We Read The Constitution!

Press Release

September 6, 2010
Mary Ann Hartzler, Event Organizer
mahunt100@yahoo.com
http://www.wereadtheconstitution.com/
Local Residents to Gather on Sept. 18
for Public Reading of U.S. Constitution

Topeka Residents Take Part in Nationwide Readings of the Entire United States Constitution

When: September 18, 2010, 3:00 p.m.
Where: South Lawn, Kansas State Capitol Building

In an effort to help revitalize the nation’s civic culture, residents of Topeka, Kansas will come together at 3:00 p.m. on Saturday, September 18, 2010, at the Kansas Capitol for a public reading of the U.S. Constitution.

The event will feature Vicki Tiahrt, wife of Congressman Todd Tiahrt, Patricia Stoneking, President of the Kansas State Rifle Association, ordinary citizens and other distinguished guests as public readers. It is one of hundreds of celebrations to be held on the same day in cities and towns all across the United States.

Event Organizer Mary Ann Hartzler said, “This event, and the hundreds like it across the country, is our way of expressing our respect and reverence for the importance of the nation’s founding charter and its relevance today.”

“This is a real grassroots effort, of ordinary Americans talking to each other on the Internet, to show there are people who think the nation’s civic culture is important. No matter what your political party affiliation, people should be able to rally around a celebration of the signing of our founding charter. Everyone should be familiar with the Constitution and what it says. We happen to think it is time for it to be read aloud,” Hartzler said.

In addition to local organizers, the We Read the Constitution Project is backed by national groups including Let Freedom Ring, Constituting America, Americans for Prosperity, The Heritage Foundation, and many others.

###

Are Christians Outcasts in the United States?

Christians and moralists in the United States have been far too tolerant and silent for far too long. Now we are outcasts in our own Country--even though our Country was founded upon principles that are the very tenets of our faith in God. As we attempt to restore our Country to its former moral stature, those with whom we have been tolerant will not be tolerant in return. I predict that Christians will experience persecution like never before seen here in the United States, as the powers of darkness seek to retain control.

Rather than evangelizing unbelievers for the past several decades, those unbelievers demanded tolerance (and we complied). We told them they could believe whatever they wanted, just so long as they didn't force it on anyone else. Well guess what? They're not going to return the favor with us. If the Christians, tea partiers and others dissatisfied with the current direction of our government do not find a way to unite themselves in order to reclaim our Country...we are sunk!

Now is NOT the time to divide over theological and worship differences. Now IS the time to unite around the U.S. Constitution, read it, memorize it, read it in conjunction with the Federalist Papers. We must know our Constitution and the Federalist Papers so well that we know when someone is quoting it correctly...or not. And, we must know them well enough to be able to tell when the U.S. Supreme Court lays a big egg (like Roe v. Wade).  The time for doctrinal isolation and purity is in the private worship sector. By all means, worship God in the manner you see fit in your church or house of worship. However, you must come to terms with those who worship differently than you in order to save our nation from it's public woes.

Do NOT interpret any of the above to mean that I think abortion is a "right," "personal decision," or "states' rights" issue. I believe our founding documents clearly uphold the value of life, even pre-born life. It is always interesting to me that those who push abortion as a legal right are always those who have already been born.

Abortion is one social issue upon which all Christian faiths ought to agree; an issue upon which all moral people ought to agree. Yet, ironically, abortion is the one issue that divides the supposedly conservative Republican Party, even though their platform is a pro-life platform.  Until Christians and all moral people can come to terms on the issue of abortion, we will never see our Country restored to constitutional rule.

America's democratic republic [IMHO we are a Constitutional Republic] came about because, by God's providence, people who were highly influential American leaders at the time followed the discipline of faith and reason to conclusions about justice that recognized the right of the people to govern themselves. What leaders will do so now? Whoever they are, they represent the leaders the Tea Party movement needs to lift up as its representatives if, as its name implies, it is to be a faithful reiteration of the fabled spirit of 1776.  Where will they be found?  One thing is certain: not among those touted by the "Great Mentioners" in the puppet media, or in any way served up by the "God is unmentionable" crowd in control of the present party system. ~Dr. Alan Keyes, Which is Really the Third Party?, Sat. 17 April 2010.

