citizenship status. Therefore, the holding in Minor is in no way superseded by Wong Kim Ark case.

    Chief Justice Waite:

    “Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,‘ and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

    “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.“

    Jim, I am sure you know we must carefully examine the actual words stated by the Supreme Court. We must not allow ourselves to be guided by what the Supreme Court did not say. What the Court actually said is what makes law.

    In the above passage, the Court noted that Mrs. Minor was born in the US to parents who were citizens. The Court stated that such persons were “natural-born citizens”. The Court also stated – as to such persons – that their “citizenship” was never in doubt.

    By recognizing Mrs. Minor as a member of the class of persons who were natural-born citizens, they not only established her citizenship, but created a legal precedent that directly defines an A2S1 “natural born” Citizen.

    The Minor Court refrained from making a “citizenship” determination from other classes, but the Court did note that they were a different class. Later, in 1898, the Court in Wong Kim Ark took the question on directly as to who is a citizen under the 14th Amendment, but that case did not directly construe Article 2 Section 1, whereas Minor did.

    Source: US SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT STATES THAT OBAMA IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • JManuola

      The mistake made is assuming that the Minor “definition” of a natural born citizen is conclusive. It was not. They admitted as such. The question before the court was not what is the full scope and definition of a natural born citizen…but whether Mrs. Minor was at liberty to vote. In determining their response to that question, they felt it necessary to first determine if Mrs. Minor was indeed a citizen or not. In doing so, they resolved to understand the scope of a natural born citizen only so far as was necessary to determine that Mrs. Minor was one.

      The same problem occurs by opponents to the two citizen definition of a natural born citizen. They toss out Justice Gray’s dissertation regarding the history of the natural born subject and citizenship and so on and proclaim THAT to be the final resolution to the issue. But in discussing those issues in his ruling, Justice Gray was never intent on fully resolving the issue of what is or is not a natural born citizen. He, too, only went so far as was necessary to answer the question of whether Wong Kim Ark was a CITIZEN or not. He didn’t even decide, from all that he wrote, that Wong was even a natural born citizen…but merely determined that he was a citizen at birth.

      This is where the anti-birthers really blow a cork off the rules of logic. They immediately assume that the term ‘natural born citizen” and “citizen at birth” are one and the same. And although it might be logical to propose that ALL natural born citizens are citizens at birth. It violates the rules of logic to convert that to also suggest that ALL citizens at birth are natural born citizens. The rules of logic would permit only such a conversion with a quantitative adjustment.

      The rules would permit thus: ALL natural born citizens are citizens at birth logically converts to SOME citizens at birth are natural born citizens.

      The only way the first conversion would be acceptable is to provide substantive evidence to PROVE that the conversion is true. Justice Gray does not provide such proof…if for no other reason than because he is not called upon to do so in answering the SOLE question before the court in that case. That which he does say about the issue, though relevant, is not, even by Gray’s own words, to be considered a full disposition of the issue. Even a reading of the dissenting opinion reveals further information that must definitively be addressed when one DOES fully dispose of the question of what is and is not a natural born citizen.

  • David Farrar

    Jim,

    I guess the question really before us is: Is there another definition of an Article II, Section I, Clause 5 natural born Citizen besides a person born in this country of two US citizens? The answer to this question, according to the US Supreme Court, is; not yet.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • David Farrar

    Dear Jim,
    I also strongly urge everyone to read the Minor vs Happersett case from http://supreme.justia.com/us/88/162/case.html. Just one note of caution though, please read Leo C. Donofrio’s accusation that someone at Justia had been editing the Minor page recently, as I understand it, and the apparent prejudice of Chief Justice Gey in the Wong case to gain a fuller understand of his decission.
    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/the-express-lane-to-natural-born-clarity/#comment-18616

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • David Farrar

    Dear Jim,

    Leo has just made another posting that is reflective of my thinking of the Minor case. Jim, this case, although presently, Obama’s supporters have attempted to minimize the impact of this case. The Minor case is well known throughout the legal world as the furst Us Supreme Court case where women were legally recognized as equally to men.

    To suggest now that the Minor case did not count or that it did not create legal precedent because the Petitioners essentially lost their case, is patently incorrect, and, in my view, self-serving.

    I hope that helps.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • But oddly enough the actual court system doesn’t agree with your or the other conspiracy theorists’ interpretations of these cases. That’s where your notions bump up against the wall of actual judicial practice.

