Obama Presidential Eligibility – An Introductory Primer

One of my readers by the name of  Stephen Tonchen has created an introductory primer on Obama POTUS eligibility.  Much of the substance of the primer has been culled from my blog and helpfully supplemented by Mr. Tonchen’s own research.  This is by far the most clear, concise and powerful document created to help educate your friends and family on the eligibility issue.  I strongly urge my readers to download it and to link to it wherever possible.

I will just reprint its discussion about the important and still controlling SCOTUS case – Minor vs. Happersett:

  • In 1797 (a decade after the Constitution was adopted), the English translation of Emmerich de Vattel’s, Law of Nations was revised to include the term “natural born citizen”. The revised English translation helps to clarify the meaning of “natural born citizen”, as English-speaking people generally understood it towards the end of the 18th Century:

    The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. … I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. (Vattel, Law of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 19)

  • In 1874, in the Minor v. Happersett case, the Supreme Court affirmed the definition of natural born citizen which had appeared in the 1797 English translation of Vattel’s Law of Nations:

    …it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. (Minor v. Happersett, 1874)

  • In Minor v. Happersett, the Supreme Court expressed “doubts” regarding the citizenship of U.S.-born children whose parents were not U.S. citizens. In Wong Kim Ark, 1898, the Supreme Court examined these “doubts”, but did not render any decision or ruling pertaining to natural born citizenship. The Court ruled that Mr. Ark was a citizen; it did not rule that he was a natural born citizen. To date, the Supreme Court has never answered the question as to whether natural born citizenship extends to children of non-citizen parents.

It is those same doubts discussed so openly in the Minor case that need to be discussed in open court today.  If SCOTUS expressed such doubts then, then our current SCOTUS ought to enlighten us now.  As I’ve stated over and again, this is a legal question already considered by our highest court in 1874 – a full six years after the 14th Amendment was adopted.  This is an important time reference which should be wielded at all who state the 14th Amendment is controlling as to nbc status.  It is not.  SCOTUS expressed their doubts clearly six years later in the Minor case which has never been over-ruled.

The issue is not a conspiracy theory, it is a legal question, a legal question that SCOTUS precedent admits to not having cleared up yet.  It is not settled law and until it is our country and the Presidency are not legitimate.


 

58 Responses to “Obama Presidential Eligibility – An Introductory Primer”

  1. Mr. Tonchen and your research are BOTH quite impressive and hopefully with increase ‘awareness’ among our fellow citizens.

    Although, by now, nearly 5 months after Inauguration and more than 7 months after the Election, if there are still folks out there UNaware of the FRAUD and TREASON committed by Obama/Soetoro, they are likely either in SEVERE denial and/or completely useless!

    By now, the information below should be ALL that is needed….

    ————–

    NONE of the DOZENS of Eligibility Lawsuits filed have been heard on their merits NOR faced counter suits (for ‘Defamation of Character’).

    As well, NONE of the Attorneys (the first of which was a DEMOCRAT – Phil Berg, website: http://www.obamacrimes.info/) filing these lawsuits have faced “disbarment” for filing fraudulent lawsuit(s).

    Finally, to date, Obama/Soetoro has spent more than 1 $million$ (in legal fees) to stop the release of documents (birth, school, work, etc. records) worth less than $100 (combined)…

    ——————

    Oh, by the way, if an illegal alien (NOT ‘natural born’) getting elected US President in the ‘Information/Technology Age’ (21st Century) is NOT a MASSIVE conspiracy, then PLEASE Mr. Donofrio, tell us WHAT IS???

    This is the GREATEST HOAX of modern times, Obama/Soetoro, who can’t speak without a teleprompter, did NOT do this on his own!

  2. Greg Sabine Says:

    Thank you so much for the edification.

    [Ed. Snipped personal info…not necessary for the comment. I hope the research is helpful.]

  3. Thalightguy Says:

    Leo, What did you think of Newt Gingrich’s speech about not being a citizen of the world?

    [Ed. I haven’t heard it yet.]

  4. Thalightguy Says:

    Leo, You can read about it here:

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525833,00.html

    [Ed. I’m in the world, respect the rest of the world and treat people form all nations and cultures as I would like to be treated. But I’m a “citizen” of the USA, a Constitutional republic…if we can keep it.]

  5. Dear Leo,

    I am so excited to see you have reengaged. I love the above posting, and I feel, in this same vein, the following may prove useful.

    In 1814 the U.S. Supreme Court in THE VENUS relied upon and cited Vattel’s “Law of Nations” as the authority in determining the citizenship of a “domicil”. See U.S. Supreme Court, THE VENUS, 12 U.S. 253 and The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814) as I found via “The Right Side of Life” in a comment by “Benaiah” on April 20, 2009 at 11:18 pm.

    No less than Chief Justice Marshall cited Vattel numerous times and stated Vattel had been fully understood and embraced by our Founders.

    The link to the first is:
    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=5697&cpage=1#comments
    and the link to the second “12 U.S. 8 Cranch” is
    http://supreme.justia.com/us/12/253/case.html

    I hope these prove helpful.

    Very best regards,
    Robare

    [Ed. Excellent comment. I am not familiar with The Venus case but will be digging in right away. Thank you for pointing it out and good job by Benaiah.]

  6. Thalightguy Says:

    OK, I found the speech on youtube the exact statement can be found at time mark 8:50.

  7. Bob Davies Says:

    I believe that IG Gerald Walpin is a primary candidate to pursue Quo Warranto

    [Ed. It would be an interesting test case. More on this topic to come.]

  8. Leo,

    I have read nearly all of the Supreme Court cases that mention “Natural born citizen.” I will review my research. If Stephen’s “Minor” citation is correct, the end may be in sight.

    The “Wong” decision was not about “natural born citizen.”

