THE RELEVANT OBAMA ADMISSION

THE RELEVANT OBAMA ADMISSION

At Barack Obama’s web site, the following admission:

“FactCheck.org Clarifies Barack’s Citizenship

‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…’ ”

Read that last line again.

“That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…”

That’s an admission that Great Britain “governed the status” of Barack Obama, Jr.  Brack Obama has chosen to highlight this on his own volition.

And this leads to the relevant question:

HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’S STATUS BE “GOVERNED” BY GREAT BRITAIN?

A natural born citizen’s status should only be governed by the United States.  This is the core issue before the Supreme Court of the United States.

smears1

233 Responses to “THE RELEVANT OBAMA ADMISSION”

  1. Barack Obama was born a British Citizen. That he was also born an American Citizen does not mitigate.

    I don’t know how anyone gets past that.

    British Citizenship at birth was unquestionably something the Framers excluded by their use of the restrictor “Natural Born Citizen” in Article II.

    Were it not excluded, there would have been no need for the specific grandfathering of those who were American Citizens at the time the Constitution was adopted.

  2. And that (plus the NJ SOTS admission that she did not fact check POTUS candidates constitutional qualifications) in a nutshell is the core issue of Donofrio v Wells.

    That said, it is also interesting to note that at the top of the very same page on FighttheSmears.com, the campaign went out of its way to use a term that SOUNDS like ‘natural born citizen’, instead they stated that Obama is a ‘native born citizen’. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t think ‘native born citizen’ has any legal definition, and it certainly isn’t the same as ‘natural born citizen, which is what appears in the Constitution.

  3. Linda Melin Says:

    I find it quite interesting that they/Obama/fightthesmears chose these words to preface their cause to Obama’s citizenship:

    quote “Smears claiming Barack Obama doesn’t have a birth certificate aren’t actually about that piece of paper — they’re about manipulating people into thinking Barack is not an American citizen.The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America. ” unquote

    “Native” citizenship has been proven to mean something very different than “Natural Born” thus another blunder on Obam’s plight to decieve the public about his inelgibilty problem. Right there at the beginning.

    I had never gone to the fightthesmears site, only the factcheck.org, interesting, did I miss this on the factcheck site too?

  4. Leo, did you reference this admission in your filing?

    Also, is this any kind of an admission as well:

    The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.

    The mention of only being classified as a “native born citizen” as if that means something similar to what the Constitution requires. They may be confusing the public but hopefully they won’t be doing the same with the Justices.

  5. Seems Bill Richardson knows something about Barack’s status too:

    “Osama es un emigrante” — translated — “Obama is an immigrant”

    “Barack Obama is the best candidate for the Hispanic community because our community wants a united country. Obama is an immigrant. When he speaks to Latinos, he doesn’t just speak about immigration and civil rights…”

  6. Free America Says:

    I’ll respond in a single word – BRILLIANT!

  7. This has been hiding “in plain sight” all along. Will the SCOTUS actually take an internet post into account? I remembr this as part of Leo’s argument.

  8. Gotta love this: What are they thinking? They admit this stuff intentionally to say that Obama has been vetted by the press?
    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Gov_Bill_Richardson_revelation_Obama_is_an_immigrant

  9. Linda Melin Says:

    I tried to go to the SCOTUS site to check as there showed activity on Leo’s case per change of date on the docket listing page which of course peaks a person’s curiousity to just go see if there is a change entered.

    It stikes me odd that the site is down today, a very BIG day for our Constitution. Are they getting overloaded or is something else happening here?

  10. There is NO WAY in **** that Obama is a “Natural Born Citizen”.
    If the Supreme Court looks the other way on this we leave the presidency open to any thug in the world taking the office of POTUS. So far all those in charge that all of us trusted have looked the other way. I am FED UP with ALL of them!
    Praying our Supreme Court does not let us down.

  11. […] Donofrio’s (Plaintiff in Donofrio v. Wells) latest blog posting shows how Obama’s site, FightTheSmears.com, affirms that the UK’s colonial law in […]

  12. Exactly right.

    Former senator Obama has also made this admission in his writings and on his websites.

    There has never before been a post-Constitutional U.S. President who made such a claim.

    Barack Obama is ineligible to take the office of President of the United States.

  13. Hi Leo – Did FactCheck edit their previous entry? If so, they’re making it worse for Obama rather than better. Many are getting nervous….

    Scott

  14. Here is an article on the 14th amendment which helped me to understand “natural born citizen.”

    http://www.therant.us/guest/gioia/09222007.htm

    While the “natural born citizen” requirement is in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, and not specifically a 14th amendment issue, there is overlap and the article discusses the view the Framers of the 14th amendment had about “natural born.”

    How could Obama, a professor who taught Constitutional law not have known of his own failure to qualify as a “natural born citizen”? He does not even qualify as a citizen under the 14th amendment because of the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requirement.

    I think Obama just thought he could slip by, but then he probably never anticipated the tenacity of Leo Donofrio.

  15. Pete Williams NBC: sata “we’ll find out on Monday…” Can someone explain …why not today?

  16. CAN SOMEONE PLEASE SPREAD THIS ARTICLE AROUND AND MAKE SURE IT GETS IN THAT COURTROOM TODAY??PLEASE!

    December 4, 2008

    ‘Natural-born’ requirement called ’stupidest provision’

    An associate lawyer in a Chicago-based firm whose partner served on a finance committee for then-Sen. Barack Obama has advocated for the elimination of the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural-born” citizen, calling the requirement “stupid” and asserting it discriminates, is outdated and undemocratic.

    The paper was written in 2006 by Sarah Herlihy, just two years after Obama had won a landslide election in Illinois to the U.S. Senate. Herlihy is listed as an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis. A partner in the same firm, Bruce I. Ettelson, cites his membership on the finance committees for both Obama and Sen. Richard Durbin on the corporate website.

    The article by Herlihy is available online under law review articles from Kent University…..” full article: WND

  17. Cnn posted this video on its front page: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/12/05/arena.obama.citizenship.cnn

    At least they got the case correct. Although they’re pretty dismisive of the chances of the Court hearing the case.

  18. The relevant question now is…Will the third pillar of government assert itself against the fourth pillar (media)?

  19. What, if any, impact would it have to future lawsuits challenging the status of enacted legislation if there is a pretense that the president who signed them into law was not considered to be legitimate according to the constitution? Could this same challenge be brought up in the context of persons who could be confirmed to have standing as being wronged under enacted legislation? Another question, if there could be an impact, would that impact then also extend to all appointees of the president, including future confirmed cabinet appointees, SCOTUS justices, and downstream appointees?

  20. RE: Obama’s UK/ Kenyan admission:

    I think you were looking for these links last night on PlainsRadio. I posted them immediately in the Chat Room.

    http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html

    http://www.bunge.go.ke/downloads/constitution.pdf

  21. I tried this comment before but it didn’t appear. Is there moderation here, which would be just fine. Just didn’t know.

    I just didn’t know whether you were able to submit this info with your filing.

    Did you find it later?

    Anyway there is also the admittance to a status of citizenship different from what the Constitution requires:

    The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.

    Now I think he knows the difference but may just be attempting to confuse the readers.

  22. I pray the Lord will guide the US Supreme Court to agree to decide this Constitutional issue in truth and with clarity.

    Anothe web site this morning put it well: “Trust but Verify.”

  23. In this world of commerce…it doesn’t matter where one is born. All that is significant is where the “persons” birth certificate is housed as a security and bond establishing the “legal entity” that is the citizen. Good luck and Godspeed.

  24. Bang! Nail! You cornered him in with this one. Or should I say he cornered himself in. Great work. And it wasn’t all that hard to find.

  25. Looks like Obama and company are in damage control mode. This admission along with the lawyer “natural born” being out-dated is something that can not be ignored.

  26. TruthSeeker Says:

    Apparently Jeff Schreiber, a law student and legal blogger with connections, expects to know the result of the SCOTUS conference by the end of the day and says he’ll report it here:

    http://www.americasright.com/

    A lot of other accurate information there about the Donofrio case as well.

  27. stand up and fight Says:

    If anyone applies for a job and that job requires certain qualifications,the person applying for that job must provide proper proof that they have those qualifications.If that person refuses to show the proper proof, the person doing the hiring has the right to reject that persons application.Also if you want a drivers license show us your birth certificate.You want a social security card,show us your birth certificate.Want to be president of the United State of America show us a fake certificate of live birth.DREAM ON!!!!

  28. Hey! Leo responded to me! I’m famous!

    Ok. I’m going to attempt to draw a political cartoon that has been sketched in my mind for a few days and relates to this whole Donofrio/Obama/Supreme Court/Main Stream Media mess.. I’m not very good with caricatures, so if I have trouble with it, is there anyone posting here that would be able to draw a pretty funny professional picture based on a detailed description?

  29. Gatorsmom Says:

    People are asking why he used “native born” on his fight the smears website. Was he trying to confuse or mislead? Well, he is a lot of things but he is not stupid. He knew that he couldn’t claim to be natural born without it possibly coming back to bite him at some point. I think he hoped to skate by with no one noticing. I only hope the SCOTUS will uphold and defend the Constitution since it’s clear that is not on Mr. Obama’s agenda.

  30. Jim Graham Says:

    The SCOTUS with fear of the media circus and the economy will let this slide by, saying it has no merrit or something like that! The same Constitution Chief Justice Roberts will have Obama swear an oath to will be the same constitution that will be ignored! You mark my word on that. The fix continues on. The American people have no constitution, no laws as soon as Obama says “SO HELP ME GOD” The SCOUTS has to side with the constitution one would have to assume? Not in this case.

    Media runs the USA. We The People of the United States of America is no more.

  31. Sooner or later the United States Supreme Court will have to hear this out in open court and make a final ruling. Otherwise, there will be a never ending flood of suits in the state and federal court systems, as well as a federal government without authority or a failed federal government.

  32. Obama has already stated that the Constitution is a flawed document. He believes that the Constitution should be applied to modern times, from a modern prospective. He believes that the Constitution should be re-interpreted as history moves forward. He believes it to be a living, breathing document and that the original intent of the Constitution does not necessarilt apply 232 years later.

    Is it any wonder that he believes he should be the president REGARDLESS of the framer’s original intent. He doesn’t respect the integrity of the Constitution or the judgment of those that wrote the document to begin with.

    This whole thing is a sham but he honestly believes that he is in the right here and this is further evidence of the TYPE OF CHANGE this man was talking about.

    He didn’t campaign on changing the direction of our government. He campaigned on a drastic change of America and the rest of the world with it.

    This guy’s idealism is a dangerous character issue that this nation should really be paying attention to.

    Thank you all of your efforts Leo! I look foward to the day that I get a chance to crack your Aces in a tourney!!
    🙂

  33. One thing’s for certain, people are really starting to take notice. And at last count, there are currently 5 legal cases on the doorstep of SCOTUS:

    Donofrio v. Wells
    Berg v. Obama (yeah, yeah, we know)
    Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz
    Chris Strunk NY Cases
    Hunter v. Obama

    And we’ve got just a few coming up the ladder:

    Keyes v. Bowen
    Corbett v. Bowen
    Lightfoot v. Bowen
    Terry v. Handel
    Martin v. Lingle (could be DOA)
    Kentucky Truck Driver Filing Suit in London District Court
    Sullivan v. Marshall
    Brockhausen v. Andrade

    And these are the ones we know about. Apparently there are a few others that have stayed under the radar intentionally.

    This is going to need to be addressed today. If SCOTUS does a punt, they’re going to have to punt numerous others. If SCOTUS doesn’t take this seriously, we could be looking at some serious protesting going on, and that’s something that should be avoided.

  34. Any word on when the Justices’ decision will be made public? Leo, hope you can let us know as soon as you hear. We support you and pray our honorable Justices uphold the Constitution. God Bless You and Cort!

  35. Leo,

    We know that you are right.

    Obama was is only a ‘citizen of the United States’ (provided he was born in Hawaii).

    Citizens of the United States cannot be President.

  36. Can you imagine our country where every law signed by a usurper would be challenged in court, not just once but hundreds or thousands of times in some instances?!

    We may not have yet reached a “Constitutional crisis” at the moment (the Constitution hasn’t yet been overruled), but we are certainly in a major crisis. Of note are the large number of people in “denial” about this. That’s actually a normal reaction to having discovered you were “scammed.”

  37. Tibet Suzerain Says:

    Anyone can see for themselves, that on Obama’s website, “fight the smears” it clearly states, that Obama is a native citizen of the U.S., which does NOT state he is a natural born citizen of the U.S. at all.

    The difference between “native” and that of “natural born” is defined by the difference of the two.

    A native citizen is just that your were born in the U.S., but you can also hold other loyalties such as dual citizenship to other countries, like Obama claims he was also born as a British citizen.

    A natural born citizen of the U.S. can only hold 100% loyalties to the United States of America only!

    How wise would it be to allow a foreign interest, a foreign government to dictate our national interest? Would the American people allow North Korean Dictator Kim, or how about Communist China “Mao” to influence our “Commander in Chief” as the U.S. President?

  38. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.htm

    ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Nov 3 2008 Application (08A407) for stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
    Nov 6 2008 Application (08A407) denied by Justice Souter.
    Nov 14 2008 Application (08A407) refiled and submitted to Justice Thomas.
    Nov 19 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008.
    Nov 19 2008 Application (08A407) referred to the Court by Justice Thomas.
    Nov 26 2008 Supplemental brief of applicant Leo C. Donofrio filed. (Distributed)
    Dec 1 2008 Letter from applicant dated November 22, 2008, received.

  39. Gee, seems this case is perfect for Summary Judgment. Case closed. Bye bye Obama!

  40. The integrity of the the U.S. Constitution as well as the future of this nation is in the hands of 9 individuals whose job it is to uphold that document.

  41. Bob Anthony Says:

    “Cnn posted this video on its front page: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/12/05/arena.obama.citizenship.cnn

    At least they got the case correct. Although they’re pretty dismisive of the chances of the Court hearing the case.”

    No surprise, given that it IS CNN we are talking about here. Unfortunately the media circus has been all about that washed up football star OJ Simpson and his sentence to what amounts to life in jail!

  42. Leo,

    I received an interesting email from Judicial Watch today. I had previously emailed them to ask if they would be reporting on your case. I would be more than happy to forward you the actual email if you would like. Here is part of the letter that intrigued me:

    “…While there has been much discussion in the media and on the internet about the circumstances surrounding President Elect Obama’s birth, courts typically do not accept media reports or other types of “hearsay” as admissible evidence. As far as we are aware, no one has produced admissible evidence, such as a signed, sworn and notarized document by someone who witnessed that Obama was born outside of the U.S.”

    Leo, what does the law say about information from “internet sites.” You refer to Obama’s website in your petition. Will Scotus feel this fact is admissible evidence? Does the court consider web sites as media reports as this letter states and therefore not admissible?

    I was hoping for a thorough review of the facts from Judicial Watch but I guess I was wrong with that expectation.

    Thank you for your courage to stand up for us!!

  43. Just got back from the “vigil.” What a joke. This makes me think I should put my tin hat on, when only 30 people or so cared to show up. Yes, it’s a workday and it’s 36 degrees out, and no, my presence there didn’t actually make a difference. Not that I expected it to. But are you telling me that in all of Virginia, Maryland, DC, West Virginia there aren’t another 50 patriotic citizens who felt this was a worthwhile exercise???

  44. Thank you, Leo, for your love of the Constitution and for the way in which you handled the issue of eligibility for the presidency of the United States. Your arguments were based upon legal evidence and the protective authority of the Constitution. Due respect was shown toward both Senator John McCain and Mr. Barack Obama.

    With kind regard,

    Suzan

  45. Who AMERICA allows to serve as President cannot be determined by what ENGLAND thinks about its citizens. What if they said that everyone named DONOFRIO is automatically a citizen of England?

    How about this. I’ll form a new country and say that anyone who posts HERE is subject to MY jurisdiction. Are you STARTING to see the problem here?

    That’s why the Supreme Court in US v. Wong Kim Ark, 110 years ago, said that a fundamental right of governments is for them to be able to determine for THEMSELVES who is a citizen. Whether ENGLAND thinks Obama was its citizen upon his birth has NOTHING to do with whether the US.

    Even Britain admitted in Wong Kim Ark that what IT thought about citizenship could NOT affect the citizenship of someone who was a natural citizen of another nation:

    “‘It is competent to any country to confer by general or special legislation the privileges of nationality upon those who are born out of its own territory; but it cannot confer such privileges upon such persons as against the country of their birth, when they voluntarily return to and reside therein. Those born in the territory of a nation are (as a general principle) liable when actually therein to the obligations incident to their status by birth. Great Britain considers and treats such persons as natural-born subjects, and cannot, therefore, deny the right of other nations to do the same. But Great Britain cannot permit the nationality of the children of foreign parents born within her territory to be questioned.'”

  46. There are three 2008 candidates who are not natural born:
    McCain, Obama, Calero
    None of these candidates were ever eligible to take the office of President of the United States.