Let's make God publicly mentionable again, and not just as a curse word. The atheists among us have just as much right NOT to listen as we do to speak. Speaking about your faith is NOT hate speech. Speaking about the consequences of Heaven and Hell is NOT hate speech. Condemning the act of homosexuality is NOT hate speech. What first brought the Pilgrims to the New World was the desire to be free to worship God in the manner they thought best represented the example of worship followed by the early church. Now, some 230+ years later, God is the great unmentionable in both major parties.

Those two parties, Democrats and Republicans, have surreptitiously enacted election laws at all levels of government which virtually assure that no candidate outside those two parties will ever be able to campaign for elected office.  What's worse, they have convinced the supposedly conservative party (Republicans) that if the conservatives don't vote for the GOP candidate, no matter how bad a choice he/she may be, that it will guarantee a Democrat win. If you repeat a lie enough times it becomes the truth, right?  And, so the people are so afraid of "splitting the conservative vote" they won't vote for the best candidate if they don't believe that candidate can win. It has become the total opposite of what our revered Founders intended.

It is time for all sects of the Christian faith to rise up in support of the U.S. Constitution, and for the morality that it espouses.  It is time for all sects of the Christian faith to let go of the lie that a woman has the right to choose between herself and her baby--who advocates for the baby?  The woman has a voice, but her pre-born offspring does not.

Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country.  Please don't stay on the couch.  Please get involved, and please don't trust either of the two major parties to tell you the truth about their candidate.  They're not in it for the good of the Country.  They're in it for the power high it gives them--why else would politicians (and parties) spend millions of dollars campaigning for a Congressional seat that pays only $174,000 per year?  Folks, when are you going to realize that we are being screwed by BOTH parties?

Psychopolitics?!

Some acquaintances on Independence Caucus have spent a great deal of time trying to convince me that I shouldn't be using my faith to help sift through the political candidates (vetting questions). This is the substance of my response:

You are missing the point to Restoring the Republic if you leave God out of the equation. Surely as Constitutionalists you must know that the purported separation of church and state is a contorted (and erroneous) reading of the First Amendment. One does not have to be a Christian in order to recognize the divine providence of a higher power (but a belief in God sure helps). Even native Indian tribes believe in the Great Spirit.

I submit that if you do not use your faith to help you sift through the political candidates (status quo for several decades), then you are going to get what you've always gotten--a disappointment when the "fiscal conservative" you supported makes bone-headed decisions on social issues or turns out not to be as conservative as s/he pretended to be. Anyone can lie to you. However, the issue of the sanctity of life is a divisive subject that carries a lot of passion. Not many people can fake that kind of passion.

If you return to Constitutional principles, are you not going to embrace the faith that comes with them? How can you divorce one from the other? Our Constitution was written to "...secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity." You do know what your posterity is, right? Your future generations (not just your children, but many generations), which means they have to survive a pregnancy. Have none of you ever heard of the personhood imperative? And...what in the world is the 80/20 rule? Is that similar to voting for the lesser of two evils? Okay, let's vote for the lesser of two evils...what is the end result? Evil!

Let's pretend that I offer you a glass of the finest wine that money can buy (hat tip to Tom Hoefling). But before I give it to you, I put a teaspoon of arsenic in it. Will you still drink it? But it was just little bit, it isn't enough to kill you, just make you sick. Remember...it is awfully luxurious wine. Surely it wouldn't hurt to drink it with so small an amount of poison, right?

Let's also pretend that once you accept the poisoned wine and get used to the flavor that I keep increasing the poison, ever so slightly so as not to be noticed. At what point are you going to realize that something is wrong? Would you not agree that our society has huge problems today? Problems that cannot be fixed with legislation? How will you legislate against greed, fraud and corruption if there is no God and no absolutes?

No. No more for me. I've had enough poisoned wine, and I consider myself a recovering republican. This doesn't mean that I won't support another republican, but it DOES mean that the republicans I do support will have a track record of faith (not like Jeremiah Wright), and a passion to protect innocent human life. I have found that when the candidate has these character traits, that his/her fiscal responsibility will fall into place without effort. I will not support or vote for a candidate who has no faith and does not recognize the sanctity of life (without exceptions).