  • David Farrar

    The actual who?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • David Farrar

    Okay, Jim. Please ask your court system friends “If Chief Justice Gey, in the Wong case, saw Wong Kim Art as a natural born citizen, how did the Court arrive at the 14th Amendment to established citizenship, when the Petitioner’a citizenship had already been establish by A2S1?”

    Ask them that, Jim; if you would. And get back to me.

    And thanks

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • David Farrar

    The answer is, Jim; the Gey Court didn’t see Wong Kim Art as an A2S1 “natural born” Citizen. They recognized the legal precedent they set in the Minor case: that an A2S1 natural born Citizen is a person born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction. Since Wong Kim Art’s parents weren’t even naturalized citizens, the Wong Court had to use the 14th Amendment to establish his citizenship.

    Minor construes A2S1, while Wong construes the 14th. Each decision complimenting each other’s perfectly.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • David Farrar

    Jim,

    I forgot…the vid is wrong in one respect…14th Amendment citizens are not “natives”; they too, according to Minor, are natural born Citizens.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • David Farrar

    Dear Jim,
    So according to your definition of a A2S1 natural born Citizen (nbC), as I understand it, Anwar al-Awlaki would qualify to take the oath of office of the Presidency of the United States.

    Whereas under my theory, Anwar’s parents would have to have been naturalized US citizens for that to be true.

    Which one of these two theories offers the greatest amount of protection for the office of the Presidency?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • David Farrar

    Dear Jim,

    If you should read this (or anyone else): please go to http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/ it has some good stuff on natural born Citizen.

    exanimo
    davidfarrar

    • july6000

      David read the first paragraph of the Minor decision. The Court says there is only one question to be answered – does the Constitution grant voting rights to citizens. Nothing Leo or Mario say’s changes that. There is no issue about citizenship so it is all dicta and nonbinding.

      • David Farrar

        As always, Jim; I can rely upon you to make a devastatingly accurate observation. But it is my understanding that Minor is the first case to hold that women are equal citizens to men. To this day, that case is still cited as the first US Supreme Court decision which recognized that women were, in fact, citizens. It is still precedent for that determination. Google [ "minor v happersett" "women are citizens" ] and review the results. A multitude of articles discuss the holding of Minor – that women are US citizens.

        Clearly, Jim, there were other precedents set in Minor.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

  • Ripped

    Is the author really that clueless to what a natural born citizen is. If both of his parents had become US citizens by the time of his birth Rick Santorum is a natural born citizen since he was born in the US. Obama’s father was never a US citizen and his place of birth has never been proven.

    • Jim

      That’s not the legal standard for natural born citizenship. The standard is whether one is born in the USA. By that standard both Santorum and Obama are natural born citizens.

  • debrarae

    The FEC is allowing a man born in GUYANA to run as POTUS, and your wasting your time on this crap?

    IF Obama is allowed to be POTUS you HYPOCRITE, so can SANTORUM!

    YOU don’t like it you stupid bigoted LIBSCUM? Then IMPEACH OBAMA, and all the lawless hypocrites like BIDEN, CLINTON etc…….. who PROTECTED HIS LAWLESS BUTT!

    • Wait. I thought he was born in Kenya. Now he was born in Guyana? Where will he have been born tomorrow? In Botswana, perhaps? Why not make it creative? Why not another continent? How about Tasmania?

  • debrarae steinman

    According to the US constitution ‘if’ Santorum’s Father was a naturalized citizen at the ‘time’ of his birth (and listed as such on the birth certificate), then Santorum is indeed a naturalized (qualified to run as POTUS) citizen.

    If however (as in the case of Obama on his own LFB that is on his cite) the father is listed let’s say as a Kenyan (and not yet a naturalized citizen) then he in fact has dual citizenship and is not qualified to run as POTUS.

    Again your argument fails you stupid jerk!

    Amazing how LIBS do not have to follow the rules like every one else. That also makes you a HYPOCRITE YOU FFNG MORON!

    • Um, well. Naturalized citizens are citizens who were not born in the United States. They are not qualified to run for the presidency of the United States. It’s true whether you use all caps or not.

  • Looking at the comment postings there has been a lot to say that the 14th Amendment has defined the term “natural born citizen” of the United States. If the Congress intended that the 14th Amendment was to define “natural born” citizen, that term “natural born” would have been written in the Amendment. But the 14th Amendment declares only that those who is “born” or “naturalized” and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are only “citizens” of the United States. With the word “naturalized”. the Comgress made it cllear that the term “citizens” are not “natural born citiznes” and the two terms are not the same.