    DB

    [Ed. The Minor quotes are absolutely correct. I’ve pointed that before in previous blog posts. Furthermore, the court in Wong Kim Ark directly reffered to Minor. Wong Kim Ark is the most impossibly stupid example of a SCOTUS Justice lying through their teeth about a prior opinion they actually wrote. You cannot put Justice Gray’s opinion in the Elk Case next to his opinion in Wong Kim Ark and have any doubt at all that something made him do an about face in 1898, and it isn’t an about face where he says, “You know, I just got it wrong in the ELK case…”

    Gray’s about face is an attempt to trick the reader into thinking he was consistent, and by burying the inconsistency in a gazzilion word Wong opinion he almost succeeded. But it’s now out in the light of day that Gray was full of crap in Wong Kim Ark and nobody knew it better than him…]

  9. If you agree please post and mail this:

    Americans are Crime Victims of Barry Sotoero

    To: All the journalist of Fox News
    Mr. Bill O’Reilly
    Mr. Sean Hannity
    Mr. Glen Beck
    Ms. Greta Susteren
    Et al

    Dear Journalists,

    The greatest Story in Modern History in America Happening Now Is—Suppressed

    America became the greatest country in the world and hope and inspiration to the rest of the world. People from all over the world dreamed, worked and struggled to come to America. So many different people came America became known as “The Melting Pot of the World.” The statement written at the base of the Statue of Liberty, “Giver me your poor. . .” always brought tears of pride to my heart. America was the only country in the world the people could escape the suppression of their own fascist, Tyrannical, dictatorship governments. The dream of America was the dream to rise or fall according to one’s own ability without government interference or piracy. The dream was to succeed!

    Many nights I have fallen asleep trying to identify the main factors that made America great from the many, many factors in the total history. Just what is the definition of freedom? What did it mean to the immigrants who so desperately struggled to get here?

    Before I fell asleep, they always boiled down to these—the Constitution of the United States, The Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. The fountain heads that inspired the wisdom of our fore fathers who wrote these amazing documents sprung from their own deep rooted experiences of the mistakes of governments from the countries from which they or their families came. They all knew what too much government interference, suppression and oppression meant. From the agony of their experience, they wrote the Constitution of the United States. With the completion of the Constitution, they gave us a Republic under one God in a nation for which we can stand. The knowledge of those concepts spread all over the world and drew the oppressed people of other governments to America. From that day to January 20, 2009, we lived under a Republic.

    You guys know all this. You guys also know that this is no longer the American Republic under the United States Constitution. If you fail to inform the public who relies upon the news media for complete and honest information you are betraying America.

    Fox news is just about the only station I watch to keep up with television news. I tend to depend more on the inter net than television for real honest factual news. It isn’t that Fox, lies—it does not as near as I have observed to date. It is just that Fox doesn’t tell ALL the news. The greatest obvious suppression of the news that Fox and all MSM is practicing is the story of the failure of Obama to prove he is legally eligible to be president under the rule of our Constitution. Is or is not Obama a legal citizen of the United States and qualified under the “natural born citizen” clause in the Constitution to be our legal president? Blood and soil are what it demands.

    There are millions of frustrated, angry Americans who are asking this question. There is a very long laundry list that suggests Obama fails to meet the Constitutional legal requirements to be president. There are several legal actions taken against Obama regarding this single issue right now. IE: Quo Warrento filed by at least two attorneys and one private citizen (might be wrong of the private citizen). Run away grand juries that have examined the evidence and filed presentments and/or indictments with the district attorney’s of several states. There are active and retired service men who have filed criminal complaints against Obama for usurpation, treason, and more. The state of Oklahoma filed a huge document against Obama with the declaration of sovereignty from the federal government. WND has begun posting bill boards across the nation saying “Where’s the birth certificate?”

    When asked MSM and Fox News fail to answer why it refuses to even mention the words “birth certificate” in the same sentence with Obama, let alone cover a story about it. Instead of answering the many letters and telephone calls requesting the news cover the story, the people who bring this forward are treated like Robert Gibbs treated the reporter who asked him why Obama has never produced a birth certificate. They are hung up upon, ridiculed, accused of being “conspiracy people” or “birthers” (as if the government hasn’t given all us reason to be that way if we are), lied to by being told Obama already proved he is a citizen with the COLB he published on his web site, this is old news, denigrated and generally demeaned and SHUT UP. None of those responses directly confront the GREAT SILENCE OF THE PRESS OVER OBAMA’S CITIZENSHIP.

    I watch you guys day after report the latest deed done by Obama’s government that loots, ramsacks, removes, diminishes, and shreds one more American freedom, the Constitution, and the Republic. I listen to Glen Beck promote his 9/12 Project and beg Americans to help restore America to the Republic she once was. I hear Sean Hannity describe the evils of Acorn and voter fraud. I watch Bill O’Reilly’s daily performance pretending to challenge every and any thing negative Obama and his thugs have done. Yet, the great silence about the single most important story of America in modern history is slighted and ridiculed—by O’Reilly. I believe I heard him say in a disgusted voice one time when a slight mention of Obama’s citizenship came forward—“Oh, that’s old news.” (May not have been those exact words, but something like that.)

    Mr. O’Reilly, this is not “old news”. To this date (now, not last year) Obama has failed to produce his real birth certificate and other documents to prove he is eligible to be our legal president. Until Obama does so, this story remains alive and now, and will never go away until Obama produces the documents he has spent nearly a $1,000,000 in legal fees keeping hidden. For whatever reasons you or Fox News continue to suppress this story, we may never know, but please, Mr. O’Reilly don’t emulate Robert Gibbs and use Saul Alinsky tactics and denigrate the reality, urgency, currency, and importance of the fact Obama has failed to produce the documents to prove his citizenship and thus his legitimacy as president. You know you are guilty of a “cover up” every time you suppress this story and demean its importance. (Even if you, personally do not believe in its merits, millions of other very sane, rational people do.) How can I or millions like me believe you really care about the stories you report if you fail to tell the greatest story of all? .