I leave you with this quote from the old Russian textbook on "Psychopolitics:"

http://www.fhu.com/articles/brainwashing2.html#anchor14

THE SOVIET ART OF BRAINWASHING
A Synthesis of the Russian Textbook on Psychopolitics

. . .

CHAPTER XIV
THE SMASHING OF RELIGIOUS GROUPS

. . .

We have battled in America since the century's turn to bring to nothing any and all Christian influences and we are succeeding. While we today seem to be kind to the Christian, remember, we have yet to influence the "Christian world" to our ends. When that is done we shall have an end of them everywhere. You may see them here in Russia as trained apes. They do not know their tether is long only until the apes in other lands have become unwary.

You must work until "religion" is synonymous with "insanity." You must work until the officials of city, county and state governments will not think twice before they pounce upon religious groups as public enemies.

Remember, all lands are governed by the few and only pretend to consult with the many. It is no different in America. The petty official, the maker of laws alike can be made to believe the worst. It is not necessary to convince the masses. It is only necessary to work incessantly upon the official, using personal defamations, wild lies, false evidences and constant propaganda to make him fight for you against the church or against any practitioner....

(Emphasis mine.) I'd say that their work on this issue is fairly complete.

Citizen at Birth vs. Natural Born Citizen?

From Mario Apuzzo's blog: A Place to Ask Questions and to Get the Right Answers
Posted by cfkerchner at 11:45 PM
Thursday, July 16, 2009

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 Title 8 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's father was not a citizen of the USA, nor was he an immigrant to the USA, nor was he even a permanent resident of the USA. Obama when born in 1961 was a British Subject via his British Subject father, per the British Nationality Act of 1948 which governed the status of children born to British Subjects. Obama thus was born with dual citizenship and allegiances and a foreign claim on his allegiance. 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

Will The REAL Americans Please Stand Up?!

[I have met some of the most wonderful, conservative people in the world at the social network "A Black Conservative Digest" (ABCD). One of my new-found friends, Emery McClendon, published this blog today and, with his permission, I've copied it here. Yes, Emery, I will stand with you and be counted.]

What are we to make of all the policies of the Obama Administration that are coming at us faster then a speeding bullet? Since the inauguration we are watching Socialist polices come out of Washington DC like lightening. We have witnessed attempts to raise our taxes, take over our healthcare system, a decline of support for our Military spending, an attempt to charge our Troops, and Veterans for healthcare, the take over of private business, the Value added tax, energy tax, universal healthcare; and now the appointment of a very liberal Supreme Court Justice to the Supreme Court. These are but a few things that our President and the liberal Congress have either proposed or placed into law under Executive Orders or through the passage of unread bills and the stimulus package.

Good conservative values based on the Bible are being tossed out of the window, and our President has told us that we are no longer a Christian nation. He is turning his back on our longtime allies, and degrading this nation in front of our enemies.

It has long been the goal of the socialist leaning left to destroy America “by any means necessary.” The term “by any means necessary” has a subtle meaning to the likes of Barack Obama and his friends. During the 60’s and 70’s militant groups used this language to express disgust with America and capitalism. Black militant groups used it to stir up disgust of Whites. The any means necessary meant just what it says. By “any means” which would work. Whether by violence, using false trust or what ever it takes to bring down “the man” and his system, America and capitalism.

They incorporated the phrase “if you can’t beat them join them” into the mix. Many of the radicals of the 60’s and 70’s have joined the system to take it down. Many hold elected office, and high positions in corporations. They now feel that it is “their time” to reshape America. Most of them feel the same as Jeremiah Wright, and Louis Farrakhan.

These radicals now hold positions in our federal government as well, and many have been appointed to cabinet level positions by Barack Obama to bid socialist policies into our society. They are taking over our government one branch at a time with out firing a shot. The true conservative has been labeled as terrorist, and extremist. We are also in jeopardy of losing our right to public assembly, and freedom of speech.

Let’s wake up and stand for freedom, and the Constitution. We must continue to fight for the truth, and to preserve the American way for our children. We must continue to attend conservative Tea Parties, and rallies that say no to more taxes, and a further erosion of our rule of law. We must vote the rascals out of office that do not support America, and stand up for our freedoms.

We cannot be led down a path that will doom us, and our children, by left wing radicals that want to force us into socialism, which by the way does not and never has worked. We cannot allow them to drive a wedge between us as Americans by using false claims of racism. We are all in this together, and we must work together to win.

They say that for America “the chickens are coming home to roost.” I say that America is still the greatest place on earth to live, and that we can continue to be great if we pay attention and defend our freedoms, and way of life as spelled out in the Constitution, and our Godly heritage.

America, stand up and be counted before it is too late. We have an opportunity to do so this Independence Day by voicing our opinion at patriotic rallies, and teaching our children the true meaning of our Constitutional liberties. Will you join in to save our nation?

Born in the USA?

This issue is too important to be left on the back burner. Folks, it is time we stand up and demand that this man prove he is eligible, and not by some phony image that some loyal staffer put up on the internet. He needs to answer more than the question of where he was born, we need to see his passport(s), his college records (including financial aid), and his adoption records, if any. This article from World Net Daily has again renewed my hopes that perhaps we may find out just who this man is, versus what he claims to be.

Kentucky elections officer wants eligibility investigated
Refers matter to state attorney general for review

Posted: April 10, 2009
Time: 10:50 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

An official in the office of Kentucky's elections chief has referred to state Attorney General Jack Conway for investigation the issue of Barack Obama's eligibility to be president.

In a letter to Conway, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Leslie A. Fugate noted the issue of "President Barack Obama's eligibility to be on the ballot in Kentucky."

"Because our office does not have investigative powers … we are referring the matter to your office," she wrote."

The letter followed a visit to elections officials by California attorney Orly Taitz, who is working through her Defend Our Freedoms Foundation on several court cases challenging Obama's eligibility.

A committee of concerned citizens accompanied Taitz to Fugate's office to ask that the eligibility issue be investigated.

There was no immediate word on the status of any investigative work that might be launched by investigators for Conway, the 49th attorney general for Kentucky, who was elected in 2007 and has made targeting cybercrimes a priority.

If a formal investigation actually is begun it apparently would be the first time the many lawsuit plaintiffs across the country would see a door opening to some answers about the murky circumstances surrounding Obama's eligibility to be president.

Among the typical responses to eligibility challenges WND has reported was a federal judge's dismissal of a case because the issue already had been "twittered."

Further, lawyers hired to defend against such cases also have begun threatening sanctions against plaintiffs' lawyers unless they agree voluntarily to leave the issue of eligibility unquestioned.

Questions about Obama's birth place were being raised even before he was elected. He had reported he was born in Honolulu, but because he has steadfastly refused to release a copy of his long-form birth certificate, which would put such questions to rest, dozens of lawsuits have been filed challenging his eligibility to serve as president under the Constitution's "natural born citizen" clause.

While many of the lawsuits have been dismissed, most have not been heard for reasons of jurisdiction and standing, rather than on the evidence and merit of the challenges.

So far, there have been two definitive statements on his eligibility, including one from an Obama campaign spokeswoman talking about the challenges who told WND, "All I can tell you is that it is just pure garbage." [Editor's note: Boy, this settles it for me, how 'bout you? NOT!!]

The other is from Chiyome Fukino, the director of the Hawaiian Department of Health, who issued a statement, "I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."

What is not said is significant. While the certificate on file is "in accordance with state policies and procedures," there's no affirmation that the document reflects a Hawaiian birth.

Nor is there any explanation for the image of the Hawaii state "certification of live birth" that has been posted by Obama on the Internet purporting to document his Hawaiian birth, even though Hawaiian procedures at the time allowed the document to be issued to parents of children not born in the state.

For example, why would an individual with a verified birth certificate also have a "certification of live birth?" [Editor's Note: Why would someone who had found their birth certificate amongst his mothers things after her death (from Dreams From My Father) have to post a phony one when he ran for president 13 years later?]

The questions raised over Obama's eligibility are all very simple: The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

But getting the issue discussed has been a huge obstacle, and what courts have done several times, including once in a California case, is to schedule hearings on the issue on a date far beyond any reasonable expectation of having applicability, lawyers have said.

It was in his autobiography that Obama reported he was born in Honolulu, and the online "Certification of Live Birth" states that.

But when WND senior staff writer Jerome Corsi went to Hawaii, he was told any Obama records were sealed, and although they would be released if the person made the request, Obama simply has refused to do that.

Corsi also traveled to Kenya where he was also told records pertaining to Obama in Kenya were sealed.