    While two cases are clear cut, McCain MAY be able to stand because of the 1937 law regarding certain people born in the REPUBLIC OF PANAMA. (John McCain was NOT born in the Canal Zone as MSM wants you to believe – but the ’37 law also applies to anyone born, even in a tent in the Canal Zone, and even before World War II.) Link to the “1937 law:” http://law.justia.com/us/codes/title8/8usc1403.html

    Does this law say “natural born?”(no) Does it say “at birth?” (yes) Does it mention “dual nationalities?” (no) Does it use the term “jus soli?” (no – it was in Panama after all)

    Does this 1937 law does make anyone born in Panama a “natural born” U.S. citizen? It would appear that the answer is “no.” Perhaps someone else will interpret this law differently. However, John McCain was certainly not born with dual nationalities. I agree too that he suffered greatly for our nation. That doesn’t automatically make him “natural born” though.

    Barack Obama II was born with dual nationalities (and if you take ALL laws into consideration, he was born with ONE NATIONALITY: BRITISH {KENYAN}). In the cases of Obama and Calero, we do not need to examine any laws to try to help them out. They are both NOT natural born U.S. citizens, and all the votes in the universe can’t change that fact.

  47. Anyone can see for themselves, that on Obama’s website, “fight the smears” it clearly states, that Obama is “a native citizen” of the U.S., which does NOT state he is a natural born citizen of the U.S. at all.

    The difference between “native” and that of “natural born” is defined by the difference of the two.

    A native citizen is just that your were born in the U.S., but you can also hold other loyalties such as dual citizenship to other countries, like Obama claims he was also born as a British citizen. Not to mention, how Obama held his Kenyan citizenship until Aug. 4,1982. It’s been reported that Obama holds an Indonesian passport. Obama was adopted by his stepfather in Indonesia and took the legal name Barry Soetoro!

    A natural born citizen of the U.S. can only hold 100% loyalties to the United States of America only!

    How wise would it be to allow a foreign interest, a foreign government to dictate our national interest?

    Would the American people allow North Korean Dictator Kim, or how about Communist China “Mao”, Russia’s Stalin or even Germany’s Adolf Hilter to influence our “Commander in Chief” as the U.S. President?

    That’s why 100% loyalties MUST be to the United States of America only, first and foremost and without an umbilical cord to another regime, foreign government and or lobbyist!

    Why would Obama subject so many citizens of his country and leaders of other nations to such mistrust about establishing his record of facts?

    This isn’t the action of a honorable citizen, one who we should trust with our country!!!

    http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

  48. Hi Leo:

    Check the SCOTUS actions granting cert today, it’s been updated:

    http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

  49. I was one of the folks who joined in prayer and fellowship in front of the U.S. Supreme Court this morning. Photo and article at aipnews.com

  50. Mr. Obama is not qualified to be President. Whether or not we have a vacant White House the next 4 years is up to the Supreme Court I guess; but this person will never be a legitimate President.

    The question is: why did the DNC do this? Obviously they knew. (The same question could have been asked of the RNC had McCain won). Have they intended to use Mr. Obama as a puppet, with this hanging over his head?

  51. Kathleen Gotto Says:

    I think we all need to remember that “audacity” is Obama’s kingpin. (Remember his book, the Audacity of Hope?) And from all that I have been reading over the past month or so, the in-your-face, audacious tactic comes right out of the radicals’ handbook. Hey, it works a lot of the time. Act like you know what you’re doing, have the arrogance and money behind you to pull it off, have a soul seared by impassioned grievances (real or imagined, past or present, doesn’t matter), and bingo you got a stealth candidate stealing the adoration and votes of the misinformed and willfully ignorant.

    It’s an Obama play that he has had a lot of tutoring on over the years. Now, we need to continue to pray that our SC Justices call his hand.

  52. sliderblaze Says:

    correct

  53. Simon Diamond Says:

    I just want to know, does Obama consider the United States Constitution a, “Living, breathing document,” when it comes to the 13th and 15th Amendments?

  54. Was his mother a U.S. citizen at the time?

  55. Wow. This is a nail biter for America. I wonder why the MSM has steered clear. Maybe because of the vast amount of $ filtered into them via ads by BHO? Just curious as to why they aren’t adequately covering a topic this sensitive.

    Next topic to address (should anything happen to this one): Hillary’s appointment to SOTS. Apparently, it’s consitutionally illegal to hold any post where you’ve voted for a pay raise… which she did. Hmm. MSM was exploiting that one this morning.

    Seems these politicians have a started a trend in disregarding the constitiution??

  56. Anyone see this? Does this mean Leo’s case was denied?

    http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/120508zr.pdf

  57. Ken Tiller Says:

    Leo,
    In the event the Supreme Court refuses to take the right action (uphold the U.S. Constitution’s qualifications for U.S. presidency) and Obama is sworn in on Jan. 20, is there anything else you or others can do afterwards or will this issue be swept under the proverbial rug?

  58. Ok lets use common sense here. AN organization by the name of facts cheq looks into the birth cert. obamanation scam. Instead of sending their own investigaters they just copy and paste info from Obamas web site. This was done without any question or proper investigative hands on analyses. Anyone with any level of common sense wouldnt back a claim withthis calibur of consequenses without seeing that (fake) document first hand. Instead they claim they are on biased and do real facts checking. The real fact is they just propagate liberal hyped lies and then match their desired truths to it. I think the people at facts check need a reality check. No way i would put my name on backing a questioned document unless i directly had it in my own to hands to view . Why didnt the people referring to factscheq as proof for their obamamessiahs citizenship ever wonder how factscheq checks facts?

    They should ashamed for such media biased propoganda.
    Anyways I hope the supreme court rules in favor of the constitutional self evident truth and finds Barry-Barak Obama to be as elligable as the prime minster of iran to be our constitutional defender and national leader.

  59. Whoop! There it is!!!

    That is PERFECTLY argued! BINGO!

    Done! Nothing more said!

    Brett
    http://www.thelawofattractiongroup.com
    http://www.thelawofattractiongroup.wordpress.com

  60. RiskyWaters Says:

    OMG, I hope Leo included this tidbit in his documents. I hadn’t noticed that “native citizen” comment on that website. People save that webpage before it disappears. Someone fax a copy over to the Justice Thomas @ the Supreme Court STAT! With the words OBAMA ADMITS TO BEING A NATIVE CITIZEN NOT NATURAL BORN CITIZEN! What’s the fax number?

  61. It should be emphasized that FactCheck has connections to Obama and is not to be trusted on political issues generally.

  62. Does anyone have any news from Donofrio & SCOTUS?

    I’ve scoured all the appropriate news & blog sites, but can find none.

    The suspense is killing me!

  63. grovernors Says:

    There is no transparency in government, corruption is the rule of law. Corruption is the root of this Obama problem.

    Please support the Transparency of Loyalty in Government Amendment: A proposal to keep citizens safe from cultivated treason against The United States of America. If you are not against corruption you are for corruption, if you are not for America you are against America.

    http://www.petitiononline.com/tona2009/petition.html

  64. Public Information Office at SCOTUS just told me that there are likely no more announcements today about orders. Two were released within the last coupe hours regarding other cases. Looks like we’ll have to wait until Monday to know for sure.

    http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/120508zr.pdf

  65. Leo–I hope you are prepared for the complete “but” [ed.] exam the press will be granting you should this be remotely considered a threat to Obama’s presidency. (Remember Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin?) And who needs the KGB when the press is just as effective at silencing truth. And I hope if they do come after you that you sue the pants off them and expose them for the opinionated rumor mill fraud machines they are.

  66. According to SCOTUSBlog (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/todays-orders-12508/#more-8366) only 2 cases were accepted today. Leo Donofrio’s is not one of them. Does this mean it was rejected?

  67. Ouch It's Truth Says:

    #1 Fact Check said that not Obama

    #2 Born in HI Jus Soli he was. There is a theory from a website Britain recognized him as a citizen but no ACTUAL evidence exists it did.

    #3 At worst he is natural born American and natural born British. The Constitution doesn’t say you can’t also be born a citizen of another country. Several Presidents were born British and yet also born on what became American soil.

  68. sliderblaze Says:

    how come i cant get past moderation…what gives?

  69. I have not heard of any updates on this and my co-workers and I having been begging for info. all day. Where do we go?

  70. mtngoat61 Says:

    Hi,

    As many of you as possible should make “Screen Shots” of the websites you are citing today and in the future, with date and time captured, so that if they “disappear”, you can give JPG image copies of the pages the way they were on such and such date and time. The O-Bots will take down or change all the sites once SCOTUS decides to here this case, imo. Especially the stuff where they describe Obama with that misleading term, i.e., as “native born”, and the others mentioned above. Just a suggestion.

    Mountain Publius Goat
    (Goat for short)
    “http://www.obamacitizenshipfacts.org”

  71. I wish to express my sincere thanks to all of those who seek to uphold the Constitution of the United States. In particular, Mr. Berg, Mr. Donofrio, Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes, and so many others. Thanks.

    It seems to me, in my humble opinion, that this is not so much about the definition of natural born citizen, but rather the implementation of the Constitutional requirement that the President of the United States be a natural born citizen. And, it is of grave importance that this issue of whether Mr. Barack Hussein Obama is a natural born citizen, or not, be settled immediately.

    We live in a country where the law is paramount and the Constitution of the U.S. is the supreme law. If there are those who wish to change the Constitution, they must do it by amendment not by usurping the power of the government.

    Mr. Obama must not be allowed to serve in any way without first providing that which the Constitution requires; that is, proof that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen. Otherwise, Mr. Obama would be a usurper, without justification and without power or authority. It would be a high crime and treason.

  72. There will be no excuse if the SCOTUS decides not to hear this case. They really need to settle the matter once and for all. I would much rather they do their job and risk upsetting Obama voters than to just do nothing and not make waves. If he is not eligible, he is not eligible. It would be best to know one way or another. If he is eligible and can prove so, what is the problem? Better to be safe than sorry. Not to mention I’d hate to set this precedent.

  73. And what is the outcome of today? All I hear is that two cases will be heard, but nothing about the Donofrio vs NJ one. What is going on and why are we not hearing anything?

  74. My question is why is the media reporting we will know more from the Supreme Court on Monday? How would they know? Unless they have more info then we do AKA: Drive By Media = OBAMA = OBAMA’s puppets in the Supreme Court. Leo, as soon as you hear something, please post on site. Thanks🙂

  75. a native born citizen is to a natural born citizen as THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT ELECT is to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES…..

  76. kittycat77 Says:

    Has anyone heard anything yet? I’m hearing conflicting things here.

    Thanks

  77. This is why he won’t show his birth certificate. He wants everyone to get boggled down with the question of “where was he really born?” instead of the real meat.

    Has anyone heard the outcome of today’s SCOTUS conference?

  78. If the SCOTUS somehow manages to look the other way and fails to uphold the very document each have sworn to defend and uphold, then be forewarned, this action (or rather, inaction) will certainly only serve to undermine their position and authority in the future, as Obama will certainly then have precedent to challenge the very notion of lifetime appointments and whatever else his agenda may fancy. I certainly hope their ability to make the right decision in this matter is not hampered by a pesky, worrisome notion of wanton rioting in the streets. Because truth be told, it will happen no matter the outcome, but only one side will be justified in doing so. We will survive riots…and I’d much rather do so with the Constitution still in tact.

  79. anxiously awaiting news.

  80. Has anyone heard of the SCOTUS decision today?

  81. I guess we will get no decision on the merits of the case today, will we Leo?

  82. MSNBC has a video report today on your lawsuit, Leo.
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/28067492#28067492

    Again we see Pete Williams misrepresenting the facts of the case. Not one mention of dual citizenship. A total snow job.

    Then another lawyer chimes in with the opinion that SCOTUS has a duty to follow the will of the people and not the Constitution. Yet another snow job.

    When will the MSM orgy of incompetence ever end?

  83. I hadn’t noticed this reference before – to The Big O’s father – though I have always tended to believe that it was highly unlikely that any senator would have managed to get THIS far without anyone noticing that he was not “natural born”.

    I’ve referred to your information at my blog here:

    http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/what-a-brit-for-us-president-hear-hear/

    Of course, I’m having a bit of fun with this post.

    I don’t really think Tony Blair would be eligible for the presidency just because another Brit seems to be. (You must excuse me – I’m having trouble getting my head round the “Obama is a Brit” idea. We have enough wayward citizens here in my country who seem to be above the law as it is!)

    But if Obama is inaugurated as president and it is eventually proved that he shouldn’t have been, a can of worms will have been opened.

    I’ll keep track of your site updates on this, just in case.

    Btw, Tony Blair was an absolutely brilliant Prime Minister and is sorely missed by many of us. Don’t let the little antis persuade you otherwise.

  84. Ouch It's Truth 2 Says:

    “Were it not excluded, there would have been no need for the specific grandfathering of those who were American Citizens at the time the Constitution was adopted.”

    Not true. They were born British and not born American. Obama was for sure born American and in some theories British also.

  85. Northshorelover Says:

    It seems like Leo’s case was dropped. Only two cases have been granted Certiorari:

    http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/120508zr.pdf

    I hope I am wrong.

  86. SCOTUS DEEP SIXES THE CASE!!!

    Here:
    http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/12/05/obama-citizenship-case-gets-high-courts-attention/

    A writ of certiorari was not granted. But was it denied? I await Leo’s analysis.

  87. Ladies and Gentlemen,
    Greetings to all.
    After studying the documents on Kenya and The British Act of 1948 it is logical that there is no way that this fellow was a natural born citizen of The United States. This fellow has no legal standing to be president. To coin a phrase “any idiot with a keen intelligence can see that he is not a natural born citizen.” He was a British citizen when he was born in 1961. When Kenya became independent he became a Kenyan citizen.
    This should be an open and shut case for SCOTUS to decide. The old laws are there. And his admission is there right in plain sight for all to see. Since his people admitted that, then it should be used in Mr. Donofrios favour.
    I will drawn an analogy of why that he thinks he can get away with it. The power elite in a certain national church believes everything they do for inclusion is theologically legal based upon the popular will of the people. So the arrogance comes from the clergy actually thinking that just because what is voted in by a very small minority makes it technically legal.
    The same thing has happened in this national election. Again the power elite believe the American people are so uneducated that they will not figure out what is going on. They also think that because of a very small minority in this country voted him into office, be it legal or illegal means, that the constitution can be ignored. That is real arrogance, the elite thinking that he can be propelled into office by the people and ignore the constitution. To actually think you can put him into office because the liberal people voted him into office makes it legal.
    I will tell you this, just because the liberals did vote him in does not make it legal.
    If the Supreme Court of The United States does not act upon this issue and fail to uphold the US Constitution, then they have just “legally” voted the whole country out of existence. You can not nullify the rules of the constitution, and if you do then they vote themselves out of existence as well.
    +Stonewall

  88. Jim Black Says:

    This will make you b–f. It is a letter from Republican Senator Mel Martinez to someone who wrote to him about Obama’s citizenship.

    Dear Mr. (name deleted)

    Thank you for contacting me regarding President-Elect Obama’s citizenship. I appreciate hearing from you and would like to respond to your concerns.

    Like you, I believe that our federal government has the responsibility to make certain that the Constitution of the United States is not compromised. We must fight to uphold our Constitution through our courts and political processes.

    Article II of the Constitution provides that “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.” The Constitution, however, DOES NOT SPECIFY HOW THAT QUALIFICATION IS TO BE ENFORCED (Emph. mine). As you may know, a voter recently raised this issue before a federal court in Pennsylvania. On October 24, 2008, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania released an order in the case of Berg v.Obama.In that case, the plaintiff, Phillip Berg, raised the same issue that your letter raises regarding proof of the President-Elect’s birthplace. Through his lawsuit, Mr. Berg sought to compel President-Elect Obama to produce a certified copy of his birth certificate.

    The District Court dismissed Mr. Berg’s suit and held that the question of Obama’s citizenship is not a matter for a court to decide (CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS?). The court further noted that voters, not courts, should decide whether a particular presidential candidate is qualified to hold office (I LOST IT ON THIS ONE).

    Presidential candidates are vetted by voters at least twice – first in the primary elections and again in the general election. President-Elect Obama won the Democratic Party’s nomination after one of the most fiercely contested presidential primaries in American history. And, he has now been duly elected by the majority of voters in the United States. Throughout both the primary and general election, concerns about Mr. Obama’s birthplace were raised. The voters have made clear their view that Mr. Obama meets the qualifications to hold the office of President.

    I thank you for sharing your views with me and will keep your concerns in mind. If you have additional questions or comments, please contact me. For more information about issues and activities important to Florida, please sign up for my weekly newsletter at http://martinez.senate.gov.

    Sincerely,

    Mel Martinez
    United States Senator

  89. This letter from Senator Martinez is utterly disgraceful. He more or less admits that Obama is probably NOT a natural-born citizen, and says it doesn’t matter anyway because the voters (in their ignorance [my words, not his]) have voted for him anyway.

    Terrifying stuff.

    So, if the voters wanted Ahmadinejad or Putin or A N Other for president it wouldn’t matter what the constitution said?

    And I thought Britain was finished!