    Millions of people watch Fox news asking the same question I am asking now. Why don’t you do a story of Obama’s citizenship? Though you brag about your high ratings as a news program, even though you may not misrepresent, YOUR CREDIBILITY IS IN QUESTION BY THE MILLIONS WHO WANT OBAMA TO PRODUCE ALL THE DOCUMENTS HE IS HIDING. These millions are watching Fox news and discussing on the inter net Fox News’s failure to tell the story. You can’t imagine how high your ratings would go if you would just do this one story and give it all the attention it deserves. America wants to know.

    Your silence shouts volumes about you and your credibility. Your silence is the very root of suspicion. Who, what or why is shutting you up? All of Europe, Russia, Canada and the Middle East know about this controversy and have reported stories about it. They are laughing at America right now because of the MSM and Fox news cover up on this most vital issue. People want to know who owns Fox news and are they calling the shots.

    We patriots who have been following this vital issue since last August 2008 understand the many questions raised about the validity of this issue. We realize the legal, political, and all other ramifications this very sensitive issue can cause. WE also are keenly aware of Obama’s governing style is by intimidation of any and all kinds. America is fighting for her life and may lose. We understand the legal responsibilities all news stations have in reporting false or incorrect information. These are not sufficient reasons to suppress this story since you can cover your legal rears with all sorts of disclaimers. . .

    1. “We don’t know how true this story is, but here is what millions of Americans are asking today about Obama’s citizenship. . . .” or

    2. “This story does not reflect the view of Fox news but this is what is happening . . .

    3. There are several law suits past and present challenging Obama’s presidential eligibility to be president based upon his citizenship

    4. A Quo Warrento was served to Eric Holder demanding Obama prove his right to govern.

    5. Run away grand juries have been formed and handed the district attorney’s “presentments” stating Obama is guilty of treason for failing to produce all the documents to prove he is eligible to be President. . . . And so on and on.

    Our wonderful America has been hijacked. There is a large collection of evidence that indicates the man in the White House is a usurper. Every thing he does as a usurper from the first act he made when he entered the WH can be made null and void, once he is tried and found guilty. Arresting and trying Obama for all his crimes is the salvation of America! The American news media and most of the public claim, he is too powerful to ever be arrested and tried for his crimes against America. Germany once thought way about Hitler. If this isn’t the greatest story in modern history in America, then nothing is. You guys know all this, and I suspect know far more so than even we patriots who ask the questions. The fact of the matter is all Americans are crime victims of Barry Sotoero as long as he fails to prove his eligibility. (Chances are even if he does prove his eligibility, America is still his crime victim.) America has only his and his goon’s words that he is legal. You must break the silence. The future of the American Republic is at stake.

    Mr. Beck if you care about saving America as much as you so dramatically claim you do, you should realize the sooner Obama stands up or steps down, the sooner America can began to recover and restore itself.

    Sincerely,
    Therese Daniels

    Cc: To any one interested
    My mailing list with requests they continue to forward this letter

    Published: everywhere possible on the internet

  10. Joss Brown Says:

    The primer has at least one slight error. It says: ‘At the time of this writing, to the best of our knowledge and belief, Barack Obama has referred to himself as a native born citizen but has never publicly claimed to be a “natural born citizen”.’

    On this document, which is publicly available, Obama in fact stated that he is a natural born citizen:

    [Ed. You are correct, sir. Thank you.]

  11. Texoma Ed Says:

    Leo, Excellent material here. Thanks. If you get a chance to check into this, there are a handful of “912ers” blogging on the natural born citizen topic on the “vent” page of the 912project.com website. We are making good progress on educating folks on the parentage half of the natural born citizen definition, and urging folks to write to Channing Phillips. Much of our material has come from you, and we have given you credit. Thanks again for all the research you have done.

    {ed. Thanks for educating people as well.]

  12. Joss Brown Says:

    An additional question on a term I don’t recall having read on this blog: The Naturalization Act of 1790 was a statute that conferred natural born citizenship, so people born under that act from 1790 until its revision in 1795 were factually what the primer calls “statutory natural born citizens”. But isn’t the term “statutory natural born citizen” an oxymoron? Disregarding the term “constitutional natural born citizenship”, is it really possible that a statute can confer something that is acquired naturally at birth? Wasn’t the Naturalization Act of 1790 complete humbug? Isn’t a person only to be deemed “natural born”, if his/her citizenship is not effectuated by any laws whatsoever? Isn’t that already contained in the term natural born citizen itself?

    [Ed. Agreed and that’s probably why the words “Natural born” were repealed from the statute never to return again.]

  13. Leo,
    Reading Minor vs Happersett it seems “clearer” to me that McCain may, in fact, be a “natural born citizen”. For that case states: “that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens.”

    [Ed. You’ve quoted the case all out of context. That was NOT the holding in Minor. In Minor, the Court was quoting the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1790. It was not making a holding that such children were natural born citizens. Furthermore, the Minor Court failed to point out that the words “natural born” were repealed in 1795. Here is the exact quote from Minor:

    “Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided ‘that any alien, being a free white person,’ might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. 8 These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also.9 “

    But clearly they quote the 1855 law at the end and the words “natural born” are not part of the 1855 law.]

    I realize McCain is not the concern here by I’m curious if you concur with my conclusion?

    I suppose that this could be where the Leahy, Obama, H Clinton crowd got their education to come to their conclusion that McCain –in resolution 511– was (and is) a natural-born citizen even though it’s seems quite clear that he was NOT born in a US military hospital in Panama afterall. I used to think that was a non-qualifiying starter position.

    It would be great if a reporter could chase down Sen. Leahy and ask him a) how it is that he defines the term “natual born citizen” and b)how it is that he feels both McCain and Obama are “natural born citizens” yet at birth only one (McCain) of them had two US citizen parents.

    [Ed. Yes, they would have to whip out their super slick tongues to give you the necessary doublespeak.]

  14. Abssolutely a great resource that should be retained!!

  15. Lawyer from Missouri Says:

    Leo, great to have you back. Missed ya. I think it is wonderful that you summarized in closing that “The issue is not a conspiracy theory, it is a legal question, a legal question that SCOTUS precedent admits to not having cleared up yet. It is not settled law and until it is our country and the Presidency are not legitimate.”