There also have been no confirmed hospital records uncovered that would document his birth, and an investigator even cast doubt on whether the Obama family lived at the address listed in the newspaper announcements.

A woman who reportedly "remembered" Obama's birth and was quoted widely in support of his Hawaiian birth later explained to WND she had been told of the birth of a baby boy by an acquaintance who was a doctor who noted the mother's unusual name of Stanley, but she had no knowledge of the details.

According to much legal research, at the time of Obama's birth he could be a natural born citizen by being born in the United States, by being born to two U.S. citizen parents (not possible because of his father), or, if only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of the birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16. [Editor's Note: My research into the Constitutional provision discussed here said that at the time of Obama's birth in 1967, 5 of those 10 years had to be after the age of 14, not 16. Either way, Ann Dunham was not old enough to confer citizenship, should the birth have happened in a foreign country.]

The problem is, Obama's mother was only 18 when she gave birth, so his only apparent route to "natural born" citizenship status would have been to be born in

Some of the lawsuits that have been filed question whether Obama was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born. Further complicating the issue are the reports he was adopted by an Indonesia man during his childhood and moved to Indonesia and attended school there. There also are questions on what nation's passport he traveled to Pakistan....(read more)

The article continues with a list of all the various lawsuits and their current status.

Folks, this is a real issue--it isn't just sour grapes. It has nothing to do with race, and nothing to do with the fact that he is a democrat and I'm an independent (who leans toward republican candidates many times as the "lesser of two evils").

It has everything to do with whether our Constitution is still the controlling law of the land.

Let me say that again...it has everything to do with whether the Constitution is still the controlling law of the land.

Do you believe that the U.S. Constitution is still the law of the land?

Will Barry Soetoro actually be sworn in as the 44th President?

Who knows what is in store for us here in the United States of America. Those who are in a position of authority and who could investigate Barack Hussein Obama's citizenship choose not to do so. What's a lowly citizen supposed to do? I've ranted and raved, written letters, all to no avail. My senators just pat me on the head and say "there, there, nice little citizen."

My personal opinion is this: if Barack Hussein Obama is the anti-Christ, nothing we do will stand in his way or prevent him from assuming power. The good news is this also means the return of our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ is imminent. BUT, until I'm caught up to meet him in the air, to borrow the words of the Apostle Paul, I am to occupy HERE until Jesus comes. This means I keep fighting, no matter how dismal things seem.

I'm not a sore loser and I don't have a case of sour grapes. I just want to be sure the President of my country is a natural born citizen, just like the U.S. Constitution requires. Natural born citizenship entails more than just the location of birth. Most court cases, and debate over the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution defined the phrase as being born to two U.S. citizen parents on U.S. soil. Consider these questions, if you will:

• Obama refuses to allow access to birth records that could determine his citizenship status–why? The sham certificate image posted online has been proven to have been altered by two different scientists, neither of whom knew the other was working on the same issue.
  

• Obama refuses to allow access to college financial aid records–why? Did he receive financial aid as a foreign student?
  

• Obama refuses to allow access to his medical records–why? Private investigators in Hawaii have determined that S. Ann Dunham was never a patient at any hospital in Hawaii. Obama and his sister, Maya, have given the names of two different hospitals where Obama was supposedly born. So, which is it? And, how can he have been born at a hospital where his mother was never a patient?
  

• Obama refuses to allow access to his passport records–why?
  

• Did Obama travel to Pakistan at the age of 19 or 20 on an Indonesian passport?
  

• Did Lolo Soetoro adopt Obama as a small child? Obama’s wife Michelle said he was adopted by Soetoro. Wouldn’t that have made him an Indonesian citizen?
  

• His paternal grandmother has been recorded as saying she was in the delivery room when Obama was born in Mombasa.

Does none of this confusion raise questions in your mind as to the veracity of Obama’s citizenship? Why weren’t these issues settled before he was allowed to run for office or even be nominated? Some of this information has been gleaned from Obama’s own books–his own words trip him up. There’s no conspiracy, the simple truth is that Obama is lying or withholding pertinent information because it would not place him in a favorable light. Apparently, there aren’t any men in Washington with enough backbone to make him prove his citizenship–not the place of his birth, but his citizenship.

There! I've ranted again.
:) Mary Ann Hartzler