  90. The letter from Senator Martinez is utterly disgraceful. He more or less admits that Obama is probably NOT a natural-born citizen, and says it doesn’t matter anyway because the voters (in their ignorance [my words, not his]) have voted for him anyway.

    Terrifying stuff.

    And how seriously were the concerns over Obama’s birth eligibility raised in America? Here in Britain I have seen nothing of it on TV broadcasts or in the national press. Only in blogs is it debated, and not that widely either.

    So, if the voters wanted Ahmadinejad or Putin or A N Other for president it wouldn’t matter what the constitution said?

    And I thought Britain was finished!

  91. Why do illegal immigrants make sure their children are born on American soil? Because that automatically makes them American citizens, no matter if their parents are Mexican or Chinese. Citizenship is by birth, not by parentage. My cousin was born in Indiana from Belgian parents who were visiting on a student visa; she is a natural-born citizen and can be President. Obama was born in the United States, that makes him a citizen. End of story. What part of this do you guys not understand?

  92. dennis, December 5, 2008 at 5:31 pm, Says: “a native born citizen is to a natural born citizen as THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT ELECT is to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. …”

    Good one, Dennis!

    But there is, of course, no such thing as an “Office of the President-Elect.” Might as well call it by its precise name, “Office of the Guy with His Foot in the Door in Case We Are Inclined to Slam It in His Face.”

  93. Allochtoon Says:

    Dear Leo Donofrio (et al.),

    Excuse me if I am asking howlingly obvious questions, but I have been in ‘self-censoring’ Europe without access to internet until recently and only learned of your site today.

    Presumably, BHO Sr. was legally married already when he married SAD after impregnating her with BHO Jr. If so, does this mean that BHO Jr. has the legal status of a ‘bastard’ (please note that I use this and related words in a purely neutral, technical sense, with no intention of insulting anyone) even though BHO Sr. did the ‘gentlemanly thing’ and married her, since that marriage, being ‘bigamous’ (another technical term) under American law was therefore no legal marriage?

    Presumably, in pretending legally to marry SAD, BHO Sr. formally explicitly acknowledged paternity of BHO Jr. (or would one need to see the real birth certificate to be certain of this?).

    My question is, does the illegality of the marriage and so (presumably) ‘bastardy’ of BHO Jr., affect the status of his access to “natural born” citizenship? If so, would that be dependent or independent of BHO Sr. acknowledging paternity?

    If BHO Jr. could be considered a “natural born Citizen” on the basis of his maternity, given the ‘illegality of his paternity’, could his mother and step-father have alienated that status by legally acquiring Indonesian citizenship for him? (Did they acquire Indonesian citizenship for him? Did this involve a formal repudiation of U.S. citizenship?)

    If BHO Jr. could be considered a “natural born Citizen” by virtue of his maternity, but his mother (et al.) alienated his U.S. citizenship by acquring Indonesian citizenship for him, and he was subsequently ‘(re?)naturalized’ into U.S. citizenship, would he (as it were) ‘once again’ be a “natural born Citizen” or would that status have been irrevocably alienated, although he was once again a U.S. citizen?

    Please do not feel any obligation to spend valuable time and energy attempting to answer these questions: I raise them because they occur to me as possibly relevant.

    With thanks for all you have done so far, and all good wishes for carrying on,

    Allochtoon

  94. Jim Congable Says:

    To Spike:
    You are wrong. Your cousin may be a citizen, but is not “Natural Born”. Both parents must be citizens in order to be Natural Born. Otherwise all these anchor babies being born all over could be President and they can’t. Born is the USA is a great thing but if only one or none of the parents are US Citizens the child is either a “Native” Born or Naturalized Citizen only. Your story is a fiction, mine is the real deal. Stay tuned…this is far from over.

  95. Spike – do some reading.

  96. SC Code of Laws
    SECTION 7-13-350. Certification of candidates; verification of qualifications.

    In SC, the political parties certify their candifates are qualified or will be qualified by the date of election. The responsibility of qualification rests with the political party.

    “Political parties nominating candidates by primary or convention must verify the qualifications of those candidates prior to certification to the authority charged by law with preparing the ballot.”

    Carol Fowler, Chairwoman of the democratic Party in SC sent the following letter to the SC election commission as required by SC state law 7-13-350 on Aug 15,2008.

    In accordance with South Carolina Code of Laws 7-13-350 and 7-11-15, as amended, the South Carolina Democratic Party is please to submit our list of Democratic candidates for the 2008 general election ballot.

    The South Carolina Democratic Party certifies that each candidate meets, or will meet by the time of the geneal election, or as otherwise required by law, the qualifications for the office for which he/she has filed.

    If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office at 803-799-7798.

    On aug 29,2008 A letter was sent to the SC election commission called the offical certification of nomination. It was signed by Nancy Pelosi chair Dem Nat Convention and Alice Germond secretary Dem Nat Convention.
    A notary Public also signed the letter.

    All this letter said was Obama and Biden were duly nominated as candidates at the Dem national convention Aug 25-Aug 28.

    South Carolina relied totally on the Dem letter saying only that the Dems had nominated Obama and Biden. The letter says nothing about any qualifications for president.

    The SC secretary of state didn’t certify anything as far as I can tell.

    So how does one file a law suit against the secretary of state in SC because he did not uphold the US or state Constitution? Specifically that Obama is an admitted dual citizen at birth and not a natural born citizen.

    It was the SC election commission that did not uphold state law.

    It must be different in every state.

  97. To All,
    Caesar Nero thinks he is president elect, but he is not eligible to be president of any kind because his argument is obnoxious, but it will be repudiated once its specious character is discovered. So basically his argument, though exposed to malice, will become clear when its attractive distinction is revealed.
    +Stonewall

  98. [Ed. Note- The below is not correc. Nobody has to file a reply brief against a petition for Writ of Certiorari. The docket looks to me like Obama and team wauved their right to respond on Nov. 19 in the Berg case. But there was no “order” from SCOTUS for them to respond. ]

    One Writ by The Supreme Court has already been issued. Caesar Nero was supposed to comply with it by December 1st. Does The Supreme Court have the will and authority to actually stop it. As in will The Court issue arrest warrants or injunctions to stop this. If the warrants do go out and Caesar and the Convention just ignores it, then what?

  99. Bradley Brooks Says:

    I recieved a letter from my Senator Carl Levin of Michigan In response to a letter I wrote to him Regarding Mr. Obama’s “natural born” status. also added a response and some data copied from Leo’s website(I hope that was ok Leo)

    Dear Mr. Brooks:

    Thank you for contacting me regarding the false rumors surrounding President-elect Obama’s citizenship status. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts with me.

    As you may know, Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution states that, “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.”

    President-elect Obama was born in Hawaii as documented by his official birth certificate. He is, therefore, a natural born citizen of the United States. Thank you again for writing.

    Sincerely,
    Carl Levin

    Did I really think One of the biggest Obamma supporters and Liberals in the Senate would say anything different? Be that as it may, here is my response to The Senator….

    Dear Senator Levin,
    Thank you for responding to my concerns.
    Which birth certificate did your office get to see? All I and Anyone else that I know of has ever seen is a… certification of live birth. not a birth certificate.A COLB is not legal to obtain a passport…not even legal, as one person has stated online, to even obtain a position on a little league team…they needed a birth certificate also, not a COLB. A certification of live birth could be obtained in Hawaii for a baby born anywhere in the world in the last 12 months by anyone that lists Hawaii as their state of residence within the last year.(as his mother also did with his sister that she admits was born in Indonesia). But I accept the fact that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii. That just makes him a citizen of the united states and not a “natural born citizen” as the constitution requires for the office of president. To obtain that status you need to be born on US soil to two US citizen parents.

    At Barack Obama’s web site, the following admission:

    “FactCheck.org Clarifies Barack’s Citizenship

    ‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…’ “

    Read that last line again.

    “That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…”

    That’s an admission that Great Britain “governed the status” of Barack Obama, Jr. Brack Obama has chosen to highlight this on his own volition.

    And this leads to the relevant question:

    HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’S STATUS BE “GOVERNED” BY GREAT BRITAIN?

    A natural born citizen’s status should only be governed by the United States. This is the core issue before the Supreme Court of the United States.

    This status also precludes Senator McCain from the Office as well, as he was born In Panama(not US soil)

    I just wanted to make sure you know the facts of my concerns,
    thank you and I trust you will Uphold the constitution for me as my representitive in the senate.

    “Every child is an artist. The problem is how to remain an artist once he grows up.” ~ Pablo Picasso

  100. Allochtoon:
    I think I can answer some of your questions since I’ve already received answers to them. To the bigamy/bastard issue, I raised this with Leo on Plains Radio, and he indicated that, when considering paternity, it is not the familial definition that counts, but the genetic one. The phrase Leo used was “Everyone has one father and one mother, right?” The more important question, though, is whether British Law extant in 1961 uses the same genetic (not familial) definition for paternity. Upon this question hinges Leo’s case, it seems to me. For if the British definition is familial, then Obama was unable to receive British citizenship from his genetic father due to Obama’s bastard status, and Leo’s case collapses. I however intuit that Leo’s radio answer was in fact in regards to the British issue – that’s to say he was ahead of both of us here. Hopefully Leo will comment and clear up this important point.

    My own research on the Indonesian question leads me to conclude that it’s a turkey. Indonesian law allows minors (those under 18) to retain their original citizenship, and it appears that Berg is incorrect in this respect. It was only SAD who would have had to renounce her US citizenship, and that plays no role in any of this (although it raises an interesting issue for Obama’s sister, who allegedly also possesses a Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth despite acknowledging having been born on Indonesian soil – ah what tangled webs we weave).

  101. RiskyWaters Says:

    Ok what is the difference between a native citizen, native born citizen and a natural born citizen? I just need some clarity. Thank you.

  102. johnocide Says:

    While I disagree I’ll admit I haven’t read enough on it to actually make an educated opinion, I do find this all very interesting. If he is ineligible Biden would take the oath instead, dems are still in power.

    if I had to guess I’d imagine these complaints are to liberals what liberal argument’s against the patriot act are to conservatives, annoying and seemingly frivolous. We’ll know once the courts rule, although I’d imagine a magnum cum laude of Harvard Law would be aware of their own eligibility.

    Who knows, maybe Ashton Kutcher will pop out on January 20th.

  103. SCOTUS, by it’s own silence, confirms the final dismantling of our Constitution. I will await mondays news but it doesn’t look good today.
    Forget about MSM, DNC, RNC and all the rest who are in the tank for this usurper. Just remember this: We The People will not and cannot allow this to continue. It is up to us to rise up for America as NOBODY in Washington will.
    It will take a minority of Patriotic Americans to take back control of our destiny as it always has.
    I have stated before that SCOTUS will be damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
    We will survive the riots no matter who’s doing the rioting as long as the Constitution is preserved.
    When the FED can threaten us with martial law if we don’t let them print TRILLIONS to dispurse as they see fit, it’s already too late.
    Civilaty is a great thing but don’t you just know that there is a mindset out there that confuses generosity and empathy with weakness. We are NOT weak, we ARE asleep.
    Wake up you sleeping giant, WAKE UP!!!!!

  104. [Ed. Note – This case isn’t about his paperwork. His papwerwork if handed over wouldn’t settle this issue. And it’s not cut and dry. It’s a legal question which SCOTUS has never been presented with before.]

    This is a cut and dry issue. Why does Hillary’s constitutional issue matter and Obama’s doesn’t? Why is the supreme court afraid to ask him to hand over his paper work. Either he is natural born or he isn’t. If he doesn’t have to follow the rules like all of us then I guess not one does.

    http://www.thecommentary.net/the-end-of-the-constitutional-republic/

  105. johnocide Says:

    December 6, 2008 at 4:28 am

    “While I disagree I’ll admit I haven’t read enough on it to actually make an educated opinion, I do find this all very interesting. If he is ineligible Biden would take the oath instead, dems are still in power.”

    ——————————

    Johnocide,

    How do you come to the conclusion that Biden would take the oath instead and the Dems would still be in power?

    First of all, if it happens that Obama is proven to be ineligible, that would make the ENTIRE Democratic ticket ineligible. The Obama / Biden ticket would be null and void since it was a fraudulent ticket to begin with.

    They didn’t run on separate tickets (it was ONE ticket). You can’t “win” an election with a fraudulent ticket no matter who’s on it (top or bottom). In other words, there’s no such thing as “half” of a ticket being ineligible and the other half eligible. It’s ONE ticket after all. In other words, it’s either a legal ticket or an illegal ticket (as a whole). If it’s found to be illegal, the ticket is no longer valid.

    Obama isn’t even technically the President-Elect yet. I know that he keeps flashing his “Office of the President Elect” sign around but it doesn’t mean anything and no such “office” exists. It’s just an ego trip. It isn’t until after the Electoral College meets that a President Elect is established.
    So, at this point in time, it’s anyone’s guess what the outcome of all this is going to be. I can tell you for sure that it isn’t going to be deeming Obama ineligible and then swearing Biden in as an automatic default. They both ran on an illegal ticket.

    We’ll have to see how all this comes down. It’s my hope and prayer that our Constitution is upheld.

  106. Seems the Supreme Court is waiting to hear from me before issuing a decision on Donofrio, so here goes: While the Court is more than loathe to enter this dispute, currently it has no choice (thanks to the audacious one — and I don’t mean Leo, I mean Barack) and the ONLY WAY to bring closure, knowing CLOSURE IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL before any Presidential inauguration, is to back the original intent of the Constitution, meaning, Obama is NOT an Article II “natural born citizen” (albeit Obama may or may not be a “citizen”, a question heated by the steadfast refusal of the DNC or any of the Secretaries of State to require his birth certificate, which the Court will now not have to confront).

  107. I think Obama and McCain both knew they were ineligible from the start and both the RNC and DNC decided to look the other way so that they could put their chosen candidates forward. Otherwise, these issues would have been brought up by the candidates themselves in the campaign. This is a disgrace and I have lost all confidence in our elections and our leaders. Our only hope is the Supreme Court. I want to believe that they are honorable men and women and will uphold their oaths of office. Time will tell.

  108. You have to read what the Russian press has to say. We need them to go on FOX and all the other straw men media to tell it like it is.

    http://english.pravda.ru/print/opinion/columnists/106778-Amazing_Obama-0

    If it has been posted before sorry about that.

  109. Leo

    I am sure you know best, but I just wanted to say that it is a shame that you are not going to be at the National Press Club on Monday because without you there, the conversation will focus soley on the birth certificate and the issue of the British citizenship will just be buried even more. As you mention in your article concerning Chester Arthur, this only serves to help Obama as it takes all of our attention off the real problem — the dual citizenship at birth.

  110. To Johnocide, just above my last post.

    You are correct in a lay person type understanding. My mom taught me, you don’t reward those that did it wrong or punish those that did it right.

    That would be un – American.

    Tex-

  111. [Ed. Note – the info below only applies after we have a President elect via the Electoral College. Until the EC, Obama is, under the Constitution, still a candidate.]

    Biden becomes acting president, if he qualifies, according to section 3 of the 20th amendment. It’s quite clear:

    Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

  112. Obama only won a popular vote for electors on Nov 4th. The electors vote for President & then Congress certifies the electors vote…then he is President Elect & Biden is Vice President Elect… He is still a candidate. So if the Supreme Court grants Leo a Summary judgment which if they following the Constition they should do…Will instruct Congress to hold new elections with qualified ones…So no McCain or the guy from Nicaragua.

  113. Some really convoluted scenarios are possible in all this.

    BHO is not President-elect yet. That only happens after the electoral votes are cast, counted, and accepted.

    There is no constitutional demand that candidates for president or vice president be qualified. The only demand by the constitution is that the person must be qualified in order to be sworn into office. The 20th amendment defines what happens if a president-elect fails to qualify to be sworn in – the vice president elect, if qualified, is sworn in as ACTING president. This is where things get dicey. What does “ACTING” president mean, exactly? In one case I read about we elected a president (or possibly vice president) at 34 years of age, he couldn’t be sworn in, and there was an acting president until he turned 35. If Obama doesn’t qualify might he qualify later? Sure. Through a constitutional amendment. Biden might act as president while we go through the amendment process. That of course would require 51% of the people in 75% of the states to agree to amend the constitution to allow naturalized citizens to hold the office of president.

    But if Biden is acting president does that limit his powers? Not that I know of. So in theory as acting president Biden he will need to appoint a vice president who must then be approved by a majority of both houses of congress. Biden could appoint Hillary Clinton. Or even Bill Clinton! Then Biden could resign and Hillary or Bill or both are back in the oval office. BHO, by his appointments, seems to be putting all the old Clinton administration back into power. Why would he stop short of putting Bill back in the White House?

    The really bizzarre part about this is Bill CAN find his way back to the presidency. The constitution only says Bill can’t be ELECTED to more than two terms in office. He can still be appointed to the office by the path described above.

    I’m sorry if I’m presenting all this humorously it’s just that laughing is better than crying…

  114. Another case headed for the SCOTUS.

    http://www.drorly.blogspot.com/

  115. Some are speculating that since the Supreme court did not grant Leo’s case Friday, this means they will deny it…Again, think WEEKEND as to why they did not announce their decision, so I believe they will hear the case, in fact issue a Summary judgment … If not deny it Friday…Make it go away. Now it lingers on … For what reason … So what if other Obama cases are in docket… This by far is the strongest case against Obama. ..no need for his birth cert…All facts…Obama has admitted that he was BORN a British Citizen … he is not a Natural born citizen…so IF the Supreme Court denied this Friday…Would send a message that they are not touching the issue of natural born citizen…. Obama knows that he is not a Natural Born Citizen. That is the reason he had his attorney friend write an article back in 2006 claiming that the Natural Born Citizen clause for President be removed (Amended) from the constitution. If they do deny they will have no opinion… they will be punting…MSM was looking for a denial Friday…Red flag to them…Reason why Campbell Brown of CNN was spreading disinformation Friday night about Leo’s case.. They are very scared about this…Obama’s Achilles Heel…So IMHO they will grant the case. Again, don’t be surprised if they grant Summary Judgment to Leo…

  116. [Ed. Note- Reverend, Obama was a British Citizen “at birth”. The law which governed his status “at birth” was The British Nationality Act of 1948. That has since been repealed and replaced by the 1983 act. But it does not take effect retroactively. So, Obama was therefore a British Citizen “at birth”, not a British Overseas Citizen. Two years later, when Kenya became independent, he became a Kenyan Citiizen and I believe he’s waived that now and currently Obama is just a United States citizen without dual nationality. But that doesn’t change his status “at birth.” At birth, if you’re not a natural “born” citizen, you can’t cure it later. You are or you aren’t — “at birth”.]

    Reverend Stonewall said:

    “He was a British citizen when he was born in 1961. When Kenya became independent he became a Kenyan citizen.”

    I thought the same thing as well, until I researched the citizenship status based on the Kenyan Constitution and U.K. Law.

    British law states:

    ——-
    “If you are a British citizen, a British overseas territories citizen, a British overseas citizen, a British subject or a British national (overseas), you may give up your citizenship or status if you:

    -already have another citizenship or nationality; or
    -are going to get another citizenship or nationality after you have given up your British citizenship, British overseas territories citizenship, British overseas citizenship, British subject status or British national (overseas) status.

    In addition to this, you must also be:

    -aged 18 or over (but if you are under 18 and have been married, we will treat you as meeting the age requirement); and

    -of sound mind (but if you are not of sound mind, you may still be allowed to give up your British citizenship or other British nationality if it would be in your best interests).”

    and

    “You can give up your British citizenship, British overseas territories citizenship, British overseas citizenship, British subject status or British national (overseas) status by completing the declaration on form RN. If you hold more than one of these citizenships, you can give them up together on one form.”
    ——-

    Obama was by birth a British Overseas Citizen because Obama Sr. was by birth a British Overseas Citizen.

    In 1963 when Kenya gained its independence, All children of Kenyan fathers born on Kenyan land would become Kenyan citizens:

    ——-

    “Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th
    December 1968 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a
    British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for
    his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1) of
    this section, become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December 1963.”

    And

    “12. (1) Any person who, upon the attainment of the age of twenty-one
    years, was a citizen of Kenya and also a citizen of some country other
    than Kenya shall, subject to the provisions of subsection (7) of this
    section, cease to be a citizen of Kenya upon the specified date unless he
    has renounced his citizenship of that other country, taken the oath of
    allegiance and, in the case of a person who was not born in Kenya,
    made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning
    residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament. ;-“

    ——-

    Obama would have been both a British Overseas Citizen and Kenyan Citizenship until he would have had to make a choice at age 21. So, we have a candidate who was born with dual citizenship, gained multiple citizenship at age 7 (Kenya, UK, USA), and lost his multiple citizenship at age 21, then becoming a dual citizen again. And that would explain his easy entry into Pakistan in 1981. He would have 3 passports at the time, one of which was from Kenya. And let’s not even discuss Indonesia. That raises its own problems.

    Because of Obama’s inaction, he is still, unless he can prove renouncement, a British Overseas Citizen.

  117. Fernley Girl Says:

    “…a native born citizen” is Obama’s “It depends on what the meaning of “is” is.”

  118. [Ed. Note – Welcome Neon. I have done a pretty good job of letting readers of this blog know that insults like “obot” won’t be tolerated here. I value the participation of all people trying to educate themselves and their friends. I won’t tolerate this blog being dragged into petty BS. Thank you for posting.

    As to your comment, I’ll just say this: the average Joe on the street is not a lawyer, has not spent a career on the bench, been nominated by a President and confirmed by the Senate and is not qualfied to determine Constitutional law. The Supreme Court must decide these issues based upon the law.]

    Hello, Leo.

    Thank you for steering yourself clear from the other ‘citizenship’ cases to be presented at the NPC on Monday. As we have seen, the media has already muddled up your case with the other BC conspiracy theories.

    Speaking as an “ObamaBot” or “Obot”, I think your case merits an opinion from the court besides a simple flat denial. It’s clear that ‘natural born citizen’ has never been clarified to satisfaction and, apart from an amendment, only the Supremes can do this.

    Now, if they offer an opinion, I fully expect the court will define ‘natural born citizen’ in favor of Obama and McCain. Walk to any random stranger and ask this: “I was born in the United States in 19XX. Am I a natural born citizen?” and you’ll be hard pressed to hear anything other than a affirmation.

    I know that many believe the Constitution to be static and not a living-breathing document, but I can’t see the court trying to move us backwards from where the American public currently views ‘natural born’.

    Good luck to you with your music and Hold’em.

  119. [Ed. Note – See comments by drafters of the 14th Amendment, specifically Bingham:

    “In the year 1866, the United States for the first time adopted a local municipal law under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes that read: ‘All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.’

    Rep. 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.’ “

    http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html#more ]

    Just a simple question:

    Has any court ever agreed that “natural born” relates to the citizenship of the parents, and not the site where the candidate was born? Y+The answer is obviously a “no” because, otherwise, Obama being a Constitutional law professor would not have wasted his time trying to run for an office he could never hold. The theory seems to be, though, that because someone born in the US has a foreign born parent means they are ineligible to be president. Of course this is nonsensical. If that is what the Framers mean by “natural born”, they would have had to have written “natural born of citizens” or something like that. But the phrase “natural born” on its face does not relate in any way to the status of the parents. It refers only to the location and, therefore, the citizenship of the person who wants to be president.

  120. In yet another of the checks and balances on the path to POTUS, the president of the senate is the person who opens and counts the ballots cast by the electoral college. The senate president is Dick Cheney. Suppose Cheney, who swore to uphold and defend the constitution, refuses to count votes cast for Obama because he believes BHO is not constitutionally qualified to hold the office and defers judgement of qualification to SCOTUS. He would still count votes cast for Vice President (which are separate from votes cast for president according to the 12th amendment) as Biden, so far as I know, is qualified in all regards.

    This is a really fine mess that BHO has caused. I hope the law prevails at some point, the sooner the better. SCOTUS should take up Donofrio’s case and make a ruling on whether or not BHO is a natural born citizen. If they keep blowing it off the mess just gets worse and worse the farther into the process we get.

  121. [Ed. Note – for purposes of my case before SCOTUS, it assumes Obama was born in Hawaii so the birth certificate is not relevant. I don’t believe he’s posted a fraudulent BC. My law suit doesn’t say that at all.]

    And another thing:

    Someone up above tries to make the distinction between a “birth certificate” and a “certificate of live birth”. There is no difference, of course. That is just semantics. Would you Obama-truthers feel better of the Hawaii document was called a “certificate of birth” instead of “certificate of live birth”? And another thing: you know what a “certificate of live birth” is really distinct from? A “certificate of death” . . . which is what probably would have been issued if Obama died the day he was born.

    This is all ridiculous, of course. Because using his “certificate of live birth” or his “birth certificate”, Obama was issued a US passport as a citizen of the US. And who says the State department would not issue a passport based on a certificate of live birth? Where is that stated in the regulations? Because using a document identical to Obama’s, I got a passport for my kid a year ago.

    And one last thing: Obama traveled so much, he probably had a passport as a child. Especialy when he returned to the US when he was 10 (around 1971). So if the Nixon administration accepted his certificate and issued a passport, does that mean they Nixon administration was in on it, too?

  122. What do the red, white, and blue of the flag represent?

    The Continental Congress left no record to show why it chose the colors. However, in 1782, the Congress of the Confederation chose these same colors for the Great Seal of the United States and listed their meaning as follows: white to mean purity and innocence, red for valor and hardiness, and blue for vigilance, perseverance, and justice. According to legend, George Washington interpreted the elements of the flag this way: the stars were taken from the sky, the red from the British colors, and the white stripes signified the secession from the home country. However, there is no official designation or meaning for the colors of the flag.

    Doesn’t the white of the flag mean exactly this?…purity and innocence= natural born?

  123. Leo,

    At least there seem to be some Judges that agrees this issue should be looked at:

    WND also interviewed Judge Roy Moore, the former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, who echoed the concerns of millions when he said: “We can survive four years of any president; we cannot survive without a Constitution. This calls for a major investigation. Our Constitution is at stake.”

    Keep up the great work!

  124. Leo,

    I hope that you are preparing as if the case had not been denied. I’ll bet that Mr. Obama lawyers are preparing.

    As to the clerk’s office, they have put roadblocks in the way of the cases against Mr. Obama before. I believe that you have made a formal complaint against one clerk. Can you trust them? Do you think that they are going to assist you if they can avoid it?

  125. Sid Davis Says:

    Statutory citizen, naturalized citizen, 14th amendment, and natural born citizen.

    The language of the 14th amendment, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means “not subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign power”. Obama was born subject to foreign jurisdiction. The Framers of the 14th amendment said this was completely “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US, so being born with dual citizenship makes you not completely “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” thus you fail the “AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause.

    Obama, at his birth was not subject to the jurisdiction of the US so he did not meet both test (born or naturalized AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof). But he was born a citizen. This citizenship was as a result of Congressional Statutes effective at the time of his birth which takes away the possibility of having natural citizenship. He did not get his citizenship by operation of the 14th amendment.

    [Ed. Note – See United States v. Wong Kim Arc. If Obama was born in Hawaii, and I believe he was, then he was a Citizen of 14th Amendment citizen of the United States according to SCOTUS decision in Wong Kim Arc. I don’t believe Justice Gray and SCOTUS got it right in that case, but it has not been overturned yet. So, according to that case, Obama would be a 14th Amendment US citizen but not a “natural born citizen”.]

    McCain was not born in the US or naturalized in the US. I don’t know the laws of Panama, but if they said someone born in Panama to two US citizens is also a citizen of Panama, then he failed the “subject to the jurisdiction of the US” test. If Panama did not claim him he passed the “subject to the jurisdiction of the US” test. So being born out of the US prevented him from having natural citizenship. He also got his citizenship from operation of Congressional statutes in effect at the time of his birth.

    [Ed. Note – For purposes of determining if McCain is a natural born citizen, it doesn’t matter at all if Panama claimed him, it only matters that he was born there. It doesn’t even matter whether he was a Panama citizen at birth (although it looks like he was)… just the fact that he was born abroad makes him ineligible.]

    Neither McCain nor Obama needed to be naturalized because they were born with US citizenship, not gotten from the 14th amendment, but from Congressional Statutes. If you need to be naturalized, it is because you were not born with citizenship, so neither McCain nor Obama needed to be naturalized.

    It is clear you can get citizenship from operation of Congressional Statutes, or being naturalized, or by operation of the 14th amendment applied at birth, or by being natural born.

    If your citizenship came from Congressional Statutes then it was not natural citizenship. If your citizenship came from naturalization it is because you did not have it a birth. So the “natural” part of “natural born” is not a characteristic of someone getting his citizenship from Congressional Statutes, and the “born” part of “natural born” is not a characteristic of someone getting his citizenship from naturalization.

    So at a minimum to be a “natural born” citizen, you would need to have gotten your citizen by operation of the 14th amendment, meeting the “born in the US” part and meeting the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” part.

    If the laws of Great Britain at the time of Obama’s birth in 1961 had not made him subject to their jurisdiction, then Obama would have met the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” test of the 14th amendment and would have gotten citizenship from the 14th amendment (I think). However would that have made him a “natural born citizen”?

    Further analysis would be necessary. One would need to transport himself back in time before the 14th amendment to see what purpose the Framers of Article II, Section 1 had, and what the accepted definition of “natural born” was.

    [Ed. Note – 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. Article 2, Section 1 was ratified in 1787.]

    They wanted to keep the President from having any allegiances to foreign powers. In those times, they viewed the citizenship of one’s father as controlling on children, so I suspect that there is an even more stringent test than the 14th amendment to be applied to Article II, Section 1 and that test is being born in the US to citizen parents, or at least to a citizen father.

  126. [Ed. Note – Go to Obama’s site, or to factcheck.org, both explain that Obams was “governed” by the British Nationality Act of 1948 as that was the law when Obama was born. This comes from Obama’s web site. http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate ]

    This is a complete red herring. British law is very clear: a British man who father’s a child with a foreign mother and that child is born outside of the United Kingdom, does NOT confer British citizenship upon that child. The child is a citizen of the country in which he or she was born, or has the citizenship of the mother. Since Barack Obama’s mother was an American citizen, he is American. Not British. End of story.

  127. Obama’s natural born citizen issue directly touches the Office of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (and all the Justices) since the Chief Justice swears the President-elect into the Office. All the Justices were sworn in under oath to uphold the Constitution.

    Since Obama is a British citizen, as he freely admits, any surrender to Obama (agreement with him, support for him) in this matter is folly and foolishness. If the Justices surrender to Obama, allowing him in Office as a usurper (as the evidence my indicate) then the Justices have denied their oaths.

    We fought the Revolutionary War to establish it the Constitution.

    We fought the War of 1812 to defend the Constitution against the British foreign invasion.

    We fought the War Between the States to defend the Constitution against internal strife.

    I have read somewhere that the War of 1812 concerned “natural born citizenship matters”

    If this be so (I have yet to confirm) it gives us a view of what the Framers thought and what America thought about defending “natural born ciitizen status, and it importance. It was the next prominent war in the Framers lifetime. All the Framers were deceased at the start of the Mexican War.

    Can we do less!

  128. CAN THEY JUST ISSUE A SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AND NOT HEAR ARGUEMENTS?

  129. Republican dog Says:

    I believe that Baack Obama was born in the country of Kenya in Mombassa. His grandmother has said this is so and that she was present at his birth. What proud grandmother would lie about that? I have not only heard these statements made via Utube videos with Berg, but have also had the opportunity to read about his Kenyan birth. For example, Barack’s birth is is the cornerstone of an affadavit that is signed and notarized. The affadavit is Bishop Ron McRae’s. Therefore, Barack Obama is not eleigble to be POTUS as he is not a natural born citizen of the United States. Apparently, this however, if I have my civics under my belt, does not prevent him from serving as a Senator. But if found to be lying about his origins I would hope that since his character is questionable as are his associations that he would be dethrowend.

  130. Thanks to all with the patriotism and bravery to ask if the next POTUS is indeed constitutionally qualified. Every American has a responsibility to uphold the constitution, not just the SCOTUS. Clearly, we have not had word from the SCOTUS on Dec. 5th meeting. Dismissal of so many claims and cases will require specific language regarding the 14th amendment and the constitution, and that may be the reason for the delay. Accepting such cases, or summary judgement, will also require specific language and explanation an thus an obligatory delay. I don’t see the SCOTUS ignoring it and not giving explanation. We need to be patient.

  131. Max,
    Do you really think that the Supreme Court could give a summary upholding the citizenship clause? I know if Chief Justice John Marshall was alive, he most certainly would make sure that Mr. Donofrio got the right justice.
    +Stonewall

  132. Tony Stark Says:

    If the SCOTUS denies Leo’s case, then it will send the message that the Socialist candidate Calero was eligible to be on the ballot despite the fact that he is either a naturalized citizen or a permanent resident. This is why I don’t believe the SCOTUS will deny the case on Monday. They will have to define once and for all who a natural born citizen is and then compel the New Jersey Secretary of State to apply that definition to all of the candidates. Not only that, the other Secretaries of State of other states will be forced to do the same. Obama will then be forced to prove that he meets that definition and reveal all those documents from his past that he’s been hiding from the public.

  133. Congratulations to the Washington Times for being the FIRST major news outlet report on Donofrio v Wells and actually present the cases central argument:

  134. [Ed. Note- Obama is an American Citizen. And the Constitution says that as an American “Citizen” he can be a Senator. But to be President the Constitution requires something else, a status called “natural born citizen”. There is a difference between the two otherwise the distinction in the Constitution wouldn’t exist.]

    When did we ever care about british law – Were American we deal with American law – your born in American your, an American citizen theres really no if and or butts

  135. Fact … Obama was a British Citizen at Birth. Therefore he is not a Natural Born Citizen.

    Fact … His father was also not a U.S. Citizen when he was born….Both Parents need to be citizens when Obama was born… Therefore he is not a Natural Born Citizen

    Unknown …Was Obama born in the United States…This is made moot by first 2 facts…

    No need for oral arguments…. Summary Judgment

    Now will the Supreme Court Justices uphold the U.S. Constitution that they swore an oath no matter the consequences????

  136. The result of ousting Obama will likely be riots; however, the result of installing him will likely be civil war.

  137. truthseeker Says:

    Martin Veart prove other than fact your a citizen of the Commonwealth why Obama is NOT a citizen of the Commonwealth? Not words I want to see the law. See in this country probably until this election I thought (and I think many others did as well) that a citizen only had to be born in the states to be President. Even if you are right, about Obama

  138. truthseeker Says:

    Martin Veart prove other than fact your a citizen of the Commonwealth why Obama is NOT a citizen of the Commonwealth? Not words I want to see the law. See in this country probably until this election I thought (and I think many others did as well) that a citizen only had to be born in the states to be President. Even if you are right, about Obama that does not change the fact is, Obama has a father that is not a US born in U.S. . Obama is indeed an American BUT his father part of the Commonwealth. That means Obama cannot be President. Not that is the end of story.

  139. pondingal Says:

    For all you who do not understand the “seriousness” of this issue, and are real quick to BLAST those who are very educated in these matters, (i.e., Mr. Donofrio) who are genuinely worried about the future of our Great Nation and her constitution, please take the time to read this.
    http://www.thebulletin.us/site/news.cfm?newsid=20210273

    I never thought I’d see the day in which a U.S. congressman could not read. . . or would take “Yes-Man” (shut-up) money. . . AND “WE THE PEOPLE” FRIGGIN VOTED FOR THESE IDIOTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    IMHO, we look like one heck of a stupid and ignorant country, but when you have stupid and ignorant people defending TRUE and FRAUDULENT crimes, it looks really bad. If this nightmare continues and ends with the “monster” hurting the bad people, all of you defenders will regret the day you EVER took up for him!!! He could care less about any of you and is laughing at YOU also, all the way to the bank.

    WE BETTER WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!!

    Oh yeah, thanks Mr. Donofrio!!!! If/When you win this case, we will travel from afar to thank you.🙂

  140. Puma Libertarian Says:

    Leo,

    I know you know best, but I think you should go to the press conference. Why do you think it is a bad idea?

    Best wishes and I am praying for you and the court.

  141. Kevin Smith Says:

    [Ed. Note – my cites are a mess on that one. Apologies. I had ten hours sleep over five days that week. It was the crazy. You have no idea. Read the whole case.]

    Mr. Donofrio,
    I was reviewing your brief to the US Supreme Court and saw that you quoted Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 828 (1971). The quote you cite is not on 828, nor can I find it anywhere in the opionion. You used quotation marks after writing, “The Supreme Court Stated” Can you explain this, or am I missing the quote?

  142. Mr. Donofrio,

    My deepest gratitude for all that you have done for our country.

    After this is over will you please turn your attention to removing Henry Paulson, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Franks and Chris Dodd?

  143. Be it noted: Even if Obama WERE a natural-born citizen, he must be regarded as a usurper. Now, why do I say that? The archives of many sources, including the excellent blogs TexasDarlin (pro-Hillary) and Atlas Shrugs (pro-capitalist), give the reasons:

    * The corrupt and illegitimate nature of Obama’s initial rise in Chicago.

    * The fraud and intimidation in the Democratic primaries.

    * The massive illegal foreign donations to Obama’s campaign.

    * The massive illegal domestic donations to his campaign.

    * The fraud and intimidation in the election, via ACORN and other avenues.

    * The multiple coverups and lies to America about his past and present, on the basis of which Americans voted.

    Add to this the fact that Obama’s far-left agenda (TRANSLATION: quantum jump in governmental ownership of every aspect of our lives, going beyond even what Democrats are already known for) is contrary to the very founding principles of the USA (TRANSLATION: individual rights), and you have the makings of an incipient dictatorship put in place by what can only be characterized as coercion.

    Clearly, the Supreme Court’s fidelity to the Constitution in the matter of natural-born citizenship would enable that sacred document to act as intended: KEEP USURPERS OUT. But if that should not succeed, then we must find some other means, in law or in action.

  144. The Supreme Court of the United States is On Trial

    Regardless of MSM’s reporting of Obama’s “president elect” activities of moving into the white house and planning to step into the role of President, the loud silence is shouting America may be facing a usurper and is just a few weeks from a problem that may devastate America.

    No matter how long or how well MSM has attempted cover up and obfuscate the issue of Barack Hussein Obama’s ineligibility to be President, the reality is not only millions of Americans are aware of the great “cover-up conspiracy”, so is the entire world aware of it. In short “the cat is out of the bag”. There are now FOUR (4) cases petitioning the US Supreme Court. There are also several more cases brought to court on the state level. We The People published two full page ads the first week of December in the Chicago Tribune.

    In spite of MSM’s unanimous silence, the information is still coming forward like a huge tide. MSM will reluctantly have to acknowledge the issues if it hopes to retain what little credibility it has left. Those who have already done so have mucked up their reporting with false information, confusion of the facts, and puny predictions that the cases pending before the Supreme courts will be dismissed based upon the odds. It isn’t hard to see between their bias lines they truly don’t want the truth about Obama to come forward. It isn’t hard to conclude MSM has forgotten the importance of the Constitution or the danger America will be facing if a usurper grabs the office of Presidency. MSM seems to be totally indifferent to these vey real facts! It seems that MSM wants the Supreme Court to dismiss these cases. It is as if they have a death like fear of having their neat bubble will burst if it should be decided that Obama is not eligible to be President.

    This time their predictions the Supreme Court cases will be dismissed because of the past history of the Supreme Courts’history of odds– of the number of cases petitioned versus the number of cases heard—is hogwash. MSM, along with many extremely ignorant elected officials and equally ignorant Obama worshipers reveal their total lack of respect for laws of our country, integrity of character, and honesty in government. They also reveal a naïveté about major crisis America is facing if a usurper actually becomes President. It should be the primary concern of all citizens of the United States to be certain the man who may take the oath on January 20, 2009 is in fact, truth, and reality eligible under the Constitution of the US to be President. This above any other issue in the world is PRIORITY. Every other issue—economy, terrorism, political party, immigration, war in Iraq, etc.etc.etc. Is secondary to this one most important and VERY SACRED ISSUE.

    THE SUPREME COURT HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO DECIDE THESE CASES NO MATTER HOW UNPOPULAR THEY MAY BE WITH THEM. This is precisely the case for which our forefathers created the Supreme Court. This case is of unprecedented historic proportion. Unlike cases that ask decisions on a right to choose or whether or not the word “God” should be in the Pledge of Allegiance, or the Nativity Scene displayed in public places, which will cause no threat to the American way of life if they are post poned or not heard. This question asks to discover whether or not there is going to be a USURPER attempting to violate the Constitution of the United States. The very real concern of a USURPER stealing the office of presidency is a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY. Time is of the essence. The Supreme Court does not have the luxury of dismissing or postponing such a case while America is under the threat of NATIONAL SECURITY.

    The real trial is not whether or not Obama is a Usurper. The real trial will be how the Supreme ultimately decides. The whole world already knows there is abundant evidence Obama is a USURPER. If the Supreme Court has the courage to do what is right and declare Obama ineligible to be President and over turn the election, it will have protected every American citizen and retained the respect of the whole world. All will continue with a great peace of mind Our Sacred Constitution has been upheld and America will continue to evolve in the greatness our fore fathers had envisioned. If the nine guardians of our Sacred document some how distort, contort, convolute or in any other method of legal trickery legitimize Obama and declare him qualified to be President for any visible or invisible reasons such as intimidation, bribery, or?, then the whole world will know America is dead. The carcass will be grabbed by any one.

    This topic will be discussed this Sunday evening (12-7-’08) at from 7 to 10 p.m. PST on http://www.blogtalkradio.com/vos. Please feel free to write into the chat room or call and speak directly on line at 347-633-9851.

    http://www.museumofinnocence.blogspot.com
    http://www.blogtalkradko.com/vos

  145. I read somewhere, in one of the hundereds of things I researched, that
    Biden would NOT automatically become the president, because Biden was chosen VP by someone who was ineligible to be President in the first place therefore inelligible to appoint anyone to be VP, in the second place.
    The whole thing becomes void.

  146. “[Ed. Note- Reverend, Obama was a British Citizen “at birth”. The law which governed his status “at birth” was The British Nationality Act of 1948. That has since been repealed and replaced by the 1983 act. But it does not take effect retroactively. So, Obama was therefore a British Citizen “at birth”, not a British Overseas Citizen. Two years later, when Kenya became independent, he became a Kenyan Citizen and I believe he’s waived that now and currently Obama is just a United States citizen without dual nationality. But that doesn’t change his status “at birth.” At birth, if you’re not a natural “born” citizen, you can’t cure it later. You are or you aren’t — “at birth”.]”

    I did some research and you are indeed correct about the UK citizenship in 1961. At the time of his birth, Obama was a Citizen of the UK. The Citizenship Act of 1983 defined anyone living in former colony, such as Kenya, was now classified as a British Overseas Citizen. However, renouncement was still a requirement of citizenship in the British Nationality Act of 1948:

    “(3) A person who has renounced, or has been deprived of, citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies under this Act shall not be entitled to be registered as a citizen thereof under this section…”

    Kenya may have been independent and claimed citizenship to all those born to Kenyans, but UK statute clearly stated (and still does state) that UK Citizens must renounce their citizenship by adulthood. The Kenyan Constitution clearly recognizes dual citizenship for minors younger than age 21. Otherwise the phrase:

    “12. (1) Any person who, upon the attainment of the age of twenty-one
    years, was a citizen of Kenya and also a citizen of some country other
    than Kenya shall, subject to the provisions of subsection (7) of this
    section, cease to be a citizen of Kenya”

    would have never been included. Other sections of the Kenyan Constitution (i.e. section 2(1)) state that at least 1 parent must petition their children to the Kenyan Parliament in order to allow their children under the age of 21 to become Kenyan citizens. Since Kenya can’t claim citizenship of minors and since the UK claims born citizenship of minors, it is clear that Obama had dual citizenship with both Kenya and the UK. Only Obama could have done so.

    This is one more reason why dual citizenship for Presidents should clearly be avoided. We’re having enough time interpreting this citizenship issue as it is.

  147. Unfortunately, it is time for our “tinfoil hats”. I imagine the scenario like this. Through litigation (please forgive my spelling as I am in a rush at this time) the SCOTUS gets delayed in thier decision. The Electoral College passes thier vote for BHO. SCOTUS deliveres decision. Biden becomes Acting President. The following 2003 act gets passed (http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/81-1/Herlihy.pdf). And BHO suddenly becomes President. All that has to be done is to confuse the “natural born citizen” issue with websites similar to the ones below…

    http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
    http://www.theorator.com/bills108/s2128.html

  148. mtngoat61 Says:

    Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen, therefore Obama cannot be a Natural Born Citizen (NBC) no matter where Obama himself was born. Hawaii or Kenya it does not matter with his status under this fact. To be a natural born citizen per U.S. Constitutional mandates the person selected for the office of the Presidency must be born in the USA from parents who BOTH were U.S. citizens at the time of the person’s birth. Obama may be a “Native Born” citizen. But he is not a “Natural Born” citizen per the intent of the framers of our U.S. Constitution. See this site for more of my writings and discussion of this:

    “http://www.obamacitizenshipfacts.org”

    Mountain Publius goat

  149. First – I’m throwing in with Tony S., hope you’re right fellow patriot. The issue as Leo has laid it out seems so clearly cut and dried regarding both BHO and McCain.
    Second – from one Texas dude to ‘texasdude’, I would like to think it would not result in civil war, but my fellow Texan, you certainly aren’t the first one I’ve talked to and read that has the same opinion!! I gotta think that if this is handled right by the SCOTUS and not “mis-handled” by the media, we could largely avoid the “riots”.
    Bottom Line – The integrity of the Constitution must be upheld…else we’re on a steep slippery slope, IMO. God Bless and save America.

  150. Has any court ever agreed that “natural born” relates to the citizenship of the parents, and not the site where the candidate was born? Y+The answer is obviously a “no” because, otherwise, Obama being a Constitutional law professor would not have wasted his time trying to run for an office he could never hold.

    Instead of you doing your homework by checking out the law, you are content to let Mr. Obama do your thinking for you, since he is a constitutional law professor (he taught briefly). He’s counting on people like you who are too lazy to do their own thinking to steamroll his way to power. Did you ever stop to think that he may think he’s above the law?

  151. Spike,
    I just read your post about your Cousin who was born of Belgian parents on a student visa, in Ameria. She is a CITIZEN of America ONLY, not a “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” — there is a vast difference between the two. She, by virtue of her foreign parents who were not “naturalized ” before the time of her birth, only conferred upon her Citizenship, not Natural Born Citizen status, which requires that BOTH PARENTS be ALREADY NATURALIZED or Natural Born Citizens themselves by virtue of their parents birth factors, before her birth. SHE CANNOT EVER BE PRESIDENT of this Country, no matter how good she is, who she knows, where she went to school, how good she was as a student or how much she excells in any endeavor sh may undertake, she may NEVER BE PRESIDENT of this USA.

  152. JimmyTheC Says:

    Everyone keeps saying that you can get a passport with the Certification of Live Birth so it is enough proof. You don’t need to be a “Natural Born Citizen” (NBC) to get a passport, just a citizen. You only need to be an NBC to be President of the USA. Stop all the crap and tell Mr. Obama to admit he was trying to get away with this sham. Maybe the people will forgive him, but I hope not. He has been planning this with much help for many years. He and his buddies have always believed that this clause in the Constitution is discriminatory. This is a back door attempt to set a precedent and he was hand picked years ago because he fit the mold of what the people would believe and fall for. He is not African-American, but the press has rammed that into the people’s minds. How wonderful we as a country have seen the error of our selfish ways. They are counting on the chaos this will cause and believe the people will insist that the Constitution be changed to allow him to be POTUS. This did not happen by accident. This is very well thought out and fits the future plan of One World Government. (Oops, my tin foil hat just slipped.)
    Where was I? Oh yeah, the plan. Even if he fails the way has been paved and the human outcry will force a Constitutional Amendment process to start so this clause can be done away with once and for all. This is really the ultimate goal. Obama will be handsomely paid and he and his family will live in luxury either as POTUS, or as a hero to the left who was able force the Constitution to be changed.
    Just MHO.

  153. Andrew L. Says:

    First, a HUGE thank you to Mr. Donofrio for caring about our Constitution, and actually doing something about it.

    I find it absolutely appalling (and downright scary) that so many are willing to ignore the Constitution just because Obama “won” the election, and to classify anyone raising questions of eligibility as a nutjob. Most people I talk with don’t even understand that the real election has not occurred yet.

    Now, something I just discovered in this webpage. http://www.nowpublic.com/world/cursory-lip-service-wider-conspiracy

    According to this article, Obama was a co-sponsor of a bill earlier this year that was to seemingly recognize John McCain’s eligibility. Look at the wording of Congressional Resolution 511. http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-sr511/text

    Especially this text;
    Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;
    Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

    Now it makes one wonder what exactly what they were trying to accomplish, besides passing a resolution to recognize Mr. McCain’s eligibility.

    What would this mean toward McCain eligibility in regards to the Donofrio case? And would passing a resolution stating that “natural born citizen” is not clearly defined, give Obama any wiggle room?

    How convenient of them if it would.

  154. Hi Leo,

    From your previous article.

    “If scotus refers the case back to the state court to prove eligibility (good possibility, since it is their responsibility), is it possible that the supreme court justices may still motion to stay the national election until the eligibility issue is satisfied? (of all the many possibilities)

    [Ed. Note – It’s possible they may do that, but only as to verifying state issues, like where he was born. If a BC is then produced saying he was born in Hawaii, which I believe to be true, then it would come back to SCOTUS for the Article 2, Section 1 argument. They could hold off on that until it’s absolutely nnecessary. This is a possibility.]”

    I believe and there is a good chance the Supremes see the merits of the case, but this can only be satisfied in the state courts as to where it is the states responsibility to verify a candidates eligibility. (Didn’t the Supremes send back to the state for recount during the 2000 election?) As I understand it, the state judge (a new judge, maybe?) did not act on the merits of the case and the Supremes may want to see that done as to ‘verifying state issues’, like natural born citizen. The state and the 50 states need to recognize the strength of your arguments as to a constitutional issue.
    Maybe the stay on the national election will remain pending but with a time limit as to the electoral college vote (and/or certification) as this may be ‘necessary’.
    The case is strong as simply by the fact that the candidate from Nicaragua is obviously ineligible as the issue of natural born citizen.

    Citizen Wells (http://citizenwells.wordpress.com) is asking people to investigate ‘types of actions’ which may be taken up in regard to the states.

    Be prepared for anything!

    or maybe Bickell had too much Dickel……………………….

  155. God bless you, Leo .. you are doing the Lord’s work.

    Prayers continuing.

    Thought you’d be interested in this snippet from a Chicago (dementia) Tribune article from today:

    “Obama was born to a foreign father, a Kenyan with a British passport and very dark skin. Though born in Hawaii, Obama lived in a predominantly Muslim country for a while with a stepfather who also was a foreigner. That makes him different from all the presidents who preceded him. But it does not make him any less American.”

    Ridiculous and moral equivalency logic!!

    Here’s the article:

    Barack Obama, Sarah Palin dogged by Internet birth rumors

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-talk-mcmahon-rumorsdec06,0,7750937.story

    All the best .. prayers for our country,

    Star

  156. I found an article on he LA times blog…didn’t know if you had seen it.

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/12/obama-birth-cer.html

  157. mayflower Says:
    December 5, 2008 at 12:53 pm
    The relevant question now is…Will the third pillar of government assert itself against the fourth pillar (media)?

    —————-

    This is a fascinating point Mayflower. Did you ever stop to consider The Electoral College is the four pillar of our government?

    Ironically, this begs the truth of what has really happened here.

    The Corporate Media via the millions spent by the two dominant political parties have overthrown the fourth branch of government, The Electoral College. That is what is WRONG with our modern politics.

    We most all think something terrible has gone wrong with our presidential election politics and WE ARE RIGHT. Something has gone wrong.

    The presidential selection process has be hijacked by an Oligarchy.

    This Oligarchy has hijacked the Constitutional process the framers themselves restrictively created to prevent this very thing; to prevent an Oligarchy arising from American soil from getting a stranglehold on the presidential election process.

    Here is the greater truth beneath Leo’s and Cort’s cases, the Constitutional restrictions and processes for the election of the president of the states has been overthrown and kicked to the curb.

    I pray SCOTUS will take these cases of first impression and start the pendulum swinging back the other way.

    The Framers knew what they were doing. They knew it is the nature of man to form Oligarchy. They knew the selection process for the president of the states was highly vulnerable to elitist hegemony and that an Oligarchy would form. That is why they created a restrictive process with specific procedures.

    Should Leo or Cort prevail, the next question should be: “Why are the political parties involved at all in the choosing of the president of the states. Why does the media hold a multi-billion dollar monopoly over the spending of campaign money to elect a POTUS.

    The Electoral College elects the POTUS.

    The election of electors is a state-by-state process.

    What are the national media and the two national political parties doing hijacking the process and trampling the Constitution?

    I hijacking too harsh a term? Perhaps, but do you see anyone else driving the process?

    Why does it take $$ Billions?

    It shouldn’t. At somepoint we need to face the question: “What is the present nature of involvement of our “pay to play” corporate media, the DNC and the RNC, and, more importantly, is it Constitutional?

  158. Hey, Leo,
    I just remembered, a few months back Martha McCallum and Rush Limbaugh were discussing a “leak” from the H. Clinton camp that they had some “shocking” info about B.Obama but they weren’t going to release it.

    I wonder if has anything to do with this issue? I understand Berg was a Clinton supporter. I wonder if she thought she would get the VP spot and then sick Berg on Barry and she’d be POTUS.

    hmmmm…..

  159. Martin Veart:

    Please read British Nationality Act 1948.

    Part II: Citizenship by birth or descent

    5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.

    The birth certificate is the red herring. Obama has admitted having British citizenship upon birth.

  160. FERNLEY GIRL – Any relation to the Fernley’s of Milford, CT and Henderson, NV?

  161. spike Says:
    December 5, 2008 at 8:47 pm

    …Citizenship is by birth, not by parentage. My cousin was born in Indiana from Belgian parents who were visiting on a student visa; she is a natural-born citizen and can be President. Obama was born in the United States, that makes him a citizen. End of story. What part of this do you guys not understand?
    *****************************************************

    Oh, Spike, don’t be silly. Anchor babies cannot be President. They may be granted ‘citizenship’ by virtue of being born in the United States (unless their parents are foreign diplomats, enemies of the US, or Indians) but they are not afforded the privilege of ‘natural born’ citizenship. Just because you don’t want to recognize the difference doesn’t mean the difference doesn’t exist.

    You aren’t giving our Founding Fathers nearly enough credit. Any old anchor baby cannot be President, particularly Commander-in-Chief of our military.

    Anchor baby’s parents could take the child back to their native country, raise that baby in an anti-American manner, have them come back at age 21, and be eligible to be President once they turn 35. How preposterous to indicate that our Framers were not intelligent enough to protect us from something so sinister.

    This qualification is decided UPON BIRTH and cannot be remedied one second after the fact. You either are or you aren’t a natural born citizen.

    Just because Barack had the audacity to run doesn’t mean he is qualified to hold the position.

    This is quite clear as there is a provision in the 20th Amendment that remedies the problem of a President Elect (BO isn’t PE yet…he’s prom king) being found unqualified. Since there are only three qualifications you think they’d see fit to determine this BEFORE said person makes it that far but, alas, that is not the case.

  162. Here is one excellent article describing the dangers of dual citizenship in America:

    http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0808/0808usdualcitizen.htm

  163. Dwight Meeks Says:

    I have been watching video on you tube of Justice Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito. These could be the four justices that allow this case to be heard. Thomas & Roberts are strict interpreters of the constitution. As well as Alito has stated during his senate hearing that he believes the president is to be natural born. So we shall hope and pray that the case will be heard for oral arguments.

    Leo I suggest you watch the Charlie Rose Interview in detail to understand Scalia to prepare yourself for oral arguments.

    Good Luck!

  164. Re: my post at December 6, 1:53 PM

    Leo, here is http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/war-of-1812/causes-of-the-war.html that concerns British not recognizing American citizenship certificates.

    Great Britain and France went to war again in 1803, and the Royal Navy, short of manpower, began boarding American merchant ships in order to seize some of the many British seamen serving on American vessels. Although this policy of impressment was supposed to reclaim only British subjects, between 1806 and 1812 about 6,000 American citizens were taken against their will (“pressed”) into the Royal Navy.{{fn|2}} One reason for this was that the British did not recognise American citizenship certificates issued to naturalised Britons and considered that anyone born a British subject remained a British subject. Great Britain did not want to stop impressment because it was seen as an effective way of combating desertion from the Royal Navy. The Monroe-Pinkney Treaty (1806) between the U.S. and Great Britain was not ratified in the United States because it did not end impressment.

  165. to Mr. B-Rob

    You display perfectly the problem with the proponents of Obama eligibility. You have used the classical fallacy of Circular Reasoning. You mention a passport. That is precisely one of the questions we have. There is no evidence that he actually has a US Passport.

    Also your argument on types of birth certificates is provably wrong. It is not a semantic issue. Look up Hawaii law. They have at least two types of certificates. The only one that shows the actual legal birthplace is the long form that BHO has not supplied. The one on the website, even if authentic, is not adequate.

    What is needed here is some truth, not circular and specious arguments.

    Mr. Donofrio has staked out a very specific position. He starts with the assumption that Obama’s own legend is true. Then goes on to show that even this official version leads to non-eligibility.

    But there are also other assumptions that one could make. Other law cases are based on those. Personally I don’t buy for one minute that he was born in Hawaii. There is essentially zero evidence of this. Whereas there is at least a little soft evidence that he was born in Kenya.

    One could also make a good case that BHO is not now a US citizen at all. In fact, there is more (again, soft) evidence that he is a citizen of Indonesia than that he is a US Citizen.

    But again, these are not what this case or this website is about.

    I just put these here to show you the danger of making assumptions and getting into circular arguments.

    What I hope is that one of these cases will result in unlocking ALL the relevant hidden information – so that we can all know the complete truth and not have to make any assumptions at all.

    The strength of Mr. Donofrio’s case is that he uses BHO’s own statements rather than speculative assumptions. Unfortunately, as mentioned by several other posters, the weakness of this case is that it hinges quite directly on an obscure concept that the American people don’t understand. It “feels” like a mere technicality to most people. There is a practical downside to this. That’s why I hope something else is discovered as well.

  166. First, thank you for the effort you’ve put forth. You’ve done an incredible job.

    Second, I’m curious….wouldn’t the 10th Amendment give you and others standing to file suit against the Secretaries of State that should have qualified the candidates before the Electoral College votes? I don’t understand who _would_ otherwise have standing.

    Keep up the good work. We need you.

  167. There’s a move going on in our government to transition our country to Globalism. Obama is very knowledgeable of this and so is Bush and the Congress. The Constitution must be down-played for this to happen. It is going on now.

  168. Why is it that the news media is so frightened of this story? Any coverage I’ve seen is fraudulent at worst and sarcastic at best.

  169. Leo Sir, I would like to know as others !!That to have standing before the supreme court you must have been agreived on three points, However did you know that a us senator or two us congress persons or a full blood american Indian has STANDING before the USSC see Pres. U.S.Grant and the indian council files if never broken Than an Indian lawyer should step forth either to assist you or go for it PRONTO*** Thanks again and still I think you are spiritually related to our/your founding Fathers “as a man thinketh in his heart so is he” On your side I call and raise! Faithful friend Charlie!!!!!!!!!!!!

  170. It is interesting how revealing the fight the smears page on citizenship is.
    It provides passive truths that are not the whole truth, covering the BC issue, claim of native birth, admission of one foreign citizenship, and and a theory that by passively letting the Kenyan citizenship expire, he was made whole again. I made the following table.

    From http://fightthesmears.com/ …………………Compare to preferred
    articles/5/birthcertificate ……………………………..stronger alternative

    Posted Copy of ……………………………Why has Barack Obama actively fought
    ………….Certification of Live Birth…….. producing his Certificate of Live Birth?

    From WashingtonPost.com
    “The truth: Sen. Barack Obama, born………………. Why is there no claim like:
    in Hawaii, is a Christian family man ………………..“Senator Barack Obama is a
    witha track record of public service………………………” natural born citizen.”?
    (Statement that Barack Obama is native born.)

    From factcheck.org
    “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on
    Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was ……There is not any mention of possible
    a British colony, still part of the United……. Indonesian citizenship acquired as
    Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan………………………………… a child.
    native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British
    subject whose citizenship status was
    governed by The British Nationality Act
    of 1948. That same act governed the
    status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
    (This is a passive admission of British
    citizenship at birth.)

    Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced………… Why is there no claim to the
    his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of ………………active official procedure?
    allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship …….Senator Obama swore an oath
    automatically expired on Aug.4,1982.” ………of allegiance to the United States
    (note passive approach to “retaining” ………..before a judge and renounced all
    US citizenship) …………………………………other claims to citizenship on [date
    …………………………………………………………………………….before age 22].

  171. I am glad that Mr. Donofrio is allowing comments from both sides to be posted here. This allows people reading these to see some of the lack of thinking going on for themselves:

    Someone up above tries to make the distinction between a “birth certificate” and a “certificate of live birth”. There is no difference, of course.

    Apparently, this poster meant to say birth certification and birth certificate, because those are the two types of documents being discussed. They just didn’t proofread their own comment.

    Of course, anyone who has viewed information directly from the state government of Hawaii knows that the fact is, a certificate (certificate of live birth) is totally different from a certification (certification of live birth). To quote from the State of Hawaii, “…the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green … is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout).” (source: http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl )

    The certification has the word “abstract” stamped on the reverse. What’s an abstract? Well, it is like comparing a check with cash. Obviously, when there is a question about the legitimacy of a check, a sane person will reject the check and only accept the cash. In serious legal matters, an “abstract” will rarely suffice.

    Oddly enough, the “birth certification – birth certificate issue” is MOOT anyway as Mr. Obama, born under laws in force in 1961 (and not under 2008 laws), was born as a British Subject. Obama Senior was neither a U.S. Citizen, nor held resident status in the U.S. Thus, it really doesn’t matter whether Barack Obama II’s certification is a forgery, his birth certificate says “Barry Obama,” whether or not he’s Indonesian, or where he was born. It’s all moot as far as Presidential eligibility is concerned.

  172. [ed. Note – I don’t want my case being grouped with the other cases. And I don’t care about the media. It’s before SCOTUS. Che sera sera. I’ve done my best to get to the truth.]

    Did I understand correctly? A poster said Leo was not going to attend the Monday We The People Foundation press conference. Can anyone tell me why???

  173. I know I know this is not about the BC,,,
    But think about this…. they (the SCOTUS ) know that he has refused to produce his Original BC.. that will cause them to look into this case even deaper…. I think the cases will work together,,,
    ( even though we will never know ) .. NO ONE wants to be made a fool of…. not even the SCOTUS …

  174. [Ed. Note – McCain willnever be President. He’s not a natural born citizen either as I also argued in my suit.]

    someone said>>johnocide Says:

    December 6, 2008 at 4:28 am
    While I disagree I’ll admit I haven’t read enough on it to actually make an educated opinion, I do find this all very interesting. If he is ineligible Biden would take the oath instead, dems are still in power.

    ihv>. i dont see how that would be possible since if obama is declaired ineligable that throws the election and all its participants off… i would have to think that in this case the next candidate which would be mccain would be the winner.. just my opinion
    will

  175. Has any court ever agreed that “natural born” relates to the citizenship of the parents, and not the site where the candidate was born? Y+The answer is obviously a “no” because, otherwise, Obama being a Constitutional law professor would not have wasted his time trying to run for an office he could never hold.

    Instead of you doing your homework by checking out the law, you are content to let Mr. Obama do your thinking for you, since he taught law briefly. He’s counting on people like you who are too lazy to do their own thinking to steamroll his way to power. Did you ever stop to think that he may think he’s above the law?

  176. someone said
    “Then another lawyer chimes in with the opinion that SCOTUS has a duty to follow the will of the people and not the Constitution. Yet another snow job.

    ihv>. if this be the case then if the abortion issue came to a vote the pro life will win and what will that to do the supreme court rulings? thow them out because of the vocie of the people? i would think so
    will

  177. Leo-Friend, Is Alias B.O.—-B.S…..another Pearl Harbor for us???

  178. A natural born citizen is a person born in the US and whose 2 parents are US citizens (not owing allegiance to any foreign sovreignty). BHO said he was a “native” US citizen. He knows very well he isn’t a “natural born US citizen” because his father was not a US citizen, but British. Whether Obama was born in Hawaii or Kenya is irrevelant. I think he knows this as well. He’s trying to focus the attention on his (irrevelant) birth certificate issue so that we forget about the the “natural born citizen” qualification. WELL DONE, Leo. THANK YOU for seeing through his manipulative ways. NOW, let’s hope the SCOTUS will approve this case as well. Last chance to save the US from disaster.

  179. [Ed. – My law suit states that I believe Obama was born in Hawaii. I can think of one good reason why Obama hasn’t produced an original birth certificate. ANSWER: Nobody with any authority to make him produce one has asked to see it. Mr. Berg has no authority to command Mr. Obama so I do not believe his law suit against Obama has standing. Mr. Berg is from Pennsylvania. The person in Pennsylvania who has standing to ask Mr. Obama to see his birth certificate is the Pennsylvania Secretary of State. But Mr. berg didn’t sue the Secretary.]

    Obama has NEVER submitted any type of OFFICIAL type of citizenship document. I hear the Obama supports say he has a birth certificate from Hawaii. NO HE DOSEN’T! He put some type of home made birth certificate on his web site. He has NEVER presented any type of CERTIFICATE to The Supreme Court. Obama has been asked to do this in a law Suit Philip Berg vs Barack Obama in The US Supreme Court. Obama has produced NOTHING……….WHY??? HE DOESN”T HAVE IT!!! If Obama did have it he would provide it then sue for Def of Character. Obama is hiding!!
    Everyone go to the web site http://www.obamacrimes.com and just listen with an open mind for THE TRUTH. It is the facts of where all of this stands.
    I have send SO MANY people I know to this web site, mostly people who voted for Obama. Not one came back to me with with the belief Obama was an AMERICAN CITIZEN!! ALL, yes ALL now see that OBAMA does NOT meet the qualifications(Requirements) to be President Of The United States!!
    Lies catch up to EVERYONE………….The Truth will be known to the UNITED STATES PEOPLE. The Supreme Court will “HAVE NO CHOICE!!!!”
    God Bless Philip Berg for having the guts, and PRIDE to stand up for THE US CONSTITUTION!!

  180. There is no dispute over Obama’s citizenship. The dispute appears to be semantics about “natural born” and “native born” with certain factions attempting to define US citizenship in terms of another country’s criteria.

    [Ed. – The Framers used the word “Citizen” in the Constitution as a requirement to be Senator or a Representative. But for President they required something else, they chose the words “Natural Born Citizen”. What you call semantics was something put in the Constitution by the Framers who purposefully chose to make a distinction between “Citizens” and “Natural Born Citizens”. SCOTUS has never had the issue before them as to applying the requirement for President. It’s what’s known as an issue of first impression.]

    Definition of a “Natural Born Citizen” — A citizen who does not need to be “naturalized” . (A legal process, therefore a legitimate legal definition)

    [Ed. – There is no statute, Constitutional provision or prior US case law which supports your statement.]

    The British are great at making sweeping claims of dominion and sovreignty and not ever admitting loss or relinquishing claim even after losing it resoundingly.

    I grew up in England (ages 10 – 15) and attended British private schools. I actually had a British History teacher insist and teach that the US was still a “colony” of the British Empire, that the Revolutionary War was illegal, and therefore the results null and void!! She insisted we should be under British rule and economic control. This was in the 1950’s when the 1948 British Nationality Act and mandate of sovereignty was being promulgated.

    We have not accepted British declarations of sovereignty over our citizens since before the Revolutionary War!

    It is dangerous thinking to place the laws and mandates of any other country above those of the US for its own citizens.

    [Ed. note – The problem is that Obama wasn’t just a citizen of the US at the time he was born. He was just as much a citizen of Great Britain (some would say moreso because the father’s status had been, in the common law, the controlling blood… it’s not an argument I’ve made. I’m just sayin’). Our US Constitution’s natural “born” citizen requirement is concerned with the Presidential candidate’s citizenship at the time they were “born” not at the time of the election.]

  181. R. Martin Says:

    Has Leo Donofrio read and considered the legal argument presented here?

    I hope Leo Donofrio has thought through this argument. I can’t find his email address to contact him, does anyone know of it?

    http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/12/07/why-all-lawsuits-on-obama-eligibility-are-misguided/
    Why All Lawsuits on Obama Eligibility Are Misguided
    December 7th, 2008

    The arguments made by people who believe that Barack Obama is not a “natural born citizen” are sometimes very thoughtful and scholarly. For example, see Leo Donofrio’s blog, https://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com. Donofrio has discovered that President Chester Alan Arthur, who probably was born in Vermont, but whose father was not a U.S. citizen, went through the naturalization process. Apparently Arthur’s naturalization process was not known to the public during Arthur’s campaign for vice-president in 1880, nor during his presidency.

    Nevertheless, the lawsuits trying to stop the electors from voting for Obama on December 15 lack merit. The U.S. Constitution gives the presidential electors full power to vote for anyone they wish, whether the people they vote for are eligible or not. And no one argues that any presidential elector chosen last month, in any state, is not eligible. The only restriction the U.S. Constitution places on electors is that they not vote for two residents (for president and for vice-president) who live in the state that the elector lives in. Furthermore, the U.S. Constitution does not even require a presidential elector to take an oath to support the Constitution. Some states, however, do require such an oath.

    The only constitutional remedy to prevent someone from taking the office of President or Vice President, is by Congressional action. Congress is charged with counting the electoral votes in January. Congress is free to reject an electoral vote if Congress believes that electoral vote was cast for someone who is not qualified. This precedent was set in 1873, when Congress refused to count the 3 electoral votes cast for Horace Greeley, who had died after the November 1872 election but before the electors met in December 1872.

    [Ed. This only kicks in after the Electoral College meets and there is a President Elect. The Constitution doesn’t recognize the popular vote, so under the Constitution Obama is just a candidate and the Constitutional amandments which consider his eligibility don’t kick in until the EC meets. Also, there the electors must case their votes according to the Constitution.]

    Somewhat by analogy, Congress, not any court, has the authority to judge election returns for members of Congress, and to make up its own mind as to whether the election returns announced by state elections officials are accurate or not.

    Some states openly place presidential candidates on the ballot even though those presidential candidates freely admit that they do not meet the constitutional qualifications to be president. Other states do not. This is illustrated by the fact that the Socialist Workers Party, which several times has nominated presidential candidates who do not meet the qualifications, has placed such candidates on the ballot in Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, and Washington. Also, California accepted such a candidate as a declared write-in candidate. Thanks to Bill Van Allen for the link to Leo Donofrio’s webpage.

  182. Joss Brown Says:

    From the transcript of the debate between Obama and Keyes on keysarchives(dot)com:

    “PONCE: Yes or no, eliminate the electoral college?
    OBAMA: Yes.”

    (Debate sponsored by WTTW and the City Club of Chicago; October 26, 2004)

  183. someone said:
    ‘Instead of you doing your homework by checking out the law, you are content to let Mr. Obama do your thinking for you, since he taught law briefly. He’s counting on people like you who are too lazy to do their own thinking to steamroll his way to power. Did you ever stop to think that he may think he’s above the law?

    ihv>> that is so true i have said that from the beginning… every time something comes up about obama they scream RACE… and i think thats exactly what he is hoping for.. to use the race card for this issue too
    will

  184. Mike MacPherson Says:

    This has got to be the worst report I have seen from any reporters so far. CNN reporters Jeffery Toobin and Cambell Brown. They absolutely look like ameteurs.

    Do not forget the CNN moto…….

    THE MOST TRUSTED NAME IN NEWS.

  185. max said:
    No need for oral arguments…. Summary Judgment

    ihv>. i personally believe that this would be a bad move.. even if they do accept the facts and believe that barak is not elegable, they should hear the facts, make it as public as possible and then render a written decision…i also think if they rule against him he needs to come fourth and apologize and ask the people to accept the ruling of the court..this i think would stop a lots of trouble we may otherwise face not only immediately but for some years to come…
    will

  186. Grandmasmad Says:

    Thank you for doing this….Our Constitution is what matters….Bottom line!!!!

  187. Joss Brown Says:

    @Mike MacPherson:

    Oh yes… and once again they didn’t care to read Mr. Donofrio’s arguments.

  188. From the Russian Daily Online:
    Dr. Robert Coambs

    Dr. Coambs studies human reasoning and logic and states that Obama can’t be POTUS and also mentions Leo’s case.

    http://www.kommersant.com/forum/mess_list.asp?id=6-8-29-112648

  189. KatLawson Says:

    Hi Leo!!!!!

    I wish you well tomorrow! Keep your spirits up!

    I just ran across another “Obama Admission” to his natural born status — “PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE ELECTION CANDIDATE NOMINATION PAPER”, dated 12-13-07, signed by Obama!

    Link is to CitizenWells post:
    http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/12/07/obama-not-eligible-obama-not-natural-born-citizen-obama-signature-on-arizona-candidate-nomination-paper-moniquemonicat-blog-did-obama-commit-fraud-did-obama-lie/

  190. WOW!!

    Monique just had CitizenWells post a document she received from the Arizona SOS office showing Obama’s signature that he solemnly swears that he is a “natural born citizen.” This document was received 13Dec07.

    Is this a felony??

    BTW, Leo, you are our bright and shinning knight!! Keep up the good work!
    God bless and protect you!

  191. [Ed. Leo will not be bringing any more law suits on this issue. It’s in SCOTUS hands now.]

    Reply to R. Martin (hopefully Leo gets this also)

    It may be that your argument is correct, that the Secretary of State is not responsible for verifying the eligibility of the candidates (though I think Leo’s arguments are correct on this point, they are). However, Leo, or someone else of like mind, could bring a similar suit against Congress or whomever else IS responsible for verifying the eligibility of the candidates, if they should fail to do so. The people do have standing, as I understand the law, to bring suit to force any government body (including Congress) to perform its duty. So, even if this suit fails for being too early and brought against the wrong party, it can be refiled later (after the Electoral College meets) against the correct party(ies), not sure who they would be.

  192. 14th Amendment:

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    What exactly did “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean to the framers
    of the Fourteenth Amendment?

    We are fortunate to have on record the highest authority to tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:

    [T]he provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
    Trumbull continues, “Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn’t make treaties with them…It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.[1]

    Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull’s construction:

    Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.[2]

    Sen. Johnson, speaking on the Senate floor, offers his comments and understanding of the proposed new amendment to the constitution:

    [Now], all this amendment [citizenship clause] provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power–for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us–shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born to parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.[3]

    Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

    [I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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…[4]

    Footnotes

    http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcglink.html#anchor39

    Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866)
    [1]. Id. at 2893
    [2]. Id. at 2895
    [3]. Id. at 2893
    [4]. Id. at 1291

    Mr Obama is ineligible to be the 44th President of the United States.

    My research is over. All I have to do is enter this info into my presentation to Congress Tom Cole and I will be ready to submit it his local office here in Norman, Oklahoma.

  193. Mary Beth Says:

    “I don’t believe Justice Gray and SCOTUS got it right in that case, but it has not been overturned yet. So, according to that case, Obama would be a 14th Amendment US citizen but not a “natural born citizen”.”

    Wouldn’t another relevant admission be that they say he’s a citizen as per the 14th amendment? Which is why they use the term “native citizen” rather than “natural born citizen” on their propaganda Fight the Smears site?

  194. Joss Brown Says:

    @Deano:

    I love the article by Coambs, but its implications after Jan 20 are downright scary.

  195. Dara Brown Says:

    From the SCOTUS Blog:

    08A407 DONOFRIO, LEO C. V. WELLS, NJ SEC. OF STATE
    The application for stay addressed to Justice Thomas and
    referred to the Court is denied.

  196. Next case!

  197. Donofrio’s stay denied. Check Scotusblog.

  198. Hey John boy, Why sue the Navajos, just keep stealing from them and the SCOTUS will back you.

  199. Bad news…
    Obama-Supreme Court Denies Writ of Certiorari In Donofrio v. Wells
    http://www.thoughtsongod.com/?p=1687

  200. This will not be the end. I will never rest until this great wrong has been righted.

    I will be tracking the FACTS as they continue to accumulate and collecting them on my webpage about this travesty.

    Is there any precedent? Has the Supreme Court of the United States ever before overtly subverted the very document that provides it its own existence?

    There ought to be something more “activist” that we all could do together.

    http://truthliving.com/obamafraud.htm

    Opey

  201. O.K. folks..,[ed. snip] What are you going to do about it? Jefferson had many words for this very situation…
    America is comatose and now on life support with the plug to be pulled when this very same court swears him in.
    No one in this country gives a damn until it directly affects them and MARK MY WORDS, it will.
    As I’ve previoously stated, no one is allowed inside the Beltway with a spine.
    This makes me want to PUKE!!!!!
    GET OFF YOUR COLLECTIVE ASSES AND DEMAND REDRESS OR KNEEL DOWN TO THE TYRANT AND KISS HIS BOOTS.
    Does anybody out there remember who runs this country because it’s DAMN sure not you.
    Like Bush said, the Constitution “is just a worthless piece of paper”
    MSM, better watch your back.

  202. Donofrio’s case dismissed. Kind of difficult to believe that virtually no one in this country believes the constitution is important. Tough to get my head around that. BTW, John Boy real nice post and research above on the congressional discussion of the 14th amendment.
    Most historians see the crossing of the rubicon by Julius Ceasor as the end of rule of law, and the start of the collapse of the Roman Empire. I guess we just took alot less time than the Romans, all hail Obama.

  203. DBCooper,

    I was just reporting what happened back in 1866

  204. [Ed. The framers of the 14th meant it to be “not subject to any foreign powers”. No court has ever decided the issue directly.]

    I’m honestly trying to give this idea fair consideration. Can someone direct me to where in the Constitution the requirement that both parents be citizens in order for the child born on US soil to be a natural born citizen is specified or that dual citizenship at birth disqualifies a candidate?
    It seems to me that the term is not clearly defined, so it is open for interpretation. It seems that the argument being made relates to the 14th Amendment, which doesn’t seem to pertain to Presidential illegibility at all, especially because naturalized citizens are grouped with those born in the US. My guess would be that it’s purpose was to ensure that former slaves were considered citizens, but in any event, it doesn’t address the “natural born” definition. Also, by Mr. Donofrio’s own argument, the 1790 act has no bearing on Presidential eligibility, so we are left with only the Constitution.
    In the absence of a clear definition, why would we create the requirement that both parents be citizens or that dual citizenship is excluded? (This does not appear to be an “anchor baby” situation, and the “subject to the jurisdiction of” clause is in Amendment 14 which doesn’t seem to pertain to Presidential eligibility. Even if one argues that it does, isn’t a dual citizen living in Hawaii subject to US law?) Why not chose the simplest and most straightforward interpretation of “natural born”, which to me would seem to be simply “born” with the “natural” adjective signifying that the citizen is not “naturalized”. Are we perhaps reading more into “natural born” than is warranted?
    Thanks for straightening me out! Even though I don’t think I agree with your views, I do agree that the court ought to rule on this, and that congress ought to do what is necessary to clarify these requirements so that we don’t ever need to have this type of discussion again.

  205. Thanks for the response. The prior post by John Boy makes a strong case for some of the framer’s intentions, however the language that made it into the amendment makes no mention of these intentions. It could have clearly indicated a requirement for exclusive jurisdiction, but did not. Further, by following this line of reasoning, aren’t we really saying that Obama is not a citizen at all, since the 14th refers to citizenship, not natural citizenship? Honestly, it still reads to me like a protection of citizenship rights for individuals meeting those stated requirements, (newly freed slaves maybe, residing in states that might want to strip them of that citizenship by law?) rather than a clarification of Presidential eligibility. I think the initial grouping of citizens by birth and naturalized citizens, prior to any further comments, further weakens the argument that this pertains to Presidential eligibility. Am I still missing something that makes this clear?

  206. http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/index.html

    A. From Hawaiis official Department of Health, Vital Records webpage: Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country (applies to adopted children).

    B. A parent may register an in-state birth in lieu of certification by a hospital of birth under HRS 338-5.

    C. Hawaiian law expressly provides for registration of out-of-state births under HRS 338-17.8. A foreign birth presumably would have been recorded by the American consular of the country of birth, and presumably that would be reflected on the Hawaiian birth certificate.

    D. Hawaiian law, however, expressly acknowledges that its system is subject to error. See, for example, HRS 338-17.

    E. Hawaiian law expressly provides for verification in lieu of certified copy of a birth certificate under HRS 338-14.3.

    F. Even the Hawaii Department of Home Lands does not accept a certified copy of a birth certificate as conclusive evidence for its homestead program. From its web site: In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.

    Now that we all understand that you can be born in Madagascar, Russia, Norway, Brazil or even Kenya like Obama and still have a REAL birth certificate that both Snopes and Factcheck would say was real since they are real. That doesnt mean you were born in Hawaii. Does this matter to America?

    Why this is about to explode with SCOTUS

    Why does this matter to America in the year 2008? Well lets just think of the Democratic Presidential elect. Here is a man who has frozen his vault copy ( the one that tells of the Hospital as well as Dr. that delivered him and place of birth) in Hawaii.

    Barack Obama has as of November 27th 2008 spent over $500,000 U.S. to prevent others from seeing it. Why? Didnt he already win the vote?

    Please dont bring up Snopes (link) that says THEYVE SEEN Obamas birth certificate and it is the one on his site called Fight the Smears. That is just plain garbage as it has a 2007 border and doesnt list the hospital, Dr. or place of birth! Plus they say theyve seen his real birth certificate (you know the one that we the people arent allowed to see) .

    All of the people born in Korea, Kenya, Mongolia, Australia and who also have Hawaiian birth certificates also have REAL birth certificates.

    This does not mean they were born in Hawaii. Get it?

    The following is what Obama has on his site as his real birth certificate authenticated by Snopes and Factcheck. Hmmm – 2007 borders, no info on original at all? Whats wrong with this picture? Yes it is a real birth certificate, so are the tens of thousands of other birth certificates given to people born in other countries.

    Fact: Both Hospitals claimed to be Obamas birthplace in Honolulu have no record of he or his mother ever being there!

    Who does claim Obama? Kenya and his family there that swears to have been at his birth in Mombasa Coastal Hospital in Kenya. Heres a link with his Grandmother proud that Obama was elected President and who never visited America and never had a VISA. Link

    Please dont bring up Fact Check either (link) as they and Snopes can literally LOOK AT the thousands and thousands of birth certificates in Hawaii from people born in Korea, Australia, Germany and even Kenya like Barack Obama! They are all REAL and Authentic birth certificates, but that doesnt mean Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Snopes and FactCheck arent lying when they say the 2007 birth certificate on Obamas site is real. So are the thousands and thousands of birth certificates in Hawaii from people born in Korea, Australia, Germany and even Kenya like Barack Obama! They are all REAL and Authentic birth certificates, but that doesnt mean they or Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.

    This is the whole point my friends. That is why many of us are incensed that Obama is about to become the President and may not even Constitutionally qualify to be one!

    This is unacceptable to every American who understands that Hawaii issues birth certificates to those born in foreign nations. es – it is a proven fact that Hawaii grants birth certificates to people born in other nations! If you or I want a copy, they produce the document that you see on Obamas site. That is NOT the one that has what we need to see to have Obama become President of the United States.

    To become President of the United States one must meet 3 criteria.

    1. You must be 35 years of Age

    2. You must be a resident for 14 years

    3. You must be a natural born citizen – this is the one that someone born outside of the United States would obviously spend hundreds of thousands $$ to prevent us from seeing his birth certificate, just as Barack Obama has done. Hint Hint.

    Supreme Court meets December 5th

    5 Days before the Electoral College Meets on December 10th, 4 Justices of the Supreme Court will gather on December 5th. They will look at the numerous lawsuits before Federal court all over the nation to force Obama to reveal his vault copy. Knowing that anyone can have a Hawaiian birth certificate and still be born in other nations, it is imperative that you tell others what is going on.

    This isnt the ravings of a lunatic fringe as the mainstream media would have you believe. I ask any American who now understands thatanyone born in any foreign nation can obtain a Real Hawaiian birth certificate that Snopes and FactCheck would authenticate as real

    Since you now know that anyone can get one do we as the people of the United States of America have the right to see Barack Obamas birth certificate before he is sworn in? He must be a natural born citizen to be our President and obviously since he is fighting to prevent us all from knowing where he was born, he must have been born in Kenya.

    Ask yourself why is he fighting all of this if there is nothing to it?

    American Thinker rightly says:

    B. His motion to dismiss the Berg case for lack of standing could be viewed as contemptuous of the Constitution. See, Who Enforces the Constitutions Natural Born Citizen Clause? Are we to expect yet another White House that hides behind lawyers, and expects Americans to swallow half-truths on a just-trust-me basis?

    C. This issue poses the potential for a constitutional crisis unlike anything this country has seen. Disclosure at this stage, however, could even result in criminal sanctions. See, Obama Must Stand Up Now Or Step Down. Thus, he has motive not to disclose if he were ineligible.

    The question not being asked by the holders of power, who dismiss this as a rightwing conspiracy, is whats the downside of disclosing? This is a legitimate issue of inquiry because Barack Obama has turned it into one. The growing number of people who demand an answer in conformance with the Constitution are doing their work; the peoples watchdogs arent. see American Thinker

    This issue will not be put to bed and I pray we resolve it before this man is in office.

    There is in fact NO ONE that checks. That is part of the lawsuits before the Supreme Corut Aginst the DNC as well as Obama. All they do is askthe state of birth if they have a real birth certificate on file and what the date of birth is. THat is ALL! This is the whole point of the matter

  207. Gravy,

    That’s my point exactly. Obama is not a even a citizen.

    Supreme Court Justice Scalia’s views on how to interpret the US Constitution

    http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1193/pub_detail.asp

  208. smrstrauss Says:

    Although Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 allows registration of birth by issuing a Hawaii certification of live birth, it does NOT allow that certification to contain a lie.

    Why not? Because if Hawaii birth certifications allowed people who were not born in Hawaii to show that they were born in Hawaii, then Hawaii would be making US citizens out of people who were not US citizens. Besides the law would have to include detailed language saying that the parents could claim any location in Hawaii that they wanted to claim as the location of birth. There is nothing like that in the legislation. Moreover, if Hawaii did that, then the US state department would not accept Hawaii certifications of live births as proof of birth in the USA for issuing passports, and we know that they do accept Hawaii COLBs for issuing passports.

    Thus, if you were born outside of Hawaii, and if your parents lived in Hawaii, they can get a Hawaii certification of live birth. BUT that document will always say after “location of birth” the place where the person was actually born.

    Obama’ sister, born in Indonesia, has a Hawaii certification of live birth, but that document has “born in Indonesia,” or whatever city in Indonesia it was.

    Obama’s certification of live birth says on it born in Hawaii several times, under location of birth (Honolulu), Island of birth (Oahu) and county of birth (Honolulu). Thus, if a Kenyan birth certificate was filed in the Hawaii birth records, Hawaii could not issue a Certification that says that Obama was born in Hawaii. Thus the document in Obama’s files is a Hawaii birth document, which is what the officials in Hawaii were indicating when they said that Obama’s certificate of live birth was accurate.

    In short, there cannot be a document in Hawaii files saying “born in Kenya” (or born in New York or Mexico or anywhere else for that matter) since Obama’s certification says “born in Hawaii.”

    Re: “All they do is askthe state of birth if they have a real birth certificate on file and what the date of birth is. THat is ALL! This is the whole point of the matter.”

    I have been in e-mail communication with the Department of Health of Hawaii, and they say that they only issue the certification of live birth these days. It is a perfectly legal document, accepted by the Sate Department, but the important thing as far as you are concerned is that it is the ONLY document that Hawaii issues, thus lawsuits asking for more details are illogical.

    This is what Hawaii DOH told me:

    Quotes

    It is possible that we have records with more information but we issue only certified computer-generated certificates with certain necessary information to confirm a birth. We are the only agency that issues certified birth records for Hawaii
    Aloha,
    (Name removed)
    End Quote

    This fellow puts it very well:

    A posting from Andrew Walden, publisher of the Hawaii Free Press, a right-wing blog based in Hawaii.

    http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/main/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/92/Barack-Obama-Born-in-Hawaii.aspx

    Barack Obama: Born in Hawai`i
    by Andrew Walden

    It is time to focus on REAL issues, not imaginary ones.

    A fairly impressive internet industry has sprung up claiming that Obama was born in either Kenya or Indonesia. This is nonsense, which distracts from the broadly unexplored story of Obama’s upbringing. This kind of nonsense has emerged because the McCain campaign chose not to raise the many questions about Barack Obama’s numerous hard-left alliances. Barack Obama was born in Hawai`i, August 4, 1961 at Kapiolani Medical Center in Honolulu.

    Obama’s birth certificate posted online is exactly the same birth certificate everybody in Hawai`i gets from the State Department of Health. It is not forged. There is nothing unusual about the design or the texture. In addition to the birth certificate, the August 13, 1961 Honolulu Advertiser also carries an announcement of Obama’s birth. The Honolulu Star-Bulletin also carries the same announcement. Both papers require submission of a copy of the birth certificate to print a birth announcement.

    End Quote

  209. It doesn’t matter where Obama was born.

    His dad was a British subject, as so was Jr. at his birth.

  210. Leo,

    I’m a Christian conservative and have been following the NJ and CT lawsuits with interest. I have been praying that some righteous judgments will be coming from the Supreme Court. However, while I know you’re trying to have some levity, I don’t think the latest writing about Obama helps the cause. Hope you’ll take it down even if you really believe it.

    Best Regards,

    Richard

    [Ed. The conference was on Friday. The decision is made. SCOTUS won’t be changing their decision because of my wicked attempt at humour.

    [Ed. The case will be denied. I don’t think they ever wanted anything to do with it. Look what they allowed the clerk’s office to do to my case and Cort’s, flagging Cort’s for anthrax and everything else they did to stop it from reaching the justices. Bickell must have been operating under orders from higher up the food chain. The fact that he still has a job there is frightening.

    Bickell has protection but the Constitution does not.

    On Monday, the United States will wake up with no Constitution. It’s all over for this Country as a Constitutional Republic. It’s done as done can be. My case was strong, and Cort’s case was virtually air tight. But factions of the Court didn’t want these cases before them because now they didn’t want the burden of history on them. Now they have no excuse. The natural born citizen issue was squarely before them. All of the resulting damage and the blood of the Constitution is on their hands forever.

    Cort’s case will be denied on Monday. And that will signal the very end of the nation’s unique Document.]

  211. If there will be no Constitution to uphold, the Justices should go home and suffer the consequences that we will all suffer. The Oath to uphold the constitution should also be removed from the Legislative branch of Government, as well as Judicial. There is no reason that I can see to enter an elected post or appointment swearing a lie.

  212. […] Obama confesses to his U.K. birthright — right on his own Web site — just puts it out there in that cool, matter-of-fact, Obama way. The meta-message is, […]

  213. OK Leo, So how much did the twins pay you to go public as a fruitbat?

  214. Mr. OBAMA should resign now for the good of the country. http://www.axjus.com

  215. Go here to see what the seed Leo planted has started.
    http://www.newsonsofliberty.us/index.htm

    The Clerk and any one that directed him should be dealt with. My hope has been that he would have been replaced at least in Leo and Cort’s case. That is really sick to allow that injustice. How can these SCJ not know what goes on in their house ?

    Justice denied is not justice. We on this Blog need to keep that in mind and not let go until we have justice served up. I say after they rule if nothing is done about the damnable clerk we flood their fax machine with out request for redress until such time as we the people are addressed my the SCJ in a direct manner. They need to show we the people proper respect should they want same in return.They themselves are not above the law and hell yes I wanted to use caps but out of respect for what Leo has done I didn’t.

    I am old and sick but my hope is someone with the ability and drive can get something going on this. Maybe take it off this site and do it some other place if that is what Leo wants.

    I and we the people owe this guy. Right now I owe our President our Congress our SC and those about to assume power nothing. To hell with Robert’s rules of order and any other civilities. If we are shown no respect let us not give ours.

    About the media and blogs it is all about money they want you to click their stupid polls. The one that comes to mind is the one about Sarah palin is she qualified! Hell yes but not McCain or Obama but that wasn’t asked in their stupid little pole to get you to click so they can show Google how much traffick they have. Well I am feeling better so I will stop trying to type and get the words spelled half way right.
    Texo[at]dixhistory.com

  216. AnAmerican Says:

    Leo, If your case or others are turned down by the Supreme Court, we know it is not due to you, and why waste steam on dishonest justices. If they are too weak to certify a candidate, then it seems that the issue has turned a corner, and has clearly become a criminal case, with Obama fraudulently presenting himself as eligible to American voters, refusing to verify himself, stealing millions of dollar in a bogus campaign, when he had full knowledge of being ineligible as a constitutional lawyer, he has a documented pattern of lying under oath as seen when he perjured on his Illinois bar application, and with all his effort to hide his past and conceal relevant documents, including college, birth certificate, passports…..he is guilty of perpetating a fraud on the public and needs to be shifted to a criminal court. If you know of a brave criminal lawyer who deals with fraudulent misrepresentations of oneself to take people’s money, you might give that lawyer or firm a call. Thanks for your great work, and helping defining natural born. This is a historic time, your work is historic, and the attack on our country and its constitution is historic. You have helped Berg in bringing to our attention that we have a fraudulent candidate, trying to become President. God Bless and Protect America.

  217. Leo,

    I know you must be feeling a variety emotions right now, my only hope is that one of them is SUPPORT. All day people have been buzzing that your site has been hacked, that you would never write such a thing. LOL But I can see”you,” as an artist in frustration, writing something like the above. I actually thought you did a brilliant job, I especially love the part with the anagrams: Satans hymn. That was great and “This one” and “That one” that is awsome! LOL

    I know that you have taken a beating through all this; it is quite a lot to take on. And I can understand how you feel labeled as a loony toon conspiritist but nobody really thinks that, only the uneducated and who gives a shit what they think, except for the fact that they ovbiously out number us, lol. But in reality the media making you out to be a loon; really is only about pushing their adgendas; its not about truth or right, or even about you. It is for the former reason and to divert the American public to thinking BO is legit and keep their agandas on course.

    Please don’t be discouraged, There are Many, Many, Many people that are in support of you. We really are Hoping and Praying that the Lord is with you, keeping you safe from harm and helping you through this very brave thing that you are doing. The Lord is with you, and Satan is pushing hard against you: trying to discourage and attack from every angle. No matter the outcome of tomorrows verdict…please don’t give up! You are a true Hero to so many of US. I hope for America’s sake you achieve your goal, but Leo dont give up, keep fighting! There are so many of us that will help you, honestly, you just let us know what we can do!

    If we bow down now, we will never rise up again Leo, there is too much at stake! You are doing the right thing just be patient, and persistent. Don’t worry about your perception to the MSM, there are so many of us that know you are a good man, and that you stand on the side of the Law and Ethics. Keep the Faith Leo, don’t despair!

    I really want to THANK YOU; for all your hard work and dedication to this urgent matter. Leo there are only a handful of people like you, and I am so greatful. If this case doesn’t make it, regroup, there is strength in numbers. : ) No matter what happens, I will never forget you and the service that you are doing for OUR COUNTRY as long as I live!

    P.S. Don’t publish this unless you want to, I didn’t see any other way of contacting you. : ) Take heart Leo don’t despair!

  218. SCOTUS is walking on VERY thin Globaly warmed ICE.
    They are obviously not interested in the Constitution.
    There are those of us that ARE.
    Sure would love to know what they discussed.

  219. Kevan Corkill Says:

    Prayers, praying that the TRUTH will come out in the light for all to see…Amen.🙂

  220. Billye Kouns Says:

    The court denied cert to Cort Wrotnowski.

  221. I was reading along and hit this in your article:

    “In that same article he lied that his father settled in Vermont and reiterated the lie that William came here at the age of eighteen. This age discrepancy was exposed in the August 19, 1880 edition of the Brooklyn Eagle in an article written by Hinman.”

    Last week, I went down to the public library and pulled the microfilm reels for the New York Times for 1880-1881 to see what I could find on Chester A. Arthur. There was a very tiny paragraph on the front page briefly mentioning a “Democratic Operative” who appeared in Franklin County, Vt. asking questions about Arthur. The operative’s name was “Hinman”.

    I didn’t print it out, but it was on the front page and it was probably June 16 (page 1 column 3) or June 10 (page 1 column 4) – no headline.

    That’s really funny.

  222. Leo, please at least let us hear from you. We all love you and are concerned that no word has been heard from you. We want to know that you are ok.

    [Ed. playing poker all week. Thanks. no worries here.]

  223. NO VIOLENT RESPONSE WHEN SAVE FROM THE HARM OF FRAUD. WHAT IF
    What if you went to the grocery store and chose a large box of crackers needed to go with your family’s dinner only to discover upon opening the package it only contained rat poison. How would you react? First you would immediately know that isn’t what you intended to buy. Your choice was crackers. You got rat poison in its place. Then you wonder how it happened that rat poisoning was inside a beautifully packaged box labeled crackers. Would feel deceived? Would you wonder if it was an accident or all the boxes contained rat poison? Then you would realize you didn’t get what you needed for the family. That means you will have to make a second trip to the store and return the rat poison and look for the right box that truly has crackers and not some other unwanted product. What if every beautifully designed box labeled crackers had any thing else in it but crackers. What if he refused to refund your money and told you to keep the rat poison whether or not you needed it? Then he said you really didn’t need the crackers, anyhow. What if the store keeper told you this is because it is now bringing you change and a new way of doing business? What if when you objected, the store keeper advised you to keep silent about the way the products were packaged because he didn’t want others to get upset? Or he simply said, “Get over it. This is the new way we are doing business. It is the customers will.” Would you begin to lose confidence in a store that offered only beautifully designed packages that did not contain the items that were stated on the labels. Would you continue doing business with that store? What if all stores started doing business that way? Or worse—what if there were no other stores but that store?

    Why is it then, so difficult to understand the argument Obama worshipers present that Obama is the will of the people because he allegedly received 66,000,000 votes is false? Why is it people have such a difficult time recognizing that the Obama they thought they were choosing is not the Obama they are getting. That is the price of fraud. What voters thought they were choosing and what it actually was are no different than picking a box of crackers based upon the label on the box to only later discover it was rat poison. That is why 66,000,000 Obama votes are not the will of the people.

    Who turns violent against the person or system that saves him and his family from egregious harm? That is why there will be minimum to no rioting if some branch of the electoral process takes the responsibility, declares Barry Sotoero ineligible to be President on the basis he is a usurper and over turns this election. The worst that will happen after the initial trauma is voters will be grateful Obama was discovered before he could do any more harm to America. Except for the very large group of Obama conspirators who are amoral, most of the voters will feel very betrayed by the man who so flagrantly abused their trust and stole their vote. Only the Saul Alinsky pirates of political power are using the threat of violent riots by the people if the silver plated turd is prevented from becoming a usurper. They are the ones who will be facing their just dues.

    Let us all use the power of our imaginations and see Congress, the Nine Supreme Court Judges, and people doing the right thing by preventing a usurper from being President.

    2009 promises to by a year of challenges, surprises, and increased participation. May your greatest inspiration of efforts come forward. May we share the benefit of your genius. Have a Happy and Powerful New Year!
    http://www.museumofinnocence.blogspot.com
    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/vos

  224. Martin Veart Says:

    Dear Truthseeker,

    You were all part of the Commonwealth once.

    A flippant point perhaps, but one worthy of reflection.

    Best wishes.

  225. He held both U.S. and Kenyan citizenship as a child, but lost his Kenyan citizenship automatically on his 21st birthday.

    [Ed. The Constitution requires the President to be a natural “born” citizen. The qualification refers to the status of the President “at the time of his birth” not at the time of his election or his 21st birthday. It’s a state of citizenship only available at birth. When “born” you have it or you don’t. You can’t correct it on your 21st birthday. Please read Justice Horace Gray’s words from Elk v. Wilkins case:

    “The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth…”


    The Rocky Mountain News did in fact run an online article asserting that Barack Obama holds both American and Kenyan citizenship. The article was incorrect, and the paper removed the item from the article and ran a correction. The paper’s editor, John Temple, formally apologized for the error in an Aug. 15, 2007, column. Neither the correction nor the apology has prevented the column from circulating across the Internet as part of the latest set of baseless rumors that Obama is ineligible to run for president.

    [Ed. As stated, I have never said Obama was a dual citizen now or even at the time of his 21st birthday. You’ve been a victim of bad reporting again. I believe he is exclusively a US citizen since his 21st birthday and I’ve always said that’s what I believe. But that’s not the Constitutional standard. It’s his “birth status” which counts for POTUS eligibility. As he has admitted, his “birth status” was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 as you point out below.]

    There was a grain of truth to what the Rocky Mountain News reported, though understanding why requires a brief history lesson.

    When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children:

    British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.

    In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.

    Obama’s British citizenship was short-lived. On Dec. 12, 1963, Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:

    1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…

    2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.

    As a citizen of the UKC who was born in Kenya, Obama’s father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UKC status at birth and given that Obama’s father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), it follows that Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship after 1963. So The Rocky Mountain News was at least partially correct.

    But the paper failed to note that the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya’s Constitution specifies that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya.

    Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.

    http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: