Saturday, August 6, 2011

Rachel Maddow of MSNBC Should Be Ethically Sanctioned for Intentionally Misstating to the American Public the Birthers’ Position On Whether Obama Is A "Natural Born Citizen"

By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
August 6, 2011

Readers should view MSNBC's Rachel Maddow’s news reporting on August 4, 2011, to the U.S. national viewing audience in which she presents what she claims it means to be a "Birther." The video can be viewed at http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/08/rachel-maddow-schooled-on-obamas.html. She gives the most extreme, distorted, biased, inaccurate, and ridiculous statement of what "birtherism" is (e.g., she says that “birthers” believe that Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Sr. concocted a grand plan to make a “terror baby” in 1961 who would secretly become President of the United States). Her explanation is replete with insolence, ridicule, misstatements, and ad hominem attacks. She then follows up here diatribe with audio clips of political leaders who question Obama’s eligibility, implying without any evidence that they also ascribe to the ridiculous explanation that she just presented on what it means to be a birther. Clearly, her insidious purpose is to ridicule the entire “birther” movement and any public person who would dare ascribe to any of its ideas.

What Maddow has presented on the critically important national security issue of whether Obama is constitutionally eligibility to be presidential is not unbiased, objective, and informative journalism. Her story is all about sensationalism wrapped with smugness, arrogance, and ridicule. Not once in her attack does she mention the real legal debate which is whether putative President, Barack Obama, is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Not once do we hear her talk about the debate regarding the constitutional definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen."

Maddow mocks and ridicules the “birthers” for what she says are their conspiracy theories about Obama’s origins and eligibility to be President. But the issue of whether Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen” is not a conspiracy. Rather, it is a straightforward constitutional issue which not only Maddow, but the entire mainstream media continue to avoid reporting to the American people. Rather, their scheme is to talk about ridiculous conspiracy theories (the hatching of presidential “terror babies”), crack a lot of jokes about them and the people they falsely accuse of following them, give us their phony smiles, and hide the real issue. But people like Maddow can get on public television all they want and put on their little carnival act under the plastic cover of television, but they will not be able to hide the facts and the law from the American people.

Under binding U.S. Supreme Court case law, an Article II “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to U.S. citizen parents. See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 167 (1875), which held:

“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.” Id. at 167-68.

This U.S. Supreme Court’s definition was stated in 1758 by Emer de Vattel, the Founders’ and Framers’ favorite writer on natural law and the law of nations, in his, The Law of Nations, Sections 212-217 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) where he said the “natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” The virtually unanimous documented view that prevailed during the Founding, as confirmed by the views of the Founders and Framers, text and structure of the Constitution, and federal and state case law, was that the law of nations was considered universal common law that was binding on the people, the President, Congress, and the nation, and “part of the laws of the United States within the symmetric ambit of Article II, Section 3, III, Section 2, and VI, clause 2 of the United States Constitution.” As to this conclusion, see the exhaustive research paper of Jordan J. Paust, In Their Own Words: Affirmations of the Founders, Framers, and Early Judiciary Concerning the Binding Nature of the Customary Law of Nations University of Houston Public Law and Legal Theory Series 2009-A-27, which can be downloaded without charge at The University of Houston Accepted Paper Series Index.

Moreover, Vattel’s and Minor’s definition was also acknowledged by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the seminal case on U.S. citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment, which clarified and established the meaning of a Fourteenth Amendment “born” “citizen” and again confirmed the meaning of an Article II “natural born” citizen, and by doing so informed that there are two birthright citizenships under the Constitution, one under Article II (“natural born”) and the other under the Fourteenth Amendment (“born” in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”). Under Article II of our Constitution, only a “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President, for only a “natural born” citizen is born within the full and complete allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States which means being born with sole and absolute loyalty, attachment, and allegiance to the United States and none to any foreign power. The Founders and Framers wanted to assure that the new constitutional republic would be lead both civilly and militarily by a person who from the moment of birth had sole and absolute loyalty, attachment, and allegiance to the United States. It is only by being born in the United States (or its jurisdictional equivalent) to a U.S. citizen father and mother that no foreign allegiance, jurisdiction, and citizenship attach to the child at the moment of birth or as Vattel put it, “if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” Id. at Sec. 212. It is therefore inconceivable that the Founders and Framers, who went to great lengths to insulate the new republic from foreign influence and monarchial rule, would have countenanced a person born after the adoption of the Constitution to be eligible for the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military who did not meet the law of nations definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

If Obama was born in Hawaii (a fact that he has yet to conclusively prove) and if his parents are Barack H. Hussein and Stanley Ann Dunham (it is reported that these are his parents), he can be a Fourteenth Amendment and 8 U.S.C. Section 1401(a) “born” “citizen of the United States,” but he cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen” which is the constitutional standard that he must meet to be eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. His mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was a “citizen of the United States” at the time of Obama’s birth. But his father, being born in 1934 or 1936 in what was then the British colony of Kenya, was under the British Nationality Act of 1948, a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (“CUKC”). Obama himself by right of decent from his father under the same Act was also born a CUKC. Hence, because Obama was not born in the United States to United States citizen parents, he was not born under the sole and undivided allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States. Obama was not born with sole citizenship in the United States. Consequently, he was not born with unity of allegiance to and citizenship in the United States. Obama, therefore, cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen” and is not eligible under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

Media watch dog groups such as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) and Media Matters for America (MMFA), and the Project for Excellence in Journalism have been suspiciously missing from the mainstream media’s news reporting on this Obama eligibility debate. Such absence is more suspect when we consider what lengths such watch groups and others have gone to attack Fox News Channel for what they contend is biased news reporting. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies#cite_note-15.

The Preamble to the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics provides:

“Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.” http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp.