    Just brillant and well said. There is a saying “knowledge is power” and when people have the knowledge they can realize that the COUP (against the Constitution) that is occurring since this whole election began can be overturned.

    [Ed. Lawyer, nice to hear from you as always. Always appreciate your comments and Constitutional enthusiasm.]

  16. Elisabeth Says:

    “This is the GREATEST HOAX of modern times, Obama/Soetoro, who can’t speak without a teleprompter, did NOT do this on his own!”

    You’re right! Obama did not do this on his own. He was groomed for this position. You can take a look at an article “Communist Goals 1963” as well as other backround information about Obama and his family you won’t find through the mainstream media at http://www.repubx.com

    Thanks Leo for putting all this legal information into layman terms!

    [Ed. You have to thank Mr. Tonchen for that. He put the primer together. And he did a fantastic job.]

  17. Leo, in paying close attention , when it concerns BO and anyone about to “uncover” anything , the uncovering either doesn’t materialize OR it does with ZERO consequences.

    When you read between the lines, in comon sense, you can assume
    the “Uncover-ER” was approached to silence one way or another.

    Also the Thomas Payne character was allegedly summoned to the White house for trying to rally people…then no more videos and he disappears from the public and what about the SCOTUS meeting with BO just before his innauguration while SCOTUS has the “Natural born citizen” case on their desks…Your very own experience with BO and 3 floors of his buddies at the hotel- you had to be the thorniest thorn in his side- and look how coincidental it would be to just “run into you” …

    Point I’m trying to make is that it’s ALL SEWN UP. There ain’t nothin or nobody at the “Top” gonna try to fight legally, morally, honestly or any other way for any right or any thing that goes against BO. They’ll be intimidated, paid off , Warned or fearing for their own jobs or safety. To Boot, they wouldn’t WIN. It would never get that far.

    In paying close attention, you see how big this thing is. Many talking heads have the facts right and more people need to wake up and catch on
    for the next election. That is of course, if we would still have elections in the USA a few years from now and providing that the new opposing party
    would truly be opposing and be ones to Truly uphold the consitituion once again.

    As it is, we need to lick or wounds and Pray as a nation for God to preserve the little we have left and raise up new leaders to Un do most of the damage already done and coming. The most we can do right now is educated ourselves to the Truth and band together as Americans to fight for our America in 3 years from now.

  18. Obviously, the framers knew exactly what ‘Natural Born Citizen’ meant. They would not have simply made the term up ‘on the fly’ during the creation of our Constitution, especially without then giving that term a written definition.

    It’s been presumed that the framers got their knowledge (i.e. definition) of Natural Born Citizen from Vattel’s Law of Nations, since there seems to be literally no other source (i.e. dictionary, other writings, etc) that talks about and defines Natural Born Citizen.

    Since the English translation of Vattel’s work wasn’t available to the framers during the composition of our Constitution, which version(s) was?

    Presumably the French version, a language many founders and framers knew.

    Question: Does the French version(s) that would have been available to the framers during the Constitutional Convention, specifically say “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” like that of the later English translation?

    More specifically, does the French version state “parents” in the plural and “born in the country” or something unquestionably similar?

  19. Leo, if you would allow this link, please do for everyone to read. No matter how anyone feels toward Glen beck, he has posted a very important letter from a 53 yrd old Arizona woman who has sent this letter
    to our Government. It is EXCELLENTLY written and will provide readers
    with a total sense of our outrage as American people for the GOv’t’s total
    disregard for our Constitution in every issue we are dealing with today.

    America Please wake up and lets realize we are swiftly losing our rights as Americans. We the people need to do it ourselves with our Voices, our
    letters, our phone calls and faxes. No one else will do it for us.

    Thank You

    Please read this!
    This is the link: It’s Called “The Letter”
    http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/26742/

  20. Leo,
    Does the fired IG, Gerald Walpin, have standing to file a quo warronto action against Obama since it appears he was fired unfairly for political reasons?

    [Ed. Im looking into this and a couple of other similar scenarios.]

  21. Leo,
    Further to my previous question – see this link for background on the Walpin firing.

    http://www.americasright.com/2009/06/hello-is-anybody-listening.html

  22. Message from Carl Swensson and Mark Ellis (Grand Jury Indictments):

    We’ve had enough! I Carl Swensson and Mack Ellis will be in Washington, D.C., June 29th, in the year of our Lord 2009.

    We’re going to hand deliver ALL of OUR Presentments to the Usurper Barry Soetoro, Eric Holder, SCOTUS and whomever else we can find.

    You guys can talk and blog all you want, the time for ACTION is NOW. You can stay home and watch or YOU CAN join us, it doesn’t MATTER.

    This is now 6 months into a Constitutional Crisis of Biblical proportions and only a select few seem to have any ba**s at all. So be it.

    Don’t whine and cry when you realize the Elite have destroyed all that’s near and dear to your hearts, especially not to us or Commander Walter Fitzpatrick.

    Come hell or high water we will be heard.

    Website: http://riseupforamerica.com/

  23. Leo,

    I am very pleased to see you once again engaged in the debate. Welcome back. I feel quite certain I can speak for many of us who follow this blog; your legal arguments, rational thought and intellectual honesty have been sorely missed.

    Thomas

  24. Leo,
    You may already have heard about this, but there have been two additional IG’s fired:

    http://www.americasright.com/2009/06/gerald-walpin-is-not-alone.html

  25. Stephanie Says:

    When I have spoken to people(aids to Congressman) about the NBC issue they would say to me where does it say in the Constitution the meaning. My answer -Vattel why is he important they ask. The signers referred to Vattel’s “Law of Nations” when they wrote the Constitution. Benjamin Franklin:
    “I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept, has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting.
    —Benjamin Franklin, letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775”
    http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_97-01/971_vattel.html
    Thomas Jefferson 1777 “We can say with confidence that a natural born citizen of the U.S. means those persons born whose father the U.S. already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e. born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the U.S.”
    I will continue to call Congress (in the morning) but tonight I’m going to watch Mr. Smith goes to Washington.

  26. Stephanie, would you provide the source or link to the Jefferson 1777 quote regarding natural born citizen? I am told that the quote is from commentary about Jefferson’s understanding of citizenship, and did not come directly from Jefferson himself. I am having a hard time confirming this, one way or the other. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

  27. Leo, I was pleasantly surprise to find that my Primer was given such prominence on your blog. In fact, “surprised” is a bit of an understatement. I nearly fell off my chair. I am not an attorney. I have no training in history or law. I never expected that the Primer would receive as much attention as it has. As you and your readers find errors in fact or logic, please post them here or e-mail them directly to me, and I’ll be sure to make the needed corrections in the next revision of the Primer. Words cannot express my appreciation.

    [Ed. Great job Steve. Thanks again for putting the work in. Many people have written to me and expressed their gratitude. You took a large body of technical work and made it easy to reference.]

  28. This is a great comment by Stephanie if the Thomas Jefferson quote is correct. I would think back when the constitution was written, it was the father’s citizenship that was important for determining citizenship, since women did not even have the right to vote. I wonder though with today’s equality of the sexes if this interpretation would be allowed to stand.

  29. Leo,
    The following issues are still unsettled:
    1. Was BO truly born in Hawaii? Without a ‘discovery’ we are left with only digital internet images and no confirmation by DOH of Hawaii that the Online COLB matches the original information. Answer: Unknown
    2. Does the original Constitutional requirement for POTUS include 2 US citizen parents, one US citizen parent father, and/or born on US soil, or born in Kenya by an underage US mother? Answer: Unknown
    3. Was BO born a US citizen, adopted Indonesian, then reclaimed his US citizenship later? Answer: Unknown
    4. Was BO born a US citizen, but has claimed citizenship in Indonesia and Kenya when it suited his ends? Answer: Unknown

    Truth is, we don’t know anything that can be confirmed about his birth and citizenship claims for many years. Despite the Media calling ‘birthers-right wing nuts” I don’t see anyone disputing that BO is over age 35, and lived within the US for 14 years, because the information and timeline are not in dispute. What is in dispute is EVERYTHING to do with his NBC status, his past claims, and the original location of his birth.

    Historically speaking, there can be no doubt that the Founding Fathers wished to prevent any POTUS from having conflicting loyalties and conflicting citizenships. The SCOTUS should have taken your case and ruled on NBC, their silence is not in the best interest of the US. The reluctance to accept these cases based upon standing has been, IMHO an attempt to avoid discovery of records, not an attempt to ‘acknowledge’ a change in the original Constitutional requirements.

    Discovery is what is feared. Find a way to discovery and the rest will fall into place.

  30. Patriot1776 Says:

    Leo,

    I thought you disavowed the Citizen Grand Jury concept, and yet, there you are on page 4 of the “Presentments” that are being filed all across the country, with every sheriff, court, legislator and AG possible.

    Carl Swensson and others plan on taking the “Presentments” to Washington DC on June 29 and attempting to serve them on “the usurper Barry Soetoro, Eric Holder, SCOTUS and whomever else we can find”. “He also said it isn’t going to be pretty; there will be rioting everywhere”.

    You are a part of that?

    [Ed. I disavowed the language as to the taking of liberty and property… i have been informed that such language has been removed. I have no problem with the grand juries per se… it’s the enforcement provisions that were erroneous. Citizens may form grand juries and if a Judge will enforce them you have legal litigation. Grand juries are for information gathering NOT enforcement. Police/Executive Branch is for enforcement. I am behind only legal means. That being said, I believe the focus should be on Quo Warranto.]

  31. Patriot1776 Says:

    Forgot to add the link that has a link to the actual “Presentment”. scroll down to the bottom of the post:

    http://www.politijab.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=39766#p39766

  32. To Lawyer from Missouri:

    I saw your comments concerning Obama on another site. (I think it was http://www.investingobama.com). You really smoked Obama and the Democrats concerning perjury and the destruction of the Democratic Party concerning possible collusive fraud.

    To JudyP:

    Your “ALL SEWN UP” comment sounds like there is nothing that can be done concerning ousting Obama! Great victories were never won with this attitude.

    To Leo:

    Thank you so much for your research. I have used it arguing the natural born citizen issue on other site. Attorney Stephen Pidgeon says in an e-mail reply: “We are putting Donofrio’s articles up on DecaLogos this evening. His legal research is invaluable.”

    I know you about your and Cort’s lawsuits to the Supreme Court. I do think that research is your strong point.

    Here is my letter to Pidgeon on April 4, 2009 concerning fatal weaknesses and Obama.

    I am reminded how much we can learn from history. It will be obvious, but it bears repeating. David stood up to Goliath and finally cut off his head. It just took one small stone, aimed at the right place. You may read the story in I Samuel 17. It looked impossible to Israel, but a shepherd with the LORD’s help won the victory.

    Great Britain faced a great navy crisis in May 1940. Germany released the Bismarck into the Denmark Strait and Bismarck sank HMS Hood. After a game of hide and seek, the determined Royal Navy found Bismarck and destroyed the pride of the German Navy. One of the key’s to victory was that the Royal Navy found the Achilles heel of Bismarck. In the sea trials, the Germans discovered Bismarck had rudder difficulties. The Royal Navy sent World War I by-planes against the ship, and one torpedo found its mark, crippling Bismarck. The by-planes were able to approach very closely since Bismarck’s gun did not synchronize to the slow speed of the planes.

    I know Obama has some fatal weakness and when attacked he will come down. It may not be the birth certificate or natural born citizen issues per se, but he does a fatal weakness.

    Have a great day!

    Hugh Hudson

    P.S. GO FOR IT!

  33. Leo:

    I do think the the natural born citizen issue must be completely solved concerning Obama and not carried forward into history!