    But all is for naught as the 14th Amendment exist only as a fraud in law as the Amendment was expressly “rejected” by more than one-forth of the States that were in the Union in the year of 1867. The “rejected” votes cannot be overturned by what Congress declared to be military governments of military districts that were subject exclusively to the Congress of the United States under the Reconstruction Acts of March 5, 1868. For documentation, see website: http://www.14th-amendment.com.

    The term “natural born citizen” has been defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in more that one case, being that a “natural born citizen” is one who was born to parents who both were citizens of the United States at the time of his/her birth.

    Gordon Epperly

  • Mark Seidenberg

    It is my current understanding that Aldo Santorum as claimed by his parents entered the United States as a claimed citizen of Austria, even though he was
    born in the Kingdom of Italy after the terms of a 1919 treaty, which the United
    States Senate did not give it’s advise and consent. We also need to look at
    the terms of the Hague Convention of Nationality of 1930, which was ratified by
    the United States in 1937.

    It is clear that the Italy quota was filled by the terms of 1890 United States Census.
    We then need to go to rulings of geography by what was Italy and Austria-Hungary
    under the 1890 United States Census of S. W. Boggs of the Depaprtment of
    State and the quota formulated.
    For Obama the issue is did he board the ship S.S. Uganda on August 28, 1961,
    when he was a claimed 24 day old baby. The S.S. Uganda arrive at Tilsbury
    Docks, England on September 20, 1961. We know that Stanley Ann Obama
    started classes at the University of Washington, Extention in Downtown Seattle
    on September 25, 1961 at night. We are informed that Stanley Ann Obama
    went into labor at the Port Rietz Airport in the Kenya Protectorate in the afternoon
    of August 4, 1961 and was taken to a hospital on the Island of Mombasa.

    The first problem that Dr. Jerome Corsi had was the August 19, 1961 date on the
    transcript of Stanley Ann Obama had. August 19, 1961 was on a Saturday. Extention Office was closed to the public on Saturdays in 1961, and there were
    no Saturday classes in August 1961. However, the Extention Office was processing mail applications on Saturdays for extention admissions.

    Reason for no attending regular sessions was Stanley Ann Obama was18 years
    old age. When under 19 years of age by regular session rules had to live
    either in the dorms or with a husband or parent(s) to attended regular classes.

    She changed to regular session the 3rd quarter of the “1961 – 1962 school year”.

    In 1961 the border between British Columbia and Washington State was open.
    Stanley Ann flew from London to Montreal on a BOAC flight after arrival at Tilbury
    Docks on or about September 20, 1961. Coming from London to Montreal, Canada with an undocumented baby was not a problem in September, 1961.
    Entry into the United States would be a problem.

    John Sidney McCain III was born at the Colon Hospital on August 29, 1936 on the
    island of Colon in the Republic of Panama to unwed parents under the laws of
    Baja California, Mexico. We are dealing here with the Act of August 4, 1937, Section 2. Roberta McCain nee Wright was not employed by either the United
    States Government or the Panama Railroad Company or related interests.
    This is a case where a United States Citizen born in the United States could not
    pass citizenship to her child, because she was unwed under the laws of Baja
    California, California, and Hawai’i (locations of Roberta McCain nee Wright prior
    to the arrival in the Republic of Panama “with child”. Robert McCain nee Wright
    became with child from her stay in Hawai’i with John Sidney McCain II. although
    she was not married to him. One can not get married in a bar in T.J., Baja California, it must be in an Office of the Civil Registry. For a check of $1.50 and a
    self addressed stamped envelope to the Lordsburg, New Mexico (county court)
    Clerk you can get a certified copy of the document showing that John Sidney
    McCain II and Robert Wright were never married as claimed by John Sidney McCain III in his book, “Faith of My Fathers”. Just asked for the recorded record
    of non-marriage between John Sidney McCain II and Roberta Wright and the
    court clerk in Lordsburg, New Mexico can send you that document. They have had
    many requests for that document, so it will be easy to locate for them.

    Therefore as I see it. Aldo Santorum was not a naturalized citizen of the United
    States. Both Obama and McCain are aliens under United States Law. Barack H.
    Obama II was born a subject of the Sultan of Zanzibar and John Sidney McCain III
    was born a citizen of the Republic of Panama. Note the Colon Hospital was in the
    Republic of Panama on August, 29, 1936 and not in the Canal Zone.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party of California

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>