See also the professional electronic journalists’ code of ethics at http://www.rtdna.org/pages/media_items/code-of-ethics-and-professional-conduct48.php.

“Media makers and journalists carry a lot of responsibility when covering important news events. Journalists should follow a set of ethic standards to ensure fair, accurate and honest reporting. In the profession and study of journalism, a code of ethics has been set as a standard for reporters to follow. Often, journalists deal with sensitive issues and must tell stories while facing a number of ethical dilemmas such as privacy, conflict of interest, journalist-source relationships and the role of journalists in society.” Read more: Code of Ethics in MediaeHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_6521911_code-ethics-media.html#ixzz1UGymorNh. Indeed, the pillars of a journalist ethical code are ethics, privacy, truth, fairness, accountablility, and independence.

So, what ever happened to enforcing journalist standards and protecting the greater good from corruption and abuse, whether it comes from government or from our own national media? The public having fair, balanced, and accurate news information is critical to the survival of republican government. Then why have we allowed our news media to become a propaganda machine that is politicized, untrustworthy, and, as we can witness not only from Maddow’s presidential “terror baby” presentation but from that of so many other news reporters, nothing more than a vicious joke factory? We should be very sensitive to the protections that the First Amendment gives us. But when will our news industry police itself and hold the Maddows of news reporting accountable from a journalistic standpoint for the potential harm that they do to their profession and our nation?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
August 6, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

Read on and follow the links for some additional insight into the true position of the constitutionalists who are fighting the battle to get the truth out in regards to lack of conclusive evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii and how the records in Hawaii were falsely filed and created in 1961 simply to gain U.S. Citizenship for the foreign born grandson of Grandma Dunham.

Grandma Dunham filed a falsified sworn affidavit declaring a birth at home with no 3rd party witnesses simply to get her grandson highly coveted U.S. Citizenship status, not because the family knew the future or because they were hatching some sort of Boys from Brazil plot. It was pure and simple birth registration fraud and citizenship fraud. People do it now to gain U.S. Citizenship illegally and people did it back then. And in Hawaii, with its lax birth registration laws, it was easy to do.

Rachel Maddow’s twisted disinformation tongue is full of crap with her made up on the air claims as to the position of the “birthers”. The “Saul Alinsky Rules For Radicals – Tactic #5“ ridicule laced narrative she read is her creation, and what she wants her listeners to believe, and is not the position of the constitutionalists fighting to get the truth out about the fraud and usurper-in-chief in the White House, who is also guilty of identity theft by using a stolen SSN, which Rachel Maddow failed to mention. She also fails to mention the contradictory evidence coming out of Kenya about Obama’s nativity story. More on the Kenyan news accounts can be learned about here.

Listen to this 10 minute audio interview if you wish to learn the true position of the “birthers” regarding the questions about Obama’s born in Hawaii nativity story, the lack of physical and medical evidence in Hawaii to substantiate he was really, physically born there, and how the state records that are there and the newspaper announcements were all triggered by the single act of filing a falsified affidavit of an at home birth registration by grandma Dunham in 1961: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmZpwcRf3FQ

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://cdrkerchner.wordpre​ss.com

10 comments:

  1. Rachel Maddow's fear and ignorance is hugely apparent in her presentation. Her snarky remarks reveal just how hollow a person she really is. People like her, don't realize just how stupid they look. Her lame attempt at 'over-kill' on this issue only makes the Truthers appear 100% correct.

    ReplyDelete
  2. She is a joke, and if she is so delusional as to believe she is a bonafide news person, then it goes a long way to explain what is wrong with main stream media today. She thought she was oh so clever in couching the idea that Obama's parents were seeking to position him for a presidential election 50 years later, really, as if that were the goal. However, as has been pointed put, the value in US citizenship can't be taken for granted, and clearly Obama's parents knew this, and this is the exact reason why documenting his citizenship was important in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nobody planned for obama to be president. They planned for him to be mayor of chicago back in the 80's and I dont know what happened after that by somehow he became a ineligible president.

    ReplyDelete
  4. the state of HI would generate the newspaper anouncments is granny dumham applied for a COLB.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Rachel Maddcow is a PRESSTITUTE..! Just like all the rest of them.
    Our Beloved "Rush" the other day said that we have no proof of when Berraco was born. I thought he had released his long form... Isn't that proof..? Or does it prove that Pendejo knows it's fake and keeps Quiet..?
    I say it's the latter.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Main Stream Journalist such as Maddow and "ALL" Liberal Socialist Mao - Stalin Lovers (Democrats) have no Ethics nor morals to be judged by; (Everything our founding fathers warned against)hence it becomes emphatically irresponsible to presume they can be held to any standards at all.

    Moreover, what good it is to call Donkey Dung - Dung - when it knows its a pile of shit? It is what it is, and changes nothing.


    Saying it like it is....

    ReplyDelete
  7. Madcow should start taking up a collection to have her cranial removed from her rectum and she would have a chance of recovering from shit spewing...maybe not.

    ReplyDelete
  8. ONE
    BIG
    ASS
    MISTAKE
    AMERICA

    ReplyDelete
  9. new name or madcow and the rest of them:

    birtherphobes

    and madcow was engaging in birtherphobic behaviour

    like it?

    ReplyDelete
  10. maddow is a hack and nbc has become a joke. yes folks its definitely time for some major house cleaning. its time to make these socialists leave our nation they need to be shown just how unwelcome they are here. its time to give them the idea that its best for their health to kindly get the hell out!

    ReplyDelete

“As long as I am an American citizen and American blood runs in these veins I shall hold myself at liberty to speak, to write, and to publish whatever I please on any subject.” - Elijah Parish Lovejoy(1802-1837)

Comments posted here do not necessarily reflect the views of BirtherReport.com. Readers are solely responsible for the content of the comments they post on this web site.