  34. I, like untold others, have sent hundreds of e-mails, petitions, letters, and phone calls to innumerable judges, congressmen, attorneys general, sheriffs, local D.A.s, ad nauseum. I am sick to death of the cowardice, greed, violation of our Constitution, and criminal activity coming out of Washington, D.C., just like millions of other Americans.

    However, I will not write Channing Phillips. Undoubtedly he was hand-picked and I am tired of spitting in the wind. I pray the lawsuits continue to press forward wherever they are, but there must be something else we can do.

    It is time we Americans brainstormed what role each of us can play in these tragic times. Here’s a thought, however, far out: Let’s establish our own bank, deposit funds to pay for any future, constitutional taxes, or other monies owed to a bonafide government, and stop sending ANY more money to the corrupt political hacks who are stealing us poor suckers blind. What a wake-up call that would be. It’d be a Tea Party on steroids for the golden goose to decide to go live in another barnyard! (Sorry about mixing my metaphors, but. . . poetic license!)

    Anyone out there with financial expertise who could comment on such an outrageous and “audacious” idea?
    [Ed. The focus of Quo Warranto now shifts to “interedted parties”. Give me a little time and I’ll have a post up about it. My hands are full for the next 10 days though.]

  35. thank you Leo for all of your hard work.

    Obama is NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN-PERIOD. If he was he would produce a birth certificate or explain why he won’t and has spent $1 million dollars hiding it. He also will not produce his school or medical recrods. HELLO….I am sure they contain information that would be embarrassing and most likely have him IMPEACHED.

    I read through all the posts here and have never seen such a fine, collection of intelligent thoughts on any blog before.

  36. NJ Citizen Says:

    Letters written during the Revolutionary War suggest a strong historical case could be built that NBC carried a definition, in the minds of the Founding Fathers, which was sui generis. It is perhaps a good thing that no court has taken up, on the merits, any of the cases about the issue. None were as powerfully presented, with due attention to historic correspondences, as they needed to be.

    [Ed. We did the best we could. I didnt’ bring suit until the week before the election and I had to get my stay app in to SCOTUS a week later on Nov 3rd. New things are coming to light every day. But I tend to agree with you that the knowledge we have now is expanding beyond the point of reasonable dissent. The framers would never have allowed Obama to be President because of his dual (triple actually) nationality at birth.]

  37. In Response To Hugh: Reference June 20 4:57 PM

    Hugh, It’s without joy that I posted my opinion that Legitimate,
    legal efforts are “All Sewn Up” when it versus B.O.

    There’s too much corruption at the top, too many top cats on his side and
    too much power putting an end to whatever they get wind of for any legal avenue that would challenge BO for anything. There is also foreign power and influence keeping BO just where he is as President of the US and all George Soro’s money.

    Short of a civil war or revolting in the streets or Worse, and from watching closely how legal challenges -and ALL challenges against BO-
    play out thus far, With the help of God, I believe that the election of 2012 is the only way he may be removed, if even, We have a mightly task of raising up someone else for the 2012 election, Without God’s provision, it certainly won’t happen. If enough of us aren’t Praying, it certainly won’t happen.

    I don’t believe we should lay down and do nothing, but I don’t believe that
    trusting to find even One, Lone, Brave, Ethical, Law abiding Official at
    the top, never mind finding others that would get on board with him at the Top, that will do the right thing and follow a legal course of action against BO, to the point of success, is at all possible.

    If you follow everything closely, all efforts are snuffed out and all issues disappear. So I merely point this out, in my opinion, that this administration has everything taken care of to keep this guy going. It’s gonna take more layoffs and the BO administration’s disasterous direction to hit more people personaly and directly (in other words, when the damage is painfuly obvious and done and it’s way too late) before people try to tune in to understand what’s really happening to the USA

    So what DO we do? That’s the million dollar question. We, the people, not we the “Litigants”-because being a Litigant involves finding someone ethical in government to represent us- should always VOICE ourselves against attacks to our Constitution and our Rights, so We should Educate
    ourselves, pay attention and form peaceful protests as needed with media exposure to help educate others, (Yet sadly, even the Teaparties were mocked and protesters were ill prepared to defend the cause at the
    media microphone), (and our constitution is mocked and distorted and twisted to convenience, as it is), Pray for our Land and our Constitution to stay somewhat intact to withstand the next 3 years, but as far as trusting in the LEGAL avenues, we’ve already seen that not one SCOTUS Judge
    was willing to stand up to an issue against BO. I worry that wholehearted and hard working efforts in pursuing all legal grounds, as Great as they are, and when any can be found will be painfuly Trashed because I
    I thrive, support and delight in the possibility of them succeeding…so I worry about the crash landing that enevitibly will follow all the hard work
    and high expectations. It’s undenyable, after paying close attention, that
    the entire system is corrupt or corruptIBLE by intimidation at some point in the legal process.

    Leo, you for one, have done a Magnificent service to our country and I mourn the tragic results that brought Shame to our Trusted Leaders who
    Failed to do the right thing.

    I’m not “negative”, just realistically calling what’s observed.
    I would so much love to be proven all wrong and just once have success
    through legal channels in finding a Prosecuting “Taker” against BO.

    Thank You for the time.

  38. Stephanie Says:

    Steve, I originally found the Jefferson quote from a speech he made about Virginia’s Birthright Law on the Federalist blog but it is now down. So I searched for another & I came up with https://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/03/13/open-letter-to-united-states-attorney-jeffrey-taylor/ search for Jefferson.
    Another site http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2159361/posts Cal, Women became a U.S. citizen when they married a U.S. citizen. So the mother was automatically a citizen before the child’s birth(back then people actually got married before having children) It wasn’t until after the 19th admendment that this law was overturned. I probably found that out on this blog also.
    Hugh, Thank you for reminding us of the David & Goliaths in history.
    I would like to add a story. When a Jewish family were going over the Swiss Alps to escape the NAZIS & the little girl looked up at her father & said Daddy I can’t climb that big mountain -the father said you only have to take one step at a time. They made it across.
    Leo, thank you for educating me on the law. You will go down in history for your research & your fortitude.

  39. Hey all – I have been following this site and all the others that say that Obama is not NBC because of his fathers citizenship. I talked with someone in a chat area and they gave me this link:

    http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html%C2%A0

    It is eluding to Title 8 of the US Code section 1408 and says the definition of NBC being “citizens of the United States at birth”.

    Please tell me what is wrong with this. I haven’t seen anything that defined natural born citizen until I saw this link, so please help me understand. Thanks!]

    [Ed. You’re misreading the person who made that web page… they made the wrong assertion that a citizen at birth is nbc. The US Code (it’s actually 1401 not 1408 according to that web site) does NOT define natural born citizen. Nowhere in the Code does it say a “natural born citizen” is a “citizen of the US at birth.”]

  40. JudyP:

    I certainly see your points and I thank you for the reply. Persistant prayer is one key to removing Obama. See Proverbs 21:1.

    Basically, Obama is not the problem, but only the symptom of a greater American root problem. We can see the fruit of the root in the refusal of the media, the Congress and the Courts to deal with all the nonsense. That is the exasperating thing for me and others.

    I am convinced that the Founders and Framers would not put up with Obama and his ilk for 15-minutes. They would size him up and he would be gone.

  41. kansasguy Says:

    In an earlier posting you wrote that once Obama became the President all of the lawsuits challenging his eligibility were dead. If that is the case, why are several of the actions still alive? Why do the various courts not simply refuse to hear them because, as you contend, the judicial branch does not have the power to remove a sitting president? Could a court rule that Obama is ineligible, yet not order that he be removed from office?

    [Ed. The proper paperwork and procedure must play out. The Judges can only decide based upon the paperwork in front of them. Defendants must make various motions to dismiss and bring these issues to the judges attention. None of the cases will survive to heard on the merits.

    However, what I am anticipating is that they are going to use the number of cases existing as “motivation” for bringing the long form BC public. But first you will see more and more hype about the “birthers” in the main stream media… you’re already seeing that as well as WND questioning the White House Press Secretary about the BC. None of that would be happening if they didn’t allow it. And they are allowing it for a reason.

    Once the public is fully aware of the BC issue, then out comes the golden parachute long form BC stuffed down the eligibility movement’s throat and the issue will be deader than you could ever imagine. Those hanging on to the dual citizen issue after that point will be completely and utterly made to look like fringe haters hanging on to a desperate state of denial.

    That’s what I see coming down the pike. Perhaps I am just unduly pessimistic. But then again, I give the powers that be alot of credit for being genius at manipulatiing the masses. They are truly brilliant. Maybe I give them too much credit. But then again, we’ve got dual/tri national occupying the White House despite 250 years of precedent and a fairly clear Constitutional history testifying that he’s not eligible. But there he sits. I don’t underestimate the competition. It’s not an emotional issue for me. It’s just another game of chess.]

  42. Leo,
    I find a big hole in this issue when you are not around, glad to see you back. I have tried to bring the dual citizenship issue to light for different people but have yet to see anyone who really cares. Their response is
    ” the SCOTUS decided that he was eligible” —To which I reply, No they were dismissed for standing.

    [Ed. You do not have any guidance that my case nor Cort’s was rejected for cert (not dismissed – please try to be accurate). SCOTUS did not say why. We don’t even know the vote, could have been 6-3 against when we needed 4 votes. Could have been 9-0. We just don’t know. And we don’t know if it was a procedural issue or if it was substantive. We just don’t know. Anybody who says they know is lying.]

    or
    ” Natural Born Citizen isn’t defined in the constitution”— to which I reply neither was “Bill of Attainder” or “Ex Post Facto” or “Law of Nations”
    or
    “That was is 1788, it doesn’t apply today”— To which I must roll my eyes, as there is NO HOPE.
    or
    “Wong Kim Ark case makes him a NBC”
    or
    “14th A makes him NBC”

    Nobody I come in contact with seems to care, so I guess you may be right, We the people are getting what we deserve.

    But I refuse to give up. I am very interested in seeing your post about the fired IG (Wolpin). The resignation of Jeffrey Taylor was very disheartening. Just another weasley politician I guess. This guy Wolpin looks ready to put up a fight. He could be an ideal candidate if the legal road is paved.

  43. Leo,
    I know a Dodge /Chrysler dealer that had his Family business (of 30 years) taken away under the orders of the government, even though he was a profitable dealer. He appealed to the Bankruptcy court and lost. I don’t know if you heard the reports, but there is evidence that many, if not most of the closings were done to Republican donators, and that Democrat donators of less profitable dealerships were allowed to stand. Could some of these dealer principles be eleigible for a QW filing under Andrade or Mewman?

    [Ed. I will include this issue with my legal memo on Walpin. Stay tuned. Give me a couple of weeks.]

  44. Leo,
    Here is an interview with Walpin. He is pissed, and would be a prime candidate for QW if the legal path is clear. He says that he is not hired at the discretion of the president, and the president must give 30 days notice to congress. Could this be the self made noose?

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,526650,00.html

  45. I have contacted the webmaster for the link that I submitted for your review earlier:
    http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html%C2%A0

    It does seem as though he is referencing 1401 mostly.

    I have seen others in twitter and such referencing it, so I contacted him to check out your comments and references and either update his site or let me know what his opinion is on this settled or unsettled matter.🙂

    I am a discerning individual, educated, mostly logical, and I love to listen to both sides – but the bottom line is that I have heard all of the arguments and Obama’s eligibility so far does not make sense to me. Anyway, I am using twitter to continue the education of others on the NBC matter and I am referencing your site. I hope to get a meeting with my congressman to understand what (if any) knowledge they have on the topic.

    Thanks!

  46. […] Obama Presidential Eligibility – An Introductory Primer […]

  47. magna carta Says:

    Leo,
    I wrote a letter,(hand-written) to Judge Schneider and laid out my thoughts and a plea for a proper hearing for “We The People” but I did not reference the case by number or name although content-wise it was obvious what case I would be referring to. Can it still be legally included in this case?
    I was in such a rush to meet the deadline.
    Thanks.

  48. As part of the legal argument, it’s important to explain specifically why Vattel’s writings are pertinent to the construction of the natural born citizen clause in comtemporary jurisprudence.

    “A criminal statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must guess at its meaning and differ as to its application lacks the first essential of due process of law.”
    ( Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385 (1926). Cited at the U.S. Supreme Court Center. Justia & Oyez & Forms WorkFlow. http://supreme.justia.com/us/269/385/case.html )

    The broad principle we can draw from that quote is that, generally-speaking, a law must be understandable to a consensus of common persons in order to be valid. And because the Constitution cannot change apart from Article V, we have to ask what natural born citizenship meant when that clause was written (as alluded to in the post). Noting those points about due process and Article V helps demonstrate why we must adhere to original intent, and thus gives us the proper grounds to authoritatively defer to how the natural born citizen clause would have been understood at the time the Constitution was ratified. And that’s why citing Vattel is a valid legal matter for the courts to analyze, because Vattel was a key influence on the United States. ( “Emmerich de Vattel.” Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Accessed June 28, 2009. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/624086/Emmerich-de-Vattel )

  49. Ray Jones Says:

    Don’t forget the words of Senator John A. Bingham (the author of the 14th Amendment) when he said

    Senator Bingham said while speaking about the rights of citizens in the U.S. House of Representatives on March 6, 1866 the following :

    ” 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…. . . ”
    – John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

    In the very words of the person who wrote that being born on U.S. soil makes a person a “citizen”, you find that a human being MUST be born to parents ” not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty” .

    Senator John. A. Bingham’s statement disquallifies Barack Obama since his father owed allegiance to the Brittish Commonwealth and to Kenya.

  50. Civis naturaliter natus Says:

    “To date, the Supreme Court has never answered the question as to whether natural born citizenship extends to children of non-citizen parents. ”

    It would be more accurate to say that “To date the Supreme Court has never admitted that children of non-citizens are natural born citizens.”

    A definition is by nature exclusive and determinative. It is not an open door to other classes or categories of citizenship. Read Aristotle on definitions…

  51. Civis naturaliter natus Says:

    I would add that Tonchen’s essay is also faulty on this score, as he seeminly places the athorities cited by SCOTUS and SCOTUS opinions on the same level as opinions of lesser or no authority, and sets up the situation where SCOTUS must determine the meaning of “natural born citizen”, when it fact Scotus has never applied this term to any other class than that class which Vattel called “naturales” or “indigenes”, that is a child born in the country of parents who were citizens (thereof).

  52. Civis naturaliter natus Says:

    More plausibly, there are 2 other Scotus decisions which speak to the issue which can be understood harmoniously: I have outlined this at

    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=6445#comments

    in my responses to HD on that blog.

    Thus SCOTUS is consistent, and we can rightly say that the question need not be posed to Scotus by a Quo Warrento, as Scotus has never defined the term in any manner which would make Obama eligible to serve as POTUS.

    [Ed. In you zeal, which I appreciate, you have misread Wong Kim Ark. You said in comments to the link provided:

    In Wong vs. Ark, someone born on US soil of foeign parents, is judged to be a “native citizen”

    You like many other have given the WKA decision too broad of a holding. The actual holding of the cvase is much more narrow than this. SCOTUS in WKA only said that those persons born in the US to foreign parents who were “permanently domiciled” in the US were born citizens. I will point out that Obama’s father was NEVER permanently domiciled in the US therefore the very limited holding of WKA does not apply to OBama.

    Furthermore, while Obama may not be eligible to be President, he is the defacto President and we have Quo Warranto laws to deal with usurpation. Under your logic the QW laws would NEVER be relevant to any Constitutional office.]

  53. Stephanie,

    I believe I’ve found the source of the “Jefferson” 1777 quote:

    “Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States.”

    It appears the quote didn’t come from Jefferson. Rather, it came from the conclusion in this article:

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

    Nevertheless, it’s a terrific quote. Thanks for sharing it with us.
    – Steve

  54. JosephII Says:

    Leo, just got the end of Fox News, 5:00 pm, today 7-9-09, Judge Napolitano saying I think, that Walpin has a suit against obama, that would be hard for obama to beat. Then the Judge said, that obama’s excuse to fire Walpin was that “he was confused” meaning he wasn’t all there psychologically AFTER THE FIRING WAS ILLEGAL! Then the Judge referred to Glenn Beck on the show actually giving an authentic senility test to Walpin who got 100% correct on it! Wow! was that an exciting bit.

    Leo, do you have anything to do with Walpin’s suit? I didn’t get the beginning of the program and don’t know what the suit is all about. It looks like real trouble for the usurper–I hope. Please give us some info on this breaking news.

  55. gospelmidi Says:

    This goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden, when Satan tricked Eve with, “Hath God said?”

    What the Framers meant is as plain as Kansas, but there are a million shyster lawyers willing to twist their words beyond recognition, all for a measly dollar.

  56. From #10 in the Primer: “Many of our rights — free speech, freedom of religion, privacy, trial by jury, and so on — come from the Constitution.”

    This should be corrected. We should not mislead the public to think that the document that MENTIONS our rights is the SOURCE of our rights.

    Mark Yannone
    yannone.blogspot.com

  57. Civis Naturaliter Natus Says:

    Leo,

    I stand corrected. A quo warrento is needed to demand justification for why Obama might righly hold the office; but a legal definitin of NBC need not be demanded from SCOTUS, as if SCOTUS had never given one.

    I fear those pushing to have SCOTUS define something that is already spelled out; this sets up the scenario for SCOTUS with sotomayor to totally change what a NBC is, and present the citizens of this country, thereby, with a fait accompli…

  58. Joe The Blogger Says:

    Leo,
    We’ve just had all of the commemorations for the 40th anniversary of the momentous first steps on the moon. Serious scientists believe that one day man will walk on Mars. So, just ponder this. Will any reporter, one day, on camera, ask Obama about his ineligibility to be POTUS? Whoah, lets not get carried away now.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: