Why do both Obama’s State Department and the Senate require two US citizen parents for those born abroad to attain natural born citizen status?


Ed. 7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.


The State Department is part of the Executive Branch.  The Foreign Affairs Manual is hosted at “State.gov” (see URL).  Please note that the analysis of eligibility by the State Department – now controlled by Obama – requires two US Citizen parents.

Many have argued that Senate Resolution 511 – which served to falsely sanitize John McCain’s POTUS eligibility – states that a natural born citizen is a person born abroad to “American citizens” – plural.

[UPDATED: 9:07AM] – The actual language of the resolution reads as follows:

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

Furthermore, the official statement of Senator Leahy which is part of the congressional record to the proposed resolution states:

Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen.

And finally, the testimony of Secretary Cherthoff who was a Federal Judge was also made part of the official record.  He stated:

My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.

The argument has merit to the Obama eligibility issue in that Senate Resolution 511 – co-sponsored by Obama – does not state that a person is a natural born citizen if born abroad to only one citizen parent.

The magic question is:

Why was it important to all who co-sponsored Senate Resolution 511 that both parents be citizens?

What was their logic?  The question is certainly not the same as to Obama because McCain was born abroad and not on US soil.  Assuming Obama was born in Hawaii, his supporters argue birth on US soil alone makes him a natural born citizen.  I recognize there is a difference in circumstance.

However, the important point to be made with regard to Senate Resolution 511 concerns the policy that appears to prohibit a person from natural born citizen status if born abroad to only one citizen parent.

Why does it require two citizen parents?  What is the policy behind the language requiring two US citizen parents?  This is where the issue can be further supported by your questioning of Senators.  Policy as used with regards to the drafting of laws is a legal term of art.  It’s analogous to concern.  What legal concern is acknowledged by requiring two citizen parents?  Get the Senate and Obama to answer that question.

Obama eligibility supporters have argued that back when the framers drafted the Constitution women couldn’t vote and therefore a preference for acknowledging the father’s citizenship prevailed as to the son.  These Obama supporters argue that if the Constitution ever required two citizen parents for natural born citizenship such requirement is not relevant any longer since women can now vote by Constitutional amendment.

To that argument I will now ask why Senate Resolution 511 doesn’t state that a person born abroad to one citizen parent is a natural born citizen?


What is so important and relevant to natural born citizen status that both parents must be citizens if the child is born abroad? How would Obama, who co-sponsored Senate Resolution 511, answer this question?  This is the question you need to now ask your Senators who agreed unanimously to Senate Resolution 511.  Get a quote on the record answering this question.

I’m trying to imagine their answers in light of the Obama dual nationality issue and the arguments which claim he is not eligible according to the framer’s intent and Vattel’s definition of natural born citizen.  They would have no other reason to argue both parents be citizens other than the safety of the nation and the framers intent.

Ask them specifically how they have determined their level of concern requiring two US citizen parents.  It will not be easy for them to craft a response which doesn’t also acknowledge the very same concerns for person’s born on US soil to a parent who was never a US citizen.

But more important is that the very same question now needs to be asked of Obama’s own State Department which to this day also acknowledges the necessity of citizen parents on the same issue in their continued publication of the Foreign Affairs Manual at 7 FAM 1131.6-2.

Again, that section states:

“It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.”

Why does the Obama State Department’s continued publication of the Foreign Affairs manual acknowledge that the issue requires two US citizen parents?

What is the policy requiring both parents be US citizens as opposed to just one?

Please also note that Senate Resolution 511 does not discuss ordinary “citizenship”.  This is a fine distinction which needs to be noted clearly.  In Senate Resolution 511 they acknowledged that natural born citizenship is not the same as citizenship.  Since one can become a citizen by naturalization, neither parent would need to be a US citizen.

In Senate Resolution 511, the Senate has acknowledged that “citizens” are not the same for Constitutional purposes as “natural born citizens”.  This is confirmation, even signed on by Obama, that it takes something more to be a “natural born citizen” of the US rather than just a “citizen” of the US.  Those who argue they are the same for purposes of POTUS eligibility must be confronted by Obama’s own admission in both co-sponsoring Senate Resolution 511 and publishing the Foreign Affairs manual that they are not one in the same thing.

I do not agree at all with the Senate’s definition of “natural born citizen” in Senate Resolution 511,  but I do agree with the Senate and Obama that all citizens are not natural born citizens for purposes of satisfying the rigid requirements to be President in Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution.


138 Responses to “Why do both Obama’s State Department and the Senate require two US citizen parents for those born abroad to attain natural born citizen status?”

  1. Leo,
    I commented on this subject in your previous post before I knew that you had written this one. This 7 Fam statute and Resolution 511 are certainly related. The Amendment attempt by McCaskill and Resolution 511 were careful not to combine the 2 parts of the equation Soil and Blood, which would imply that Obama is Presently Not Qualified. Of course they would argue that Jus Soli is all that is required to be a NBC because of the 14A, It is a Birthright to them. Those born abroad, they would say, totally ignoring the constitution, are NBC because of statute (Naturalization Act of 1790) and not by Birthright Entitlement. It is amazing that such an error is in the State Department Manual (it forgets the Naturalization Act of 1795). I would say that the 14A has been the most usefully abused Amendment by those who wish to undermine the Constitution. In title 8 section 1401 of the state department manual it is actually stated that “Subject to the Jurisdiction” only applies to the exclusion of diplomats since those born in the US are already Subject to the Jurisdiction of the US. It all goes back to Gray’s obliteration of the Juridictional clause. My question is why is WKA controling Law to this manual and not Perkins v. Elg which was 33 years later?
    The State department in Title 8 Chapter 12 Subsection 3 says that a child born of a single citizen service parent abroad before 1952 was a “Citizen”, provided he have 5 years residency in the US beore age 21.

    Obama supporters like to frame the question of who is a Natural Born Citizen by saying “Whom, in other words is a US citizen at birth?” This is where they turn themselves into a pretzel. The question should be “whom is a US Citizen at birth and Not subject to the Jurisdiction of any foreign government?” They imply that all of these US Citizens at birth listed in Title 8 Section 1401 are NBC? What a wicked web they weave! All because of the muddying of the Jurisdictional Clause!

    [Ed. And this is why Justice Marshall in Marbury v Madison is so relevant – no provision can make any other provision useless… if 14th Amendment citizenship was equal to natural born citizenship then there would be no need for the natural born citizen clause, it would be superfluous. Furthermore, that very argument is inadmissible according to Marbury, one of the most important and upheld cases of all time. You can’t even argue that according to Scotus. You don’t see too much discussion of Marbury among the Obama eligibility supporters. It’s not possible to get around it so they generally ignore it.]

  2. Dear Leo,

    This posting, coupled with your numerous other arguments, provide thE compelling foundation for legal action. What’s lacking, however, is the political will – and broad support – to do so, as you noted months ago. So we now possess the necessary tools, but we lack action. How to resolve this dilemma? This is not your task alone, but one for “We the People.”

    Who will do so? Via what “citizens groups”? When?! America’s Founders anxiously await.

    Respectful & Frustrated,

  3. Leo I wish you could engage here. http://jonathanturley.org/2009/06/17/obama-adopts-cheney-policy-and-opposes-release-of-white-house-logs/#comment-63622
    It has been hard to get Turley to come out from behind the curtain but on occasion he does comment when someone calls him out.

    [Ed. Mr. Turley has been more than fair on this issue as to my litigation. When Ipointed out to him at his blog that my case was not about the BC issue, he quickly corrected his original posting on the evening he was to go on Oblerman’s Countdown show. Later that night he also corrected Oblerman and let him know my case was not about the BC but was based on a genuine legal question. Furthermore, Turley said at his blog that the Supreme Court should make a decision on the merits so as to erase the hint of ineligibility and he mentioned Chester Arthur in this regard. The man has said more truth about this issue than almost anyone else in the mainstream media.]

  4. naturalborncitizen Says:

    Mr Strauss, you may repost your question to the thread it originally began in.

    Thank you.

  5. Jim VanNest Says:

    More bogus sleight of hand, huh Leo?

    There IS a legal difference between being born within the United States and being born overseas.

    No “Obama supporter” that I know is claiming that citizenship is (or was) derived from the Father because women could not vote in 1789, that is just a straw man.

    The fact is that the USSC has interpreted the 14th Amendment to mean that anyone born in the United States is a citizen at birth (see Wong Kim Ark).

    [Ed. Wong Kim Ark only decided a citizen issue, not a “natural born citizen” issue. Furthermore, your lay person analysis of the case is defective. Wong Kim Ark does not say that all persons born on US soil are citizens, the case grants citizenship as long as three facts are present:

    1. person born on US soil
    2. person is subject to the jurisdiction of the US
    3. person is permanently domiciled in the US

    Obama may have been born on US soil. It’s not a settled issue whether he was subject to the jurisdiction of the US as is required by the 14th Amendment. We know that the drafters of the 14th Amendment would not agree that he was. We know Justice Gray’s opinion in the Elk case would not agree Obama was a 14th Amendment citizen. But let’s assume for a moment that he does have 1 and 2 facts above in his favor.

    His father was never permanently domiciled in the US, so he doesn’t fit under the limited definition in Wong Kim Ark so that case would not establish even citizenship for Obama.

    And it certainly doesn’t say anywhere in that case that a 14th Amendment citizen is also a natural born citizen.

    Additionally, the argument should not even be allowed since Marbury v Madison, which has not been overruled clearly states such an argument would be inadmissible.]

    THAT is the current law, and no one in authority has challenged ot acknowledged a challenge to it.

    Despite what you might think, the unconnected quote from Marshall in Marbury does NOTHING to proscribe a future USSC from ruling on the effects of an AMENDMENT to the Constituion.

    The 14th Amendment did, in fact, render the NBC language moot as to the nature of being an NBC, that’s what amendments do…

    [Ed. In fact, you couldn’t be more wrong. I’ve addressed this issue in details here


  6. Mr. Donofrio,

    Please review the research I’ve done (below) and provide feedback (is it accurate?).

    Thank you…..

    The Law of Nations, guided the framing of the United States as the World’s first Constitutional Republic. Vattel had challenged the most basic axioms of the Venetian Party, which had taken over England before the time of the American Revolution and it was from Vattel’s The Law of Nations, more than anywhere else, that America’s founders learned the Leibnizian Natural Law, which became the basis for the American System.

    The link below shows Book 1, Chapter 19.

    Under section 212, the definition of “natural born” is given (children of citizen parents).

    There are three (3) clauses as to the geography (location) of the birth (aside from a US territory).

    1. Foreign Country (section 215).

    2. Out to sea (section 216).

    3. Armies of the State (serving one’s Country – section 217).

    As long as no attempt was/is made to “quit” one’s allegiance to their Country (or accept dual loyalty), “natural born” still applies to the child.


    McCain’s birth (in Panama on a US Naval Base, due to his father’s service) would be clause #3 – since both parents were citizens at his birth and never quit or accepted allegiance to another Nation (for themselves or their child).

    Obama’s birth location (likely clause #1, in Kenya) is not the issue but rather the status of his father (British) at Jr’s birth, thereby his status as well.

    [Ed. As to McCain, we have legal precedent which gave him citizenship by statute. Since our law had evolved to the point where this issue was covered on the books, we do not have to guess how McCain derived his citizenship. The statute gave him citizenship. Without the statute it would have been a grey area as it is with Obama. Since the law had evolved to cover McCain as being a citizen, then that is the law we must deal with. Since the exists to sanitize his citizenship the law recognized that there was something unatural about his birt with regards to citizenship. he is not a natural born citizen although Vattel’s analysis would say that McCain was nbc. However, Vattel can’t trump US law.

    If there was a clear cut SCOTUS decision on point, then you could throw out Vattel and forget about him. But since the two SCOTUS cases which clearly discuss nbc status are the Elg and Minor cases, and both of those cases suggest you need two citizen parents for nbc status, we can still look to Vattel to see the framers intent on the nbc issue as to Obama. But as to McCain, the governing statute at the time of his birth trumps speculation. Had he face a negative holding in the lower courts he could have argued to SCOTUS that Vattel’s analysis suggests that he should be considered nbc. But it never got that far.

    Personally, my feeling is that McCain should have fallen on his sword and withdrawn form the election in order to preserve the next candidate’s ability to fight Obama on eligibility. The whole election seems very scripted to me and I believe McCain was more than happy to “play” serious candidate knowing all along he wasn’t going to win. McCain protected Obama.

    And yes, I’m wearing my tin foil hat now… and I’m proud to wear it. I have lost all respect for Senator McCain over this issue. And considering his past heroics, that is indeed a sad statement to be forced to make. Most of us will never face what he did in defense if the country and we are a grateful nation for his service. But that doesn’t give him a free pass now that the country is being governed by a President such historical allegiance to other nations and ways of life.]

  7. Leo:

    Your observations about SR511 and Obama’s both sponsoring it AND voting for it are things I’ve included in a letter I sent the court in Kerchner et al v. Obama et al – in support of the Plantiffs with copies to both opposing counsel of course.

    I was careful to note that Obama claims to be a Constitutional lawyer (and teacher thereof) so there was certainly a great dichotomy in his actions re SR 511 (and the statements by Leahy and Chertoff) plus his websites posting of the “… goverened by the British Nationality Act …” claim which of course stated that Obama the younger was goverened by that citizenship status.

    I also pointed out that in the first Naturalization Act of 1790 as well as the one in 1795 that not only was there a change in the NBC wording but BOTH contained the sentence that “… the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States …”

    All those things together (and others as well) should make any intellectually honest person wonder how a Constitutional lawyer could have missed all that irony and sponsored/voted for SR511. In addition, since a member of a law firm closely connected with Obama had recently published a “scholarly” paper attempting to mitigate the NBC clause in attempting to show it to be a nullity in the eligibiliey matter, it seems quite unlikely that Mr. Obama would not be, shall we say, “aware”!!

    [Ed. Well said. The Constitution is under attack. It’s really that simple. We are fighting an intellectual war of words.]

  8. I personally believe that the Republicans are not pursuing this issue in order to leave the door open for Bobby Jindal to run for POTUS. I don’t agree with the strategy, but it’s the only thing I can come up with.

    [Ed. It’s John McCain all over again.]

  9. Having read nearly every SCOTUS decison, and511 bacground, concerning “natural born citizen,” I believe Perkins v. Elg 307 U.S. 325 (1939) trumps everything, until the SCOTUS speaks again. Elg (1939) is very clear that a “natural born citizen” requires TWO citizen parents (naturalized or native) born on U.S. soil.

    [Ed. Agreed. It’s on point and newer than Minor. Minor clearly raised doubts that people without US citizen parents could be considered nbc. Instead of having an open debate about this, the Obama supporters refuse to acknowledge these cases.

    And Obama has NEVER spoke about this issue. Having come from Harvard law and his having been a law prof, he should have brought this issue public and discussed it with the American people. He should have had the same concerns as we do. Had he done that, he would have been a true patriot. Putting the safety of the Constitution before ones own goals is the only American way. John McCain failed us in this regard as well.]

  10. Thank you for joining “us” in “Conspiracy World” lol.

    Although, it seems like McCain had/has a leg to stand on, Obama/Soetoro CLEARLY does NOT.

    This information below was “released” PRIOR to the Election (series of dates)

    [Ed. Snipped for wild unsubstantiated rumours. Look, you have to keep it real at this blog whether you are a supporter of my legal writing or against it. I know you believe Obama is a usuroer, but I can’t print rumours like that which you submitted. Furthermore, I will point out that Obama could have been born at home. His mother didn’t have to go to a hospital. Just because there are no hospital records at this time for his birth doesn’t mean he wasn’t born in Hawaii. Keep it real people.]

  11. Linda SD Says:


    Thank you for re-entering the trenches to help us get the point across that the Birth Certificate is a distraction to the truth of this Constitutional crisis.

    I, as you, am worried that these grand juries will moot the effort of educating the public as to the real threat to our Republic when Obama does produce his birth certificate.

    Here are a couple of layman articles I wrote for my fellow South Dakotan’s educational benefit.



    Our next Tea Party is July 2nd, we have the fair grounds this time and an all day event to educate the public on socialized health care with some “natural born” citizen in the mix. We were able to educate quite a few at the April 15th event.

    I’ll keep checking back for updates, but remember to say “no” once in a while so you don’t get burnt out again.

    God’s Peace be with you Leo,

  12. Leo:

    There is a word omitted to Kal, 24 June, 3:50 PM and “birth is mispelled as you say in apart:

    “Since the exists to sanitize his citizenship the law recognized that there was something unatural about his birt with regards to citizenship. he is not a natural born citizen although Vattel’s analysis would say that McCain was nbc. However, Vattel can’t trump US law.”

    Your legal reasoning is excellent, and We the People are the benefiicaries of your courage.


  13. […] Why do both Obama’s State Department and the Senate require two US citizen parents for those born … […]

  14. Leo,
    I agree with your comment above about John McCain. Unfortunately, he loved the idea of being president more than he loved his country.

  15. Sir Leo are you aware that McCain was in fact born in an Exclave and not even a military base as reported so then was not he Panamanian??

    [Ed. McCain was born in Colon Hospital, Panama and depending on Panamanian law, he might have been a citizen of Panama at birth. Still looking into that.]

  16. Apuzzo is already well aware of the nonsense that went on in S.R. 511. It was blogged about in depth when Leo started this case. That’s where Apuzzo coined the phrase, “Why investigate McCain and not Obama?” From this entry http://zapem.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/obama-knew-he-wasnt-eligible-for-potus

    That investigation was done in support of Leo’s case and passed onto Apuzzo, so he knows already, believe me. Leo knew about it back then too. He’s bringing it to light again and expounding on it because it needs to be remembered what actually happened in the 2008 election.

    [Ed. Excellent post. But I’m, also bringing new points to light. First, the State Department in the Foreign Affairs Manual also says “citizens” – as to parents of those born abroad, plural. Second, it’s more important is to ask why Leahy and Cherthoff would require both parents to be US citizens for those born abroad? Why does it matter to them that both parents be citizens? What is their policy? The issue, up to this point, with regard to 511 has been slightly off point. People have been pointing to 511 and the fact that two citizen parents are mentioned. But you must be intellectually honest and also point out that they are making reference to a person born abroad – McCain. As to Obama – assuming for the sake of argument that he was born in Hawaii – for purposes of applying the language and testimony of Senate Resolution 511, you must rephrase the question and issue. The issue is why do these politicians require both parents be citizens for somebody born abroad to achieve nbc status? The answers they give will certainly echo the same reasons we are giving for asserting that persons born to a father who was never a US citizen cannot be granted nbc status.]

    And I hate to tell Jim VanNest this, but it’s not a straw man that children followed the condition of the father. It’s known as partus sequitur patrem and was the norm of established law in this country going back to even before the founding fathers, who also stood by it. The dissenting opinion in Wong Kim Ark even quotes partus sequitur patrem as “always being applied to the children“. So you take on the nationality of the father, but to be considered natural-born, you are in ADDITION to that status, born here. Anything that deviates from that might as well go back to being alleged to a king again and that’s certainly not what the framers proposed.

    Furthermore, no one takes the framers intent into account and these are Justices doing it. The framers didn’t allow for dual loyalties. In fact, they said “foreign influence was the bane of the republic”!

    George Washington further advised, “shut up every avenue to foreign influence; contract rather than extend national connections; rely on yourselves only; be Americans in thought, word and deed. Thus will you give immortality to that union which was the constant object of my terrestrial labors; thus will you preserve undisturbed, to the latest posterity, the felicity of a people to me most dear”.

    What type of nonsense is it that a dual citizen, who admits it, decided he was eligible to the presidency? If the founding fathers themselves say that foreign influence was to be avoided at all costs, and they did, it’s a no-brainer that someone born with dual allegiances isn’t their idea of a natural-born citizen. S.R. 511 was a smokescreen to take the attention off Obama’s status and stick it on John McCain. There’s a very good reason why they didn’t investigate Obama just as much as there’s a good reason why Obama sponsored S. 2678 AND S.R. 511 – to dupe the public.

    Many of us remember that lady in the crowd during the Townhall with John McCain? She protested that Obama was a foreigner and what did McCain do? He ripped the microphone out of her hand. You knew something was up with that even before he ran back to Washington to support TARP bills that Obama makes look like petty change compared to what he did.

    I’m not going to say anymore about the proof of what the founding fathers meant, because that proof, starting with the Revolutionary War has already gone to attorneys. But I will say that history shows that the only reason we even allowed foreigners, not native-born and following the condition of their fathers as Americans, into our counsels was because of the French assistance in the Revolutionary War. That debt, if it were to be perceived to belong to anyone, belonged to the French, not anyone else. If the perceived debt to them wasn’t there, the framers already said they would have had NO foreigners among us. They didn’t even encourage immigration, except for people who could contribute something around here. Nowadays, these foreigners and dual-citizens think they can just plant their butts here and leech off the commonwealth with impunity! The people sanctioning this problem and encouraging it are going to have it bite them in the butt real soon, either by way of changing this country in ways you never saw or anticipated or watching Americans take this country back. One of the two is definitely going to happen.

  17. Leo,

    You said:
    “1. person born on US soil
    2. person is subject to the jurisdiction of the US”

    You have no documents to support the assumption of any of these points as it pertains to Obama.

    [Ed. Never said I did. I’m saying, that for the sake of argument – ASSUMING he does have them – he’s still was NOT even a citizen of the US at birth under the holding in Wong Kim Ark – never mind nbc – because his father was never permanently domiciled in the US. I’m saying as to whether Wong Kim Ark applies to Obama, the first two are not enough to grant him US citizen status at birth under that case. Please, try to read things more carefully. I want to see his long form BC too. But the legal issue of whether he’s eligible to be President does not rest on where he was born. Whether he was born on the mall in DC before a million witnesses or born in Kenya the result is still the same, he can’t be President under the Constitution and the relevant SCOTUS cases of Minor, Elg and Elk and even Wong Kim Ark.]

    Internet Adobe Photoshop JPEGS are NOT proof of actual documents, although real documents might exist. The facts are, we have no facts. The Obama admission that he had multiple citizenships at birth, should be enough to get a SCOTUS opinion on a 200 year old Constitutional requirment. Personally, I believe the answer lies in the ‘discovery’, and no US court, not even the SCOTUS, is ever going to allow that.

    Leo, do we still have a Constitutional republic and do we still have rule of law? Take a look at the recent investigator firings, does the POTUS answer to anyone? Does Congress even read spending bills, or just stamp them-Stimulus Bill? Does the Constitution allow for public money to build private civilian armies-Americorp? Does the Constitution allow for stealing from private citizens to enrich political supporters–GM?

  18. Hello Leo,
    Regarding the argument put forth that the Laws of a foreign country should not matter to the US, it was held in Perkins v. Elg that Organic Law (Natural Law?) of the US recognizes Treaties within and statutes of foreign countries as a determinant in deciding questions of Nationality and naturalization. I noticed that it did not say “Common Law” of the US.
    From Elg:
    “Assuming that Alexander Bohn [the father] never became a citizen of the United States, Jacob Bohn [the son] was born of German parents in the United States. According to the Constitution and laws of the United States as interpreted by the courts, a child born to alien parents in the United States is an American citizen, although such child may also be a citizen of the country of his parents according to the law of that country.”

    So according to this holding the Laws of Britain would certainly apply to Obama. Notice also that it deemed Mr. Bohn, born of parents not yet naturalized in the US as an “American Citizen” (although only in deferrence to WKA, since he would clearly not be subject to the sole jurisdiction of the US).

    [Ed. Good post, but it’s important to note in the Elg case that the Bohn issue was only mentioned in Dicta as the issue appeared in a legal memo prepared by a Government agency and the court just used the ruling by way of comparing it to the Elg case. Ms. Elg was born on US soil and her parents were both naturalized US citizens by the time she was born and as such she was deemed to be a natural born citizen.]

  19. Leo,

    A Question: Why does the U.S. State Department manual you cite include reference to The Act of 1790 in their paragraph noting the Constitution does not define “natural born”? Why include this? Especially given the very next paragraph notes that the 1790 Act no longer applies!

    This strikes me as the State Department’s expression, for their staff’s easy comprehension, of the long accepted understanding of what nbc has meant going back to 1790. Otherwise, it’s a very odd statement to include in a government manual. Admittedly, this may hold little or no “legal” value for our current struggle, but in the realm of public opinion it might help.


    [Ed. I have pointed out before that they failed to mention the act of 1790 was repealed in 1795 but only as to the words “natural born”. It’s just weird the way they mention that. I agree.]

  20. I want to thank you for all of your work. I was never an Obama supporter, did plenty of due diligence on him in other aspects, but blew off the natural born thing as kind of a non issue. I guess I really did not understand or gave much thought to it. In my mind I thought Mom was citizen, end of story. It was just before the election when I began the research, and I am thankful for what I have learned from you and absolutely appalled at what has occurred. Why would John McCain not have questioned this? or Hillary for that matter? What in God’s name could their agenda been in this?? I agree with you the forum should not be about the BC, do you think we will ever see this resolved???

    [Ed. I think at the top echelons of power, it’s all one gang. They make it look like we have a choice, but Clinton, Bush, McCain, Obama… etc. It’s all one club and they don’t really love us now do they.]

  21. Leo,

    Is any law passed by Congress that purports to define terms in the Constitution itself Constitutional? I am now aware of at least two attempts by Congress to do so.

    One is the Senate Bill 2678 mentioned above that says:
    Congress finds and declares that the term `natural born Citizen’ in article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States shall include: `Any person born to any citizen of the United States while serving in the active or reserve components of the United States Armed Forces’.

    The other is Senate Bill 2128 introduced by Senator Nickles (R, OK) on February 25, 2004.

    (a) IN GENERAL- Congress finds and declares that the term `natural born Citizen’ in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States means–

    (1) any person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and

    (2) any person born outside the United States–

    (A) who derives citizenship at birth from a United States citizen parent or parents pursuant to an Act of Congress; or

    (B) who is adopted by 18 years of age by a United States citizen parent or parents who are otherwise eligible to transmit citizenship to a biological child pursuant to an Act of Congress.

    (b) UNITED STATES- In this section, the term `United States’, when used in a geographic sense, means the several States of the United States and the District of Columbia.

    [Ed. I do not believe it’s the job of Congress to decide what the meaning of a Constitutional clause is. That’s the job of the judiciary. It’s ridiculous. ]

  22. Mr. Donofrio,

    In a previous comment you said, “We are fighting an intellectual war of words.” I have to say that I disagree with you on this point.

    You’ve roundly refuted every argument against you. You’re winning the “battle” of intellectual words, but this battle is so far removed from the war that it currently makes no difference. All the scholarly research and irrefutable logic in the world will not win this “war.”

    None of the lawsuits surrounding this issue are being dismissed because of standing. They are being dismissed because they have no attention. If your case had had public attention from government officials or the mainsteam media, you can bet SCOTUS would have given it a full hearing or at least a public explanation of dismissal.

    [Ed. My understanding of power is different than yours. Suffice it to say that SCOTUS is going to do what they’re told. That’s just my humble opinion. If you really want my honest opinion, the only way justice is coming is through God, angels and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. But everybody gets to make a choice who they’re gonna be with. Still, I feel a responsibility to speak truth to power. Power isn’t listening.]

    If the public was actually aware of the facts, things would be very different right now. This is a war of awareness and it is fought with the weapons of censorship and distraction. It has little to do with intellect, logic, or even law.

    In the previous thread, Nedd K. asked about what is preventing every single government official from speaking out on this issue. This question really weighs heavily on my heart because I know that just one outspoken representative of the people would make a huge difference, and others would likely follow. Consider what C. S. Lewis said in The Magician’s Nephew, “And if enemies came against the land (for enemies will arise) and there was war, would you be the first in the charge and the last in the retreat? … Then … you will have done all that a King should do.”

    We have no kingly officers in our government. Instead, they stand on the Hill and wait to see how the battle unfolds before charging in. They are simply watching as people are massacred – literally, when you consider Iran. (Would a natural born, loyal leader of the world’s symbol of freedom allow this slaughter to continue?) Sure, if any of these lawsuits actually get somewhere and the tide of the battle magically turns, you’ll see all kinds of “kings” charge in. But the battle needed leadership yesterday. Again, consider Lt. Col. David A. Earl-Graef’s question, “… who among them are willing to be the first, if any, to rise to [this great land’s] defense when it is still not clear that they should profit themselves by it.” Even if a champion does come forth now, the opportunity to have earned my vote is passed. I’ll agree with what he says and speak out against his opponents, but I will also remember that he should have said it sooner and that people are suffering because of his delay.

    Nedd K. also said, “If there is an issue that compels term limits and the full removal of all 535 senators and Congressmen, this is it.” I completely agree. People fail to see the damage that the process of reelection does to this country. Officials should be limited to one term only. Anything more encourages a conflict of interest while serving in office. If the term lengths are too short make them longer, but we absolutely must remove the possibility of reelection from our system.


  23. Thanks Leo, for blending work, life and art on such an important topic.

    I am concerned about one thing. As you know, in audio, there is a thing called “stereo” and then there is “dual mono.”

    The matter of “dual citizenship” can and I think has mislead in a similar way.

    The British Citizenship of Obama at birth is mutually distinct. That he was also born with American Citizenship is not relevant to the paternal expression or the unequivocal, singular fact of his being a British Citizen at birth.

    This raises a point of law which was a known product of Obama’s candidacy; a question of law which he brought and has a duty to address; a point of law which he has selectively addressed in a manner, which, implies some guilty knowledge of this duty underlying his obfuscations.

    The argument stands that Obama been unfaithful to the Constitution in the matter of discharging that duty; it is he who admits to being a British Citizen; it is he who sought to be elected President of the United States.

    The singularity of his British Citizenship at birth is the cardinal issue.

  24. June 25, 2009

    Exclusive: Judge Accepting Letters in Lawsuit Re. Birth Certificate QuestionThe Editors

    Judge Joel Schneider is accepting letters in the Kerchner vs. Obama birth certificate case and will include them in the file if received by Monday, June 29th.

    If you’re concerned about the Constitutional issues surrounding the birth certificate controversy, this is your chance to let your opinions be known. Security for families and for all Americans rests on the principles of law, and subversion of the Constitution is not in anyone’s best interests.

    Send your letters to:

    Hon. U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider
    U.S. District Court
    401 Market Street
    Camden, NJ 08102-1568

    FAX 856-757-5370
    Link to the story:

    [Ed. Kerchner v. Obama is not just about the BC issue, Mr. Apuzzo has included the dual nationality issue and he is very educated on that issue. The pleadings have extensive arguments thereto. Thanks for pointing out the letter option.]

  25. Hi Leo,

    Re: Linda of SD writing:

    “I, as you, am worried that these grand juries will moot the effort of educating the public as to the real threat to our Republic when Obama does produce his birth certificate.”

    I am involved with the grand juries and find her comment very misleading. I cannot go into the evidence the citizen grand jurors have seen, but it is not about Obama’s BC! Whether these CGJs have any legal impact or not, I believe they do throw weight behind the whole thrust to get the Obama issue aired out once and for all. Sooner or later the truth will come out. For the continuation of this country as we know it, it can’t be soon enough.

    Another point, or actually question, is in regard to your comment,

    “And I hate to tell Jim VanNest this, but it’s not a straw man that children followed the condition of the father. It’s known as partus sequitur patrem and was the norm of established law in this country going back to even before the founding fathers, who also stood by it.”

    Okay, I understand that, but it must be a completely different issue then when in one of your posts way back you said if a mother renounces her citizenship, she can’t renounce her children’s for them, or words to that effect. I assume mothers and fathers play a different legal role in their children’s citizenship, no?

    [Ed. I believe both mothers and fathers play the same role but the issue is getting cloud now. Natural born citizen status goes back to time of birth. Renouncing citizenship is only a citizenship issue it wouldnt effec whether a person was nbc at birth. ]


    the whole goverment group are a bunch of s.o.bs. they truly are lower than pond scumb. what a vial bunch of no goodnicks. 535 making decisions for 310 million.

  27. Ok, this came up on FSM this afternoon and silly me, I figured that I shoul dpost it here so that people who are tintersted in thsi issue can WRITE the Judge in this case and give him a lot more food for thought…. you can send your letter in by fax or mail, not email, but they give the fax phone number so you can fax it and it has to be in by Monday, 6-29-09. If you go to the FSM website, the Background Information topic list is highlighted/linked and you can click on the links there for ideas and information on that subject. But I am so positive that all of you here will be able to put your thoughts down without much help from other places….. Here is the whole notice:

    FSM Website: http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.3582/pub_detail.asp

    June 25, 2009

    Exclusive: Judge Accepting Letters in Lawsuit Re. Birth Certificate Question
    The Editors

    Judge Joel Schneider is accepting letters in the Kerchner vs. Obama birth certificate case and will include them in the file if received by Monday, June 29th.

    If you’re concerned about the Constitutional issues surrounding the birth certificate controversy, this is your chance to let your opinions be known. Security for families and for all Americans rests on the principles of law, and subversion of the Constitution is not in anyone’s best interests.

    Send your letters to:

    Hon. U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider
    U.S. District Court
    401 Market Street
    Camden, NJ 08102-1568

    FAX 856-757-5370

    Background information:

    The Obama Birth Certificate Controversy – Not a Political Issue, but a Legal One

    Fined and Sanctioned for Seeking Truth about Obama’s Eligibility?

    Obama Attorney Threatens Distinguished Veteran on Obama Birth Certificate Issue: Why?

    A Letter to Rupert Murdoch on the Obama Birth Certificate Question

    A Letter to Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on the Obama Birth Certificate Question

    A Letter to Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on the Obama Birth Certificate Question – Round Two

    The Birth Certificate Question: An Open Letter to Shephard Smith at FOX News

    Brought to you by the editors and research staff of FamilySecurityMatters.org.

  28. Linda SD Says:

    re: Kathy Says: I am involved with the grand juries and find her comment very misleading.

    Kathy, I am not trying to mislead anyone. What I am trying to do is to keep this in perspective as to the time Obama was born. There were laws in place that made it illegal for mixed raced ralationships and then the fact that Obama’s mother was not of legal age when she became pregnant.

    And for all the claims of him being born in Kenya, these are only speculation and we must keep things in reality that there is a high probablility that he was “not” born in a hospital. We have no clue as to why he continues to withhold his vault BC. For all we know it could just be his arrogance due to his narcissistic tendencies.

    The real crime here is the usurpation of the Constitution and the NBC clause. I truly believe in my heart and gut that Obama, as a constitutional lawyer, knew very well of the Chester Arthur history that Leo uncovered and due to that discovery Leo made, Obama is using the birth certificate to throw the bone in the opposite direction of the truth.

    I do not know what evidence the grand juries have, but from the lack of expedience in any court taking action, I can only presume the evidence is all circumstantial and not the compelling/hard evidence needed to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the charges/presentments that have been filed in all the courts.

    Please do not be discouraged by my comments, they are my opinion. They are comments to keep my feet as well as others on the ground and working to get the Constitutional issue resolved for all future generations. If by chance the grand juries get Obama removed under some other charge, that is great, but it would still leave the constitutional issue unresolved for future elections and that is unacceptable to me.

    Kathy, Thank you for understanding and God’s peace be with you,



    [Ed. Chill on the caps form now on. Also, be careful what you wish for. Hypothetically speaking, since you are demanding to see his BC, what will you say if he shows it to you and it’s legit.?]

  30. It’s no wonder Barry got elected and is still there; no one can even agree on what basic laws mean?

    Did anyone bother to analyze the SECOND requirement for President?

    “…neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”

    Let’s do a basic MATH analysis – Candidate A (natural born, all agree) is 42 years old and has resided in the US for 14 years (consecutively); 42 – 14 = 28.

    Candidate A has LIVED (without accepting Foreign “status”) overseas (numerous location – irrelevant) TWICE as long as he/she has resided in the US (Eligible for President)!

    Were the Framers foolish or were they trying to make a point?

    It’s NOT about geography – it’s about ALLEGIANCE!

    This would (sensibly) apply to a child’s birth as well and the case “rulings” that are referred to here are simply FALSE and any 2nd rate Attorney can EASILY argue against them and win!

    VATTEL’S writings are the most accurate and the reason why the Framers changed the terminology in the Acts of 1790 and 1795 – because allegiance MAY be compromised in a Foreign Country.

    Therefore, “natural born” status is NOT automatic (unless it can be shown that it was not an attempt to “quit” one’s Country or accept dual loyalty).

    This is really getting ridiculous – at this rate, the President of Iran (Ahmadinejad) will be the next US President!

    Wake up and let’s get the ball rolling….

  31. Bro Leo You are still my adopted FOUNDING FATHER*** Great job you are doing, in fact a trachers teacher, Blessings upon you dear man of Christ!!!

  32. Leo.
    Very good discussion of Vattel.


    I’m not sure if I saw this quote on your site, from B. Franklin on Law of Nations’ influence on the Framers.

    “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

  33. Liz said:
    “I personally believe that the Republicans are not pursuing this issue in order to leave the door open for Bobby Jindal to run for POTUS”

    I completely agree. It’s the only rational argument I can see for the Republican party ignoring the Obama eligibility issue. I still can’t understand why the ruthless Clinton organization didn’t attempt to capitalize on it.

    The Jindal situation is different than McCain since Jindal was undoubtedly born on U.S. soil in Louisiana – it’s the citizenship of his parents which clouds the issue. I don’t believe they could have earned naturalized citizen status in the brief time they were in the U.S. prior to Jindal’s birth. Hence, Jindal cannot be an Article II “natural born citizen”.

    Ultimately SCOTUS will need to engage on the nbc issue and provide a constitutional definition, otherwise we’ll be having this argument forever as our population becomes even more ethnically diverse than it already is. I can’t wait to read the blogs when the child of illegal immigrants runs for POTUS.

    [Ed. Doesn’t it seem just a little bit odd to any of you that this election the GOP condidate, out of all possibel candidates had an eligibility issue and the front runner for the next election for the GOP also has an elgibility issue? Smell the coffee people. The matrix is talking. I don’t believe in random coincidences when it comes to politics.]

  34. Leo,
    I have contacted my two FL Senators (Martinez and Nelson), neither one has ever shown an inkling of backbone in the past, but should they respond to the question of “why does Congress think it’s important that a child born abroad needs two US citizen parents to qualify as NBC”, as per SR511, then I will certainly post their response here.

    But I’m not holding my breath. I fully expect to get a response that is canned and likely doesn’t even refer to the actual question. I truly believe that they have some intern reading the questions and the intern uses all of their worldly wisdom (sarcasm) to pick a canned answer from a database even if the answer doesn’t correlate in any way to the question.



  36. “Okay, I understand that, but it must be a completely different issue then when in one of your posts way back you said if a mother renounces her citizenship, she can’t renounce her children’s for them, or words to that effect. I assume mothers and fathers play a different legal role in their children’s citizenship, no?”

    Kathy, I don’t know where you got this from. I not only never thought it, I don’t recall saying any such thing. Quote me, don’t put words in my mouth, thanks.

    The last thing I said before the other day on these forums was in reference to Albert Gallatin. You’ve got the wrong person.

    I maintain that in order to define natural-born citizen, it goes to what the framers meant by it, with an understanding of the laws of that time period, not reinterpreted using laws the framers never contemplated.

  37. John Jay Says:

    IF Leo give his permission

    Anyone who wants to write to the Judges on the Kirchner case can post them here, I can copy them onto a word program, print them and fax them. This way it will not cost any of you anything to get your letters in. This is the last day. Mario is doing all he can, we should at least do this small thing to assist. Please, This is something we can all do. Don’t forget to type in your name, if you can scan your digital signature and paste it onto you letter that would be great.

  38. Mr. Donofrio,

    In reply to my comment, you said, “Still, I feel a responsibility to speak truth to power.”

    I absolutely agree. My comment may have been a bit gloomy, but that’s not to say that the battle should not be fought. Your efforts, as well as those of others fighting the intellectual battle, are necessary.

    I also agree with your opinion about the only way we will truly have justice. If there’s anything this situation has taught us, it’s that we cannot put our ultimate faith in people. A true supreme court does exist, and the Judge is man of principle. He can see past all the deception, and He knows that no man is free of guilt. As long as we trust in His Son as our representation our justice will be tempered with forgiveness.


  39. I came across this article on one of the patriot sites. I am forwarding it to you, hoping it has value to you. Being a layperson, I am not qualified to discuss the technical merits of this matter. I feel you would be a better source to analyze the value of this matter. I hope this does, in fact, prove to be of value.

    Here is the link to the source of the attached article:


    [Ed. Good luck with that one. It’s not going to fly.]

  40. Thanks Linda of S.D. Sorry, bit I need to clear up another misstatement regarding the judges deeming the CGJ evidence as circumstantial. What you don’t understand is that, like most of the lawsuits on this issue, the CGJ presentments have yet to get to court (although there may be one that is getting there), so no judge has even laid eyes on the evidence we have seen!

    The CGJ movement is a viable, additional prong in the collective efforts that have been and continue to be underway. But when good-intentioned folks make pronouncements not based on fact, then I need to speak up.

  41. P.S. to Linda (then you can stick a fork in me ’cause I’m done!)

    I’d say most of us at Leo’s blog are well aware of the Constitutional NBC issue, thanks to all research Leo has done over the past x number of months. The citizen grand jury members are also well aware of the real issue. What I take issue to is your statement,

    “I do not know what evidence the grand juries have, but from the lack of expedience in any court taking action, I can only presume the evidence is all circumstantial and not the compelling/hard evidence needed to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the charges/presentments that have been filed in all the courts.”

    You don’t know and you presume. That combination is dangerous and how misinformation gets put out.

    If you want to get some general information about the CGJ movement (although you will not get access to the evidence or any of the secret GJ proceedings), you can check out http://www.americangrandjury.org

  42. if he shows birth certificate and it is legitament, i will say what passport did he use to visit Indonesia. Sorry about using caps, i am 85, my eyes are fair, but i feel it is easier for all to read. What he is doing to this country is tragic. I for one wish I were dead to see my country and my/your/our constitution trashed as it be ging done today. Nobody seems to care, don’t want to get involved. I hope and pray Jesus will come back and kick all the rotten power hungry, greedy people out of the country and use the Lake of Fire at his discretion. If I sound upset, I am and will continue to be upset until that illegal person is impeached.

  43. Leo,
    If you’ve covered this already, my apologies because I haven’t read this entire blog.

    Republicans like me love Bobby Jindal, and for good reason many believe he should run for President. However, he has a similar citizenship issue. By your analysis of the Constitution, he is not a natural-born citizen. In his case, neither parent was a citizen at Bobby’s birth. He is simply an anchor baby.

    According to Wikipedia, “Piyush Amrit Jindal was born on June 10, 1971 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to Punjabi Indian Agrawal immigrants Amar and Raj Jindal, who had recently arrived for Amar to attend graduate school at Louisiana State University.[1] His father, Amar, left India and his ancestral family village of Khanpura in 1970,[6].”

    Since the media and the Democrats (oops, they’re the same) fear popular and successful Republicans like Jindal, they will grab any opportunity to argue that he shouldn’t be President. Why not give them the ammunition to do so by writing an article about Jindal and his citizenship status? The media would hop onto that story like a pack of wolves. Wouldn’t that open the door for us to compare both Obama’s and Jindal’s citizenship status?

    Your blog is of course the natural place to write such an article, but I really think you should consider submitting an article to American Thinker. Their articles are picked up regularly by Rush Limbaugh, Drudge and others. You’ll find information about making submissions at http://www.americanthinker.com/static/contact_information.html

  44. P.S. “American Thinker publishes previously unpublished material only. We are not an aggregator of material available elsewhere. AT will only review unpublished manuscripts. Please do not submit material which has appeared on the web, including on a personal website or blog. After publication, authors are free to post their own material to other websites, so long as they note its prior publication on AT, and provide a hyperlink to the original. “

  45. Kamira, there is some confusion. The comment I made asking about a mother being able to revoke her child’s citizenship was meant for Leo and he responded to it.

  46. just read the site the betrayal, said people are going to protest the cap and trade bill, said thousands of phone calls to washington, dc put down the phone lines and the tea party people are arranging a protest at noon on today saturday at local city halls to protest this bill which will increase our power bills. not sure how true, but any news is good news at this time.

  47. Mr. Donofrio,

    Are you not missing an important angle of attack (and possible defeat) by NOT including and investigating the adoption and name change of Barry?

    This case is really amazing.

    I don’t think we need Holmes and Watson to solve it – I think Scooby and Shaggy could get this done with SO much evidence at hand – even a signed “confession” (Barry’s book and website gives enough details to convict).

    This “event” has obviously exposed the level of corruption in this Country – this is total INSANITY!

    Good luck to Mr. Swensson on Monday – quite brave – hope it works and everyone is safe!

  48. Claudia Says:

    Through Leo to John Jay per the ability for you to send by fax to Judge Scheneider, our letters; here is my letter. If you Leo,, could post this so that John Jay can scan it, and them please let me know that it has been done, John Jay, I would appreciate forever, your offorts on this project;;

    Hon. U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider
    U.S. District Court
    401 Market Street
    Camden, NJ 08102-1568

    FAX 856-757-5370

    You Honor, Judge Schneider, Dear Sir:
    You have made an open appeal and are allowing the general public to have some input on the question about Barack Obama’s “Natural Born Citizen” status. I am answering that appeal the best way that I can. In Civics Class way back in the 1960’s when I went to High School in California, we were taught that in order to assume the OFFICE OF PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, one had to have in their ability and profession,
    be a natural born citizen of the United States;
    be at least thirty-five years old;
    have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.

    (And, Or)
    of Birth
    (And, Or)
    Legal Reference

    Natural Born Citizen

    Both are U. S. Citizens
    Born in the U.S. mainland

    US Constitution
    Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl. 5

    U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,
    169 U.S. 649 (1898)

    Perkins v. Elg,
    307 U.S. 325 (1939)

    The Founders wanted the President to be a Natural Born Citizen to ensure that the ONE person sitting at the top of the Executive branch had UNQUESTIONABLE, UNWAVERING loyalty to the United States, first and foremost.

    At one point, the delegates writing the Constitution in 1787 considered THREE “presidents” in the Executive for “checks and balances.” They considered a “natural born citizen” clause for Senators as well. Debating those issues, they felt that a “natural born citizen” clause for Senators would limit the pool of possible candidates and could cause bad feelings with immigrants needed to “jump start” the newly-formed republic.

    In the end, the Framers compromised that Senators be required to be US residents for 9 years, while striking the “natural born citizen” clause for the office.

    The Framers also compromised on ONE Executive vs. THREE. But to ensure “checks and balances,” the Framers inserted in Art II, Sect. 1, Clause 5: “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 natural born citizen clause was NOT an accident, nor was it an inane rule to be restrictive to immigrants, and it certainly isn’t just a “political” issue. Loyalty to the US is the reason the natural born citizen clause was inserted into the Constitution.

    In the official copies of the THIRD U.S. Congress (1795) margin notes state “Former act repealed. 1790. ch. 3.” referencing the FIRST U.S. Congress (1790).

    Document ONE: the actual text of the THIRD CONGRESS in 1795 states, “…children of citizens [plural, i.e. two parents] of the United States…shall be considered citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States…” (THIRD CONGRESS Sess. II. Ch.21. 1795, Approved January 29, 1795, pp. 414-415. Document margin note: “How children shall obtain citizenship through their parents” Document margin note: “Former Act repealed 1790 ch.3.”) See Attachment A.

    Document TWO: the actual text of the FIRST CONGRESS in 1790 states,
    “…children of citizens (NB: plural, i.e. two parents) of the United States…shall be considered as natural born citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States…” (FIRST CONGRESS Sess. II Ch.4 1790, Approved March 26, 1790, pp. 103-104. Document margin note: “Their children residing here, deemed citizens.” Document margin note: “Also, children of citizens born beyond sea, & c. Exceptions.”) See Attachment B.

    Document THREE: the actual text of the Constitution from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789, and subsequent official printings, of the Constitution of the United States of American: Article II Section 1 Clause 5 states,
    “No person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President…”

    All U. S. military personal and every other American under oath to protect and defend the U. S. Constitution will be duty bound to remove the fraudulent usurper. This situation is REGARDLESS of votes, electors, media blackouts, high profile embarrassments, state court decisions, supreme court actions or inaction, birth certificates real or forged, or any other documents — Obama can NOT LEGALLY BE The US President.

    No documentation is required. Everyone should understand and KNOW the answer to the question of what country is the country of which Obama was a natural born citizen. It is IMPOSSIBLE for Barry Obama, Barry Soetoro, or Barack Hussein Obama II, to be a natural born United States citizen. Obama can NOT POSSIBLY be a “natural born citizen” of the U. S. because his father, Barack Hussein Obama Senior, was a subject of Great Britain and a citizen of Kenya. He was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed Obama’s status until he was 21 years of age. That is stated on Obama’s own website, http://www.fightthesmears.com under his direct supervision.

    The question I have is HOW CAN A “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” of the United States of America EVER come under the laws and jurisdiction (as in GOVERNED by) of Great Britain in any circumstance?? IF, and he has stated many times, his father was a Kenyan/British subject because of the British Nationality Act of 1948, there is absolutely NO WAY that Barack Obama, Jr., can ever be a “Natural Born Citizen” of the United States of America.

    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.

    Whether Obama was born in Hawaii, Kenya, or the moon, is irrelevant. Birth documents, real or forged, are irrelevant. Yes, even VOTES ARE IRRELEVANT. Even Supreme Court action, or inaction, is irrelevant. It is simply FRAUD and illegal for Obama to be put in the office of U. S. President by any means or reason.

    Obama is at the epicenter of the greatest national disaster in the history of the United States. NOTHING that Obama would ever do in the office of U. S. President could ever be anything other than FRAUD and ILLEGAL.

    With these things all understood by me and many millions of people the world over, why is it that NO ONE has taken the initiative to have Obama prove to WE THE PEOPLE that he is an eligible person to occupy the White House as is his expected duty? Are you going to be the one to show the world and the Unites States one way or the other, just exactly who we have as a President, a Citizen (which he undoubtedly is) or a QUALIFIED “Natural Born Citizen” as is required by several laws and articles in the Constitution?

    In closing this, I am including several other names with mine in this quest that you have granted we should seek, because they do not have access to fax machines and/or computers thus they asked me to include their names for them in my letter to you.

    They are all asking the same question and deeply desiring a valid answer so that they, along with me, can accept that Barack Obama is NOT breaking the Laws of this land and Shredding our Constitution on a daily basis by his lack of Honor in Standing as eligible to be President, so here are their names:

    Ms. Marsha Robinson, Marysville, CA.; Ms. Joyce Mathia, Modesto, CA.; Ms. Melissa Banta, Marysville, CA.; Ms. Elizabeth Merritt, Marysville, CA.; Ms. Fatima Norwood, Yuba City, CA.; Mr. Turek Harris, Yuba City, CA.; Ms. Denise McClendon, Loma Rica, CA.; Mr. Frederick Jones, Marysville, CA.,

    Sincerely yours,

    Claudia VanLydegaf
    17890 Fantail Cir. Reno, NV. 89508-8847

  49. Mr. Donofrio,

    It is very good to have you back and voicing elequently what some of us lack the capacity to (I know…don’t end a sentence with a preposition).

    Anyway, some of us KNOW the truth and will standfast to such until…who can say?

    Thanks very much for your strong character, commitment, and devotion to our nation.

    I hope someday to share several beers and an evening of good live music in your company.

    -1SG Nosworthy

  50. Linda SD Says:

    RE: Kathy

    You obviously haven’t taken time to visit my website. I am very informed on the grand juries and what their purpose is. I am not a random commenter, I have been following Leo’s sites from the beginning, but I do not rely entirely on Leo’s information. I spend an enormous amount of time researchiing myself, much to the displeasure os my husband, but he has now gotten on board and supports all the hours I spend researching, educating myself and educating others as to the “Constitutional” usurpation by Obama, McCain and company.

    The fact of the matter is, I was very on board with the grand jury right after Leo brought it to our attention( you can read about it at my blog), but as time went by, I realized that although it could be used as a tool to remove Obama, it still would leave the constitutional eligilbilty issue unresolved and as as I stated in my last post, “That is not an acceptable outcome to me”.

    My fight is along side Leo in working to resolve and restore our constitution which is now even more shredded after the
    “cap & trade” passage in the House this week. A bill that gives…and I quote: “full faith and credit of the United States” to creditors/bond holders(aka foreign govts) in regards to our real estate aka our private homes and businesses. Did you take time to listen to any of the floor debate or take time to read any of the bill?

    My husband & I are set to take over the family homestead (1893) in the very near future. This land has been in the family since it was 1st settled and I refuse to let the government come in and take it away because of some deal they made with the devil, so it is with that passion that I will fight to restore the constitution by educating those, who are not educated in the constitution, so that we can have a future with elected officials who take pride in their oath of office.


    God’s peace,


  51. Since obfuscation and outright deception are Obama’s trademark behaviors, I wonder how many bloggers here are aware that renowned author Jack Cashill has done an intensive literary forensic analysis of “Dreams From My Father”. Other similarly qualified people have done similarly. The conclusion of these analyses? Bill Ayers wrote Obama’s book. Here are the opening remarks of Cashill’s latest article on American Thinker. Of course, this should really be a surprise because all you have to do is listen to his speech patterns when he’s not using a teleprompter. Among other things, he frequently uses the article “a” when he should use “an”.

    June 28, 2009
    Breakthrough on the Authorship of Obama’s ‘Dreams’
    By Jack Cashill

    Within days of my going public last September with the speculation that terrorist emeritus Bill Ayers helped Barack Obama write his acclaimed memoir, Dreams From My Father, I learned that I was not alone in that intuition.

    Since then, I have received helpful contributions from serious people in at least five countries and any number of states and have integrated many of their observations into my ongoing narrative, summarized here.”

  52. Questions for Mr. Obama!

    Can someone just ask “HIM” ( Mr.OBAMA) the right questions:
    Why do you think you are exempt from Art.2 Sec. 1 Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution ?

    As an Harvard Constitutional Law expert, how did you ( Mr. OBAMA ) avoid the Constitutional requirement
    that states our President must be a “Natural Born Citizen” , that would be a Native born Citizen “and “ both parents must be US Citizens at the time of birth?

    He ( Mr.Obama )wrote in one of his books that his father was a citizen
    of Kenya at the time of his birth and he was a British subject at birth.( and his mother was under age )

    Before we CHANGE,to much, i HOPE!

  53. Pieter Noseworthy:

    I wouldn’t worry about the preposition at the sentence end; after all, Winston Churchill was once taken to task by an editor for that very offense after clumsily rewording one of his sentences to avoid said offense and Winnie responded to the complainer:

    “This is the sort of English up with which I will not put.”

  54. JP-research Says:

    Technical Question:

    Does “marriage” matter regarding the question of NBC eligibility, in “parents who are citizens” or, could a child born out-of-wedlock with both parents citizens also be eligible?

    [Ed. Your parent is your parent… I don’t see how it matters as to nbc status. Perhaps it might matter to citizen status, but not nbc. If you’ve got two US citizen parents and are born in US then you are nbc regardless of whether parents are married.]

  55. The US Attorney’s office has submitted a motion to dismiss Kerchner v. Obama.

    Y’all can expect that instead of a discovery phase in this trial you will see an abrupt dismissal on the grounds that the NJ court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the case; that the plaintiffs do not have standing to raise the suit, or that they have not shown an “injury” sufficient to press a lawsuit. (The results of a lost election just do not count!)

    For one or all of those reasons, this case will get flushed too!

  56. [Ed. Doesn’t it seem just a little bit odd to any of you that this election the GOP condidate, out of all possibel candidates had an eligibility issue and the front runner for the next election for the GOP also has an elgibility issue? Smell the coffee people. The matrix is talking. I don’t believe in random coincidences when it comes to politics.]

    McCain, sadly, won the primaries. The votes were counted fairly. No conspiracy here. Jindal has all but taken himself out of the running for the next election, and isn’t going to be the nominee even if he runs. Sarah Palin is likely to be the standard bearer, bless her good soul. The matrix is not talking.

    [Ed. McCain won the primaries? How does that change my analysis? You still believe in Santa Clause? McCain miraculously won primaries? Geez. Don’t you know it’s allscripted or did you not get the memo? As for Jindal, just the fact that he’s being considered and spoken of as a possible candidate by credible GOP resources sanitized Obama’s eligibility.]

  57. Most of the cases regarding BHO’s lack of ability for office have been dismissed because of a lack of standing. Why cannot someone on trial for a federal crime bring a motion which argues the Federal Prosecutors bringing the criminal complaint have no authority since they were not appointed by someone who is qualified to be President. That would be a central fact in the case and I would believe could not be dismissed for lack of standing. What if every defendant involved in a Federal trial across the country raised this argument at the same time. The courts would have to react.

    Also, why could not someone who is on trial in front of a judge appointed by BHO claim the judge had no authority.

    What if the government tried to collect a debt from a citizen who raised this defense. What if every person in such a civil trial raised the same defense.

    What about an action raised by someone directly affected by a law or regulation that was signed by BHO or was enacted or approved by someone appointed by BHO claiming the law or regulation was invalid because of a lack of authority by BHO. What if there were thousands of lawsuits against the validity of any such law or regulation.

    Keep up the good fight

    [Ed. That argument won’t fly in criminal cases… In civil cases it can work, but not criminal. If you commit a crime you’re going to pay for it.]

  58. Ed. McCain won the primaries? How does that change my analysis? You still believe in Santa Clause? McCain miraculously won primaries? Geez. Don’t you know it’s allscripted or did you not get the memo?

    Millions of voters would have had to have been working in the matrix. He didn’t miraculously win, he won through hard work. Wasn’t scripted in the matrix, the stars or anywhere else.

    I really appreciate your work on the NBC issue. I believe you have it right.

    The Supreme Court may be scripted, for all I know, but not those republican primaries.

    Palin 2012

    [Ed. Computers count votes now. I don’t trust the system at all… no freakin way do I have even the slightest bit of trust for our voting systems. This issue is so sad… the fact that we’ve allowed our votes to be computerized and that software is inherently more corruptable than human nature.]

  59. Starbeau Says:

    I attempted to fax the court this morning. The fax would not answer and I phoned the court and the lady on the other end stated that the fax was shut off because of too many faxes relative to the “Obama” case.

    She said they would only accept letters, so the faxes were sent by US Mail. I put a note relative to that on the copy to Attorney Mario Apuzzo.

    I believe faxes are a legitimate method of sending a legal document and for the court to deny that method of communication seems to me to be severely restrictive in that many will not send the letter by mail. I hope they will.

  60. John Jay Says:

    The judges in the Kirchner case are no longer accepting faxes.
    I did not receive one single response to my offer.

    Such concerned citizens. I read about all this outrage and how important our Constitution is and all the concerns you all have, but you will not take the simplest action beyond pounding your keyboards and preaching to the choir.

    You want to know how Obama got away with this, look in the mirror. Leo was right you deserve what is happening. You are nothing more keyboard patriots.

  61. John Jay Says:

    Correction on prior post. I did fax a letter from Claudia VanLydegaf. Thank you Claudia. I also sent it via USPS today, I changed the name of the Judge. As per Mario Apuzzo, the U.S. District Judge assigned to this case is, now, The Honorable Jerome B. Simandle.

    thank you once again Claudia.

  62. […] Leo Donofrio recently wrote about how the Obama Administration’s State Department continues to maintain that natural born […]

  63. Regarding the campaign of people writing letters to judge(s) in the Kerchner v. Obama case, there’s been some misinformation going around the internet. Some clarification is available at http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=6404

  64. Katie Simpson Says:

    John Jay,

    Because the letters were not sent through you, does not mean they weren’t sent. Because of this usurper and his whacked politics, we have to double our efforts to communicate to our elected officials regarding Cap and Tax; Obamacare, as well as the NBC issue. Obama keeps us busier more now than ever. Don’t feel exasperated. We’re out here and we’re doing our best. Slowly and steadily…..people are coming around.

  65. Leo,

    I am in my library office working and I thought you’d like to see this:


    Leo, have you seen this article? You are mentioned in this article and I am hoping this article is 100% faithful & 100% true and that the facts are finally coming out:

    BOMBSHELL…Supreme Court now has Obama Citizenship
    Posted by Rev. Dr. Michael D.D. on July 2, 2009 at 1:44am
    View Rev. Dr. Michael D.D.’s blog

    AP- WASHINGTON D.C. – In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama’s qualifications for the presidency, the group Americans for Freedom of Information has Released copies of President Obama’s college transcripts from Occidental College Released today, the transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school.

    The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program.

    To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama’s detractors have been seeking.

    Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim. The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama’s legitimacy and qualification to serve as president.

    When reached for comment in London, where he has been in meetings with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama smiled but refused comment on the issue.

    Britain ‘s Daily Mail also carried the story in a front-page article titled, Obama Eligibility Questioned leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama’s first official visit to the U.K.

    In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama’s legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey.

    This lawsuit claims Obama’s dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrio’s case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama’ s citizenship or qualification to serve as president.

    Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama’s campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter.

    Pass this along. So far, Obama’s main stream media haven’t touched it!

    < Previous Post
    Add a Comment

    You need to be a member of Patriotic Resistance to add comments!Join this social network
    1 Comment

    Comment by Lisa Jensen 7 minutes ago Thank You, this is great………Yes, there is hope, maybe we can get him out!!! RSS

    [E.d it’s a false story. ignore it.]

  66. John Jay Says:

    Mario and Mr. Kirchner were on the Chalice show and Mr. Kirchner requested that concerned citizens send letters to the Judge and explained that “the case had been kicked up from the Magistrate to Judge Simandle, and letters should be addressed to Judge Simandle.” He asked that “the letters not be faxed as they would not be accepted.”

    Anyone out there that is not a keyboard patriot can mail their letters to
    Judge Simandle @ 401 Market Street Camden NJ 08102-1568

  67. John Jay Says:

    Anyone that wants to send a letter to Judge Simandle and doesn’t have the means, or time to get it to the post office, can post it here, if it is ok with Leo, and I will print and mail for you.

  68. Claudia Says:

    Thank you John Jay. I really do appreciate everything that you offered and did for me. I also wish that there would have been more people sending their letters through you. And thanks also for updating to the newer Judge.

    As a side note, I tried to fax my letter directly to Judge Schneider first, before seeing your offer and got the steady ringing of the phone, which told me that the fax was turned off for the weekend (maybe) or had run out of paper, so then I found your offer and took it and posted my letter here, (by the way, since the letter can still be sent, any who want to can copy it and simply change the names on top TO: and the from name), but then on Monday AM, I called the office of Schneider and got a human and she told me that they were no longer accepting faxes because they were inundated with them and could not keep the paper in the fax machine to print out the sheer volumne of pages they were receiving. And she told me on Monday AM that they would accept mailed in letters IF they were postmarked by the end of that day, so I also sent my letter to the office of Schneider – because I had checked back every day since posting my letter here and had not seen anything from you, and I figured that I should rather be safe and get my letter in the mail than not have it there at all, though I figured that you probably sent mine (along with LOTS of others) on like you stated you would, I just wanted to be sure, so I went to the PO and had the guy at the window actually POST MARK it at the time I was there. Anyway, long story short, now there are two letters in Schneiders Office, that were transferred to the NEW Judge and you also sent my letter to the new Judge, so IF HE is reading them, and I also included eight (8) other names on my letter, there are at least 11 letters (including extra names of ((my friends)) concerned citizens) sent in to this new Judge, cause Schneiders Office is sending the letters and faxes they received to the new Judges office. Plus your letters, of course….. and I have it on good stead, that lots of readers from PlainsRadio, and a few other sites that I read every day, sent letters by mail an fax to Schneiders office and hopefully also to the new Judges office. ANd if that person in the office of Schneider’s is any reliable source, they received lots of letters prior to the Monday AM phone call that I made to her, and I posted the info about the mailing in date on PlainsRadio for all to take advantage of.

    Again, thank you, John Jay for the offer and for making sure that my letter got there, I really do appreciate that you did it, beyond all my ability to ever say thanks enough.

  69. Every action gets a reaction. the best thing we could do to make point is to start NOW and be loud that Jindal is not constitutional to run for president either and raise hell with repus and the media and maybe the media will look at this issue. You can bet on one thing if the states make obama show docs. in 2012 they will be waiting to bounce Jindal so the party repubs could make use of jindal now . It is’nt anything that a million people standing in washington D C standing there demanding this be cleared up Now and we are not leaving until scotus make a ruling on what constitutes the deff. of N B C . Only way out is to put focus on to Mccain and Jindal now????

    And you say?


  70. leo, please, all of the colored type higlights on your post make it impossible to read when forwarding it. dont you want us to forward this to many people/?!! please do something about that so we can help YOU to get the word out.

    [Ed. Noted.]

  71. Clark Hamblin Says:

    Leo, no court will ever open the door of standing to this issue. No judge, no attorney general, no one that has the legal authority to do anything about this will ever do what can be done. The only thing that can be done is criminal action. All the solid, sound, substancial, prima facia, dna, smoking gun with fingerprints, video, notarized sworn admission, and even the original foreign birth certificate in the hands of a civilian bringing a civil case just will not get it. Of this I’m sure. It’s just a matter of time when your a dead man walking in the wasteland of American justice. Inclave, exclave, I’m a slave, watch what I say or da masta gonna woop me a good one. How about joining me in Cabo? God bles bro, and keep your chips in front of you. Oh, and by the way I used to have a SS# that matched my name, no more

  72. Clark Hamblin Says:

    Oh, forgot to tell you, B.O. defaults for the second time in ah, ah, a case on July 4th, I find that ironic. They claim they are not state actors, and acting as private citizens in their entrance to the ballots, so a default judgment for failure to appear, respond, move, or otherwise act, in a federal Court case should be as simple as a request of the Clerk, been there, done that, nope, nada, ZIP.

  73. Claudia Says:

    Hello EVERYONE ON NATURAL BORN CITIZEN blog and in the group of faithful, I have come up with a new catch phrase for us all to use on our mails and email signatures and everywhere we can…… it is:


    IF everyone started using that on all correspondence with others, it would have the same impact, eventually, as a billboard or any other advertisement, and it is easy to insert into your signature line. Just one little sentence but it has impact and asks a VALID QUESTION, much better than WND’s billboard cause it hits the truth. It is the one thing that Obama can’t run from and can’t change, because he himself put it all out there, on his websites, in his books, and has stated it several times in his innauguration speect and several other places….

    [Ed. I disagree. The best catchphrase is using his own words against him. How can a person who admits his birth status was governed by Great Britain by a natural born citizen of the US?” Notice how with all the recent main stream media CHATTER on the BC issue, nobody ever raises this question. Why? Because it’s simple, to the point and powerful. It would make the issue clear where clarity is not invited to dinner.]

  74. I’ve posted several of your articles on my many blogs.

    May God bless our efforts to protect our Republic and uphold our Constitution against the wiles of president usurper Obama/Soetoro/Obama, and against those who aid and abet the fraud and foreigner.

  75. Publius Says:


    Have you seen this wikipedia page, and taken a look at the links?


    They all indicate that Barack Obama was born at the Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital.

    One of the links is associated with the hospital itself. The page contains an image of a letter from Barack Obama, sent from the White House on January 24, 2009. In the letter, Barack Obama refers to the Kapiolani Medical Center as “the place of my birth.”

    You’ve suggested that if Barack Obama ever coughs up a long-form birth certificate, it could indicate that he was born at home, and not in a hospital.

    Based on the above information, however, it seems that if Barack Obama eventually shows his birth certificate, it will need to show that he was born at the Kapiolani facility. A document showing any other place of birth will contradict Barack Obama’s own claim as president.

    If Barack Obama was born in a hospital, he was in all likelihood delivered by at least one doctor or nurse who can be identified by name and interviewed. He and his mother will have been discharged from the hospital on a date that can be specified. Surely there was a staff of nurses tasked with taking care of children born in the hospital and ‘parked’ in the hospital nursery during the first week of August, 1961 until they and their mothers were discharged. These nurses can also be identified by name and interviewed.

    Who needs a birth certificate when we can talk to real people who were first-hand eyewitnesses?


  76. OK Leo…how does this work:


    The Judge states that since the court (i.e. the Government) didn’t convene the (Citizens) Grand Jury, that their Grand Jury doesn’t have the force of law backed by the Constitution or U.S. law. HOWEVER…the judge also confirms that their presentments are in fact Constitutionally permitted: https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2009mc0346-2 there are no rules in place for the court to accept them. Huh? What about the fact that he just indicated they are Constitutionally permitted?

    [Ed. I will try to get to this…]

  77. Hello Leo,
    Hopefully we will see your next work very soon! I ran across this interesting statement about Wong Kim Ark while looking into the biography of Horace Gray.

    ” Thus his associates were not surprised by his opinion in UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK (1898), confirming the CITIZENSHIP claim of a Chinese child born in the United States, even though he had also spoken for the Court in Elk v. Wilkins (1884), denying the same claim when filed by an American Indian who had left a government reservation and renounced all privileges of tribal membership. In Gray’s view, the anomalous status of Indians as wards of the nation had already been fixed by nine decades of administrative usage. But the status of persons born of unnaturalizable ALIENS was a new question in American law.”

    I find this very interesting since the dichotomy of Elk and WKA has been dicussed here. It seems that Gray was making a very narrow judgement about the offspring of NON NTURALIZEABLE residents. He discussed the fact that the parents, although long time residents, were prevented from attaining citizenship because of the treaty with China in which the US agreeded not to Naturalize Chinese citizens, and made an exception to Jurisdiction based on this narrow example. He also equated Wong to Negro slaves, born of Non Citizen Non Naturalizeable parents. To me this sheds a whole different light on a decision that has been misread (or abused) to say that anyone born in the US is a Citizen, he was not saying that. He was allowing for the case of offspring of Non Naturalizeable parents whom had shown attachment to this country. Very Interesting, don’t you think? I will say that Gray’s decision would probably be overrun by Perkins in 1929 which held that Treaties and laws between, and with, foreign powers must be considered in citizenship issues. Maybe he wasn’t trying to cover for Arthur after all?

    [Ed. Maybe he was. Just read his comments about children born of foreigners in the Elk case and see the about face which has no basis in rationality at all he did in WKA.]

  78. Just put Micheal Medved in a corner on national radio. I at least got some of the points out there. I will look for a transcript and try to send to you. Thank you. Bryan.

    [Ed. Good job. Do you have the transcript.]

  79. the judge is adding letters from people to the file. also just learned he sent 20 million dollars of taxpayer funds to Hamas for Hamas people to come to America and the money will provide food and housing for them until they become citizens. Michelle just bought a 6,000. handbag to go with her 600. tennis shoes, this on news. We find also that his favorable ratings are down across most states, especially Independent voters. It looks like the letters will be an important part of the file for the judge to refer to.

  80. John Jay, what is with people jumping to uncorroborated conclusions on this site? Just because only one person took you up on your offer, that doesn’t mean no one contacted the judge(s) in the Kerchner case! I sent my letter to both the magistrate judge, and then the District Court judge after I discovered Simandle got the case, and sent an e-mail to my entire address book to encourage others to write also. Other concerned citizens undoubtedly did the same, so chill already! You underestimate the action that individuals are taking, so your comments are not helpful but are unnecessarily hurtful. If you fancy to be in a private club of a select few who are fighting to expose the truth and defend our Constitution, you are so wrong!

    I am sick to death of people telling those of us who care enough to blog on sites such as this, and who have written scores of letters and e-mails and made tons of phone calls to our judges, legislators, and local and federal attorneys, that we “deserve what we get”. We, who were not deceived by the deceiver do NOT deserve what we have gotten. Those of us on the side of truth need to support each other in our collective angst and efforts to expose the deceiver/usurper, and not join sides with the obama camp by bad-mouthing those of us fighting for justice and truth!

  81. It’s cut and dry, both parents are to be US citizens to be a NBC. We need to abide by our framers intent and not back peddle to allow this kind of action to go on. We need to abort his presidency, after all he is pro-abortion.

  82. BY his OWN ADMISSION Obama/Soetoro is not a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN period end of story.

    By His Own Admission he admits that he was Born a British Subject. We are talking 1961 before the feminization of America and the world. At that time men ruled and Citizenship was dominated thru the male. Therefore Obama II was a British Subject just like his daddy no matter where he was born. When Kenya became independent from UK he became a Kenyan just like his daddy. By his own admission he says he was a Kenyan til his Citizen expired at age 21 because he didn’t renew it.

    He was a British before becoming Kenyan when he doesn’t renew his Kenyan Citizenship at 21 his Citizenship REVERTS back to British by British LAW. He is a British Citizen, NOT EVEN an AMERICAN CITIZEN never mind NATURAL BORN CITIZEN which would require TWO (2) QUALIFIED AMERICAN CITIZEN PARENTS. He had NEITHER. His mom was a minor and NOT a qualified Citizen required to pass down citizenship and his daddy was a FOREIGN NATIONAL. Even if he was born in the White House he could never be a Natural Born Citizen.

    There are some misconceptions, confusion and intentional misdirections. Up until 1986 in USA there was no anchor baby statute. If a child was born in America it would have the citizenship of the parents. Now with the SABOTAGED and BASTARDIZED “anchor baby” rule babies are allowed to be citizens BUT THEY ARE NOT NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.

    OBAMA II is a British Citizen even if he was born in Kenya or Hawaii.

    This makes him a FRAUD and an USURPER that needs to be detained promptly.

    This case will be WON in the Real People’s Court the Court of Public Opionion therefore it is our Duty to Present this CASE to more and MORE People till everyone is as OUTRAGED AS WE ARE.

    The Birthers, Truthers and Constitutionalist will NEVER go AWAY no matter what the ObaMORON DENIERS say.

  83. What necessary words… super, an excellent idea

  84. mr jay, i am very disabled, can’t hardly walk, and old 85, i try to do as much as i can, I dislike Obama a lot, I go on such sites as I can and has anybody heard what happened at a hearing todY? When the letters do not arrive, or nobody says they do, then what, faxes get overloaded, can’t we just let some news people tell all this, or maybe they won’t?

  85. Leo:

    Thought you’d like to know of Orly’s July 13 Orange County, CA hearing …

    From: PAMELA BARNETT [mailto:pb_realestate@yahoo.com]
    Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 3:09 PM
    To: pamela barnett

    Subject: Great News! Obama eligibility will be heard on merits!!

    Please distribute everywhere.
    Just got off the phone with Orly Taitz, the attorney who had a hearing today in court concerning BO

    At the hearing today at the Federal Court building in Santa Ana, Judge Carter said the following:

    1. There will be a trial.

    2. It will be heard on the merits.

    3. Nothing will be dismissed on proceedural issues.

    4. The trial will be expeditious, and the judge pledged to give case priority.

    5. Being a former Marine he realizes the importance of having a Constitutionally qualified POTUS/CINC.

    6. Judge stated that if Obama isn’t Constitutionally qualifed he needs to leave the White House.

    The DOJ will be involved with the case also…. I wasn’t clear if they would be trying to get to the

    truth or they would just be blindly representing Obama.

    Orly will be adding members of the military from California as plaintiffs also.

    This is from what my interpretation of our conversation.

    Orly, asked me to disseminate this information out for her, she will be doing a posting later after she

    gets some sleep.

    Please say a prayer of protection for Orly, her family, and Judge Carter. Please also pray that the truth

    will come to light regarding Obama and justice will be done.


    CPT Pamela Barnett, USA Retired

    July 13, 2009 4:25 PM



  86. bob strauss Says:

    It is being reported, judge Carter will hear Dr. Taitz’s case within 60 days, no extensions will be granted, there will be a trial.

  87. Leo,

    Well it might not go anywhere, BUT ORLY TAIZ has gotten a go ahead for a trial in California…see her web site for most recent update.

    Apparently Obama’s lawyers allowed for a default to take place instead of fighting for standing, according to the judge there will be a trial!

    Any comment?

  88. Great White Says:

    Regardless of all the fine points in these discussions I think if Obama can prove he was born in Hawaii it will be tough to boot him out. That is the simple unvarnished truth. There may be enough to stop him from running again in 2012 but if he has an actual long form certificate, which at this point seems doubtful since he is hiding everything, the justice system will be so tied up it won’t be able to remove him before the next election. My concern is to remove him as quickly as possible and make sure Joe Biden is in there as short a time as possible. The only way to do that is to force the issue on the birth certificate. Due to the fact that he is hiding so much there needs to be one target that will get him out. If Daddy was Kenyan and he was born in Kenya then he is a Kenyan and not a natural born US citizen. Then it is Adios BHO.

  89. Leo,

    What do you think about the current news regarding Orly Taitz and Obama being in default in Keyes v. Obama?

    Orly claims that if she’s granted the default motion she will call for all of Obama’s documentation.

    I feel the tidal wave growing.

  90. Leo,
    How about a new post addressing Judge Carter’s decision to hear Orly’s case on it’s merits.

    No need to address Orly’s cases….We all know that you do not agree with her strategies.

    What exactly does Judge Carter’s decision mean and what can be expected to come from it?

  91. So, then you claim that Alexander Hamilton could not be a citizen of the U.S.?

    [Ed. Where did I ever claim that? Ridiculous. Hamilton was not a nbc though. However, the Constitution provided for the Framers by allowing citizens (who faield to meet the nbc status) at the time of the adoption of the Constitution to become President. You have to read carefully what is written here. This is a legal blog. It’s not a gossip column. The level of discernment required to comment is greater than at most blogs. Please educate yourself properly before commenting next time.]

    What about Madeline Albright? It turned out that her parents were Jews, and not the people who raised her as Catholic. If parents are listed incorrectly, does that change the citizenship of the child?

    [Ed. It absolutely effects whether you are nbc or just a citizen – who your parents are that is. You seem to be confused – the Constitution provides that “natural born citizens” are a different subset of “citizens” and that to be President it is not enough to just be a citizen, you must be a citizen who is also considered nbc.]

    How about a U.S. soldier in Iraq, captured and raped by insurgents. The child she bears from that rape, you would deny entry to the U.S.? You would deny citizenship?

    [Ed. I would certainly deny that child the office of President but I would not deny that child citizenship. The Constitution clearly and unambiguously states that being a US citizen is not enough to be President, you must also be nbc which requires more.]

  92. Leo,
    Here is a shorter, clearer version of my previous question on July 9 –
    Would you consider someone born on U.S. soil to be a natural born citizen of the U.S.A. if one parent was a dual citizen (or both parents were dual citizens) of the U.S.A. and Great Britain at the time of that person’s birth? I would appreciate your take on this.

    [Ed. It’s a good question. I just answered the other one you submitted. Sorry for the delay on all these questions. If both parents were US citizens and the person was born on US soil than he is an nbc. I do not think the dual citizenship of his parent(s) would nullify the prime requirements. Dual allegiance is a factor but is not by itself dispositive.]

  93. billvanallen Says:

    v. Case No. 4:09-cv-82 (CDL)
    To make the record complete and easily accessible to the
    parties and other persons interested in the Court’s oral ruling
    today, the Court files this written order that puts in writing the
    oral order that the Court issued from the bench at the conclusion
    of the hearing today on the Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
    The same Constitution upon which Major Cook relies in support
    of his contention that President Barack Obama is not eligible to
    serve as President of the United States very clearly provides that
    federal courts shall only have the authority to hear actual “cases
    and controversies.” By restricting the Judiciary’s power to actual
    “cases and controversies,” our founders wisely established a
    separation of powers that would ensure the freedom of their fellow
    citizens. They concluded that the Judicial Branch, the unelected
    branch, should not inject itself into purely “political disputes,”
    and that it should not entangle itself in hypothetical debates
    which had not ripened to an actual legal dispute.
    The Courts have therefore consistently held that in order to
    have legal “standing” to pursue a claim in federal court, a party
    seeking federal jurisdiction must establish the following three
    elements: 1) that he has experienced an “injury in fact” that is
    concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, as opposed to
    merely conjectural or hypothetical; 2) that there is a causal
    connection between the injury and the defendant’s conduct that is
    traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and 3) that a
    favorable decision will likely redress the complained of injury.
    In this case, Major Cook cannot satisfy these elements. His
    orders have been revoked. He is not being deployed to Afghanistan
    or Iraq. He is under no present order to report anywhere. There
    is no evidence that he is subject to future deployment. Any such
    contention is sheer speculation and entirely hypothetical. Thus,
    he has suffered no particularized or concrete injury. There is no
    causal connection between any conduct by the defendant and any
    alleged injury. And the only remedy he sought from this court,
    avoiding deployment, has already been provided, and thus there is
    no remedy that this court may provide that will redress his alleged
    Based on all of these reasons, Major Cook does not have
    standing to pursue this action. Thus, no case or controversy
    exists under the United States Constitution, and this Court
    consequently has no subject matter jurisdiction over this action.
    Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss must be granted.
    Recognizing that his opportunity to air his grievance over the
    President’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States
    was slipping by, Plaintiff’s attorney seeks to rescue the claims
    with two arguments: First, she argues that the Court should
    exercise jurisdiction because the complained of conduct is “capable
    of repetition, yet evading judicial review.” Second, she seeks to
    amend the complaint to add two additional parties, Maj. Gen. Carol
    Dean Childers (Retired) and Lt. Col. David Earl Graef. Plaintiff’s
    efforts to maintain this political controversy in federal court
    must fail.
    First, there is no evidence that Major Cook is likely subject
    to future deployment orders. In fact, the evidence is to the
    contrary. He is not likely to be deployed in the future.
    Therefore, it is speculation that he will be under the command of
    President Obama as a member of the United States Military. Second,
    there is no evidence that he would not have an opportunity to have
    any future claim reviewed. There is simply no evidence that this
    claim falls within the narrow “capable of repetition, yet evading
    review” principle of federal jurisdiction.
    Second, the Court finds that Major General Childers and Lt.
    Col Graef do not have standing to pursue their claims. They have
    alleged no concrete particularized injury. They simply maintain
    that they do not believe President Obama is eligible to serve as
    President of the United States, and that hypothetically they “may”
    one day be subject to orders while he is Commander in Chief. They
    have no standing orders to report to duty. They are under no order
    for future deployment. They have made no showing that they will
    not have a process available to them to protest any orders should
    they be issued. Their political claim does not give rise to a case
    or controversy to be heard in federal court.
    This Court has a duty to follow the United States
    Constitution. That Constitution limits jurisdiction to actual
    cases and controversies. To extend jurisdiction beyond its limits
    would be a violation of that very Constitution upon which Plaintiff
    relies in support of his claims. This the Court refuses to do.
    This entire action is dismissed for lack of subject matter
    jurisdiction. The parties shall bear their own costs.
    This 16th day of July, 2009
    S/Clay D. Land
    Clay D. Land
    United States District Judge
    Middle District of Georgia

  94. Stephanie Says:

    Leo, I would like to have your opinion on “In Boerne v. Flores (1997), the Supreme Court ruled that Congress exceeded its authority when it passed a law that, among other things, prohibited the states from regulating religious uses of land. As in Cooper v. Aaron (1958), the Court asserted its primacy in matters of constitutional interpretation and struck down a governmental act that challenged that primacy.” http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/democracy/landmark_boernes.html
    and if it applies to this resolution.

    [ed. The resolution is non-binding so they will not weigh in on it. It’s just fluff with no law being enacted. It’s just their opinion wrapped up in a bow and ribbon.]


    Citizens Taking Obama to Task!

    Obama is not qualified to be president (not born on US soil). Therefore, everything he does acting in the capacity of president is ILLEGAL. Every bill he signs, every speech he gives, every order he issues to any soldier in the U.S. armed forces is null and void! And if we remain silent, we basically become a partaker in this crime against the United States.

    So while the media and our government officials are remaining silent on this…

    Our goal is to present indictments in every jurisdiction of the union:
    Please take a moment to read this: This website has a specific purpose in mind. AmericanGrandJury.org can HELP YOU if are looking to start, organize and manage a Citizen’s Grand Jury.


    Even if the American Grand Jury were ignored, and deemed legally impotent, we can still expect a powerfully awakening increase in awareness and outrage on the part of the citizens. There are many potencies beyond the legal system. However, it is highly unlikely that not even one jurisdiction will take action on the indictment. All we need is one jurisdiction to order “Discovery.” The case against AKA OBAMA is unique because it will be over in the Discovery phase, as the first step in a criminal complaint. The goal of the project I support is not to convict and punish AKA Obama but to discover what AKA OBAMA doesn’t want us to know, and why he doesn’t want us to know it.

    Our goal will be achieved without a trial or a verdict.

    Our goal is to present indictments in every jurisdiction of the union:
    * 50 States
    * 3,007 entities named “County”
    * 16 Boroughs in Alaska11 Census Areas in Alaska (areas not organized into Boroughs)
    *64 Parishes in Louisiana
    * 42 Independent Cities (1 in Maryland, 1 in Missouri, 1 in Nevada, and the remainder in Virginia)
    * 1 District – the Federal District or District of Columbia.

    For a total of 3,191 opportunities to bring criminal charges against offending politicians.

    Even if an independently convened grand jury is mistakenly seen as merely people assembling to exercise their Constitutional right to “redress their grievances,” or report crimes, that is no small thing. Hundreds of people in such “assemblies” will be examining evidence and presenting the results of their investigation to appropriate county, state, and federal authorities, some of whom will almost certainly form more conventional grand juries to indict AKA OBAMA. Can one honestly surmise that there is not one prosecutor or judge in the entire nation who questions AKA OBAMA’s eligibility to be President?

    Once the American Grand Jury presentments are made, it is likely that many prosecutors and judges will want a copy of the evidence. [the original birth certificate]

    The American Grand Jury organization with which I am affiliated is using recognized expert witnesses with a long professional history of forensic testimony. The guiding principles for the project are the usual protocols of epistemology, scientific methodology, and rules of evidence.

    Any prosecutor or judge who ignores such evidence and testimony is at risk of being seen as acquiescent.

    An excellent article by international columnist Mark S. McGrew will help the reader to understand the Grand Jury story.

    Rev. Sewell, an ordained Christian clergyman, a Pastoral Psychotherapist, a member of Mensa, a U.S. Navy Veteran, and a Member of the Association For Intelligence Officers. He is a frequent commentator on religious and political issues.

    Press Contact – Media only please:
    Sam Sewell, National Spokesperson for http://americangrandjury.org/

    VIEW OBAMA’S FORGED BIRTH CERTIFICATE HERE: http://obamadocuments.wordpress.com/

  96. My compliments to all the people that have done research.
    I certainly hope that we can get a hearing on this matter, nbc, as well as whether he was born in the US at all.

    I agree that we can’t say BO wasn’t born in the US if there was no hosp or dr on his bc, but I don’t agree that that would be the end of the matter. If there is no hospital or dr, then that should precipitate a really full scale investigation into just where he was born. Keep in mind, that when Jerome Corsi went to Kenya, all records were locked down by the gov’t. Doesn’t that at least suggest something? If there’s nothing there, why lock it all down?

  97. People for the Ethical Treament of Dead Animals plead with you to quit beating this deceased equine.

    Obama was born in Hawaii, a U.S. Territory. There is a birth announcement in one of the newspapers from that time.

  98. John Jay Says:

    Letters on the Kirchner matter are no longer accepted by the court. To all of you who sent letters ( from my offer on other blogs) The letters were mailed and received by the court. Thank You .

  99. Keep in mind, that when Jerome Corsi went to Kenya, all records were locked down by the gov’t. Doesn’t that at least suggest something? If there’s nothing there, why lock it all down?

    Bullfeathers. Teapot tempest.

    Records of births are not open records in many nations. Corsi claims that the government kept him from conducting a fishing expedition through Kenya records, but there is absolutely no evidence that the records he wanted are not restricted in the first place. Such records in the U.S. are public as to what is in the records — a birth of a child to which parents, in what city — but nothing more. Especially if Kenya has no record of Obama being born there, Corsi wouldn’t be able to find it.

    Instead of Corsi’s confessing his hypothesis was in error and the records don’t exist, he claims without any evidence that the records were unduly locked up.

    He’s crazy, and evil.

  100. Obama’s mother was a U.S. citizen. Are you questioning HER citizenship too? Any child born to a U.S. citizen parent, automatically gains NBC.

    [Ed. Why don’t you just say, “Im rubber you’re glue whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you…” My point – either bring a legal point based on some such law you’re going to cite (which will NOT verify what you say because no law or case exists which supports your wrong position) or don’t post here. Don’t clutter my blog up again with unsupported opinions.]

    It does not require both parents. Additionally, Obama was born in Hawaii. Therefore, a NBC twice.
    Thank you.

  101. Great White Says:

    Why has Obama spent close to 1 million covering his tracks. He is our President and his Birth Cert (a real one), Occidental Records – whether he was registered as a foreign national and his Harvard records – who paid his way. Simple requests, no?

  102. If I was Obama, I would be PAYING ORLY TAIZ to sue me! The distraction theater and frenzied speculation is just what I need most.


    Because I need to bury one singular and unshakable truth that is openly admitted and laying in open sight. A singular and unshakable FACT that I have publicly confirmed.

    I was a British Citizen at birth.

    Not being an American Citizen alive at the time the Constitution was adopted means that I am NOT a natural born citizen of the United States.

    Nothing else is needed to establish that I am not eligible under the Constitution to hold the office of POTUS.

    Game over.

    The earlier point about Jindal is equally important. There should be aggressive focus there — not to be “anti-Jindal” but to be pro Article II.

    Confronting the Jindal issue preemptively provides enormous credence and separation from the loonies, many of whom, I suspect, are working both sides of the disinformation curve.

    When the Jindal matter reaches full national gestalt, that is when the big tumblers will begin to turn.

    The founders were so specific in the NBC requirement. They were so concerned for the generational separation and established enculturation in American society that they imposed a higher standard of citizenship for the presidency.

    They were so specific in this requirement. How imprudent to not give their concern and directive the most careful consideration.

    Make the Obama case by making the Jindal case.

    Let the truth be heard without partisanship.

    As for Obama as POTUS, that’s who he is. He’s POTUS for three and half more years.

    The object should not be to bring him down. He has sown the seeds of his political demise and he will reap them. I have no malice toward him. He won. That’s power. The Republican Party is as responsible as the Democratic Party. McCain was little different and Jindal is no different.

    The critical mass of politics and political media today is too profoundly conflicted and corruptively intertwined to provide the leadership this issue needs. Further, the issue is not Obama or Jindal, though defining Jindal’s non-eligibility is the key to creating a correct and broad public understanding of Obama’s stunt.

    The object should be to uphold the Constitution. The object should be to spread the learning and growth of Constitutional understanding within our populace and among our youth.

    Our Constitution and its living relevance is the object of the exercise.

    Let that be our focus.

    Let go of the malice and speculation.

    All the facts needed are admitted by Obama himself.

    [Ed. Well stated. I agree with this comment.]

  103. Yikes.

    “Not being an American Citizen alive at the time the Constitution was adopted means that I am NOT a natural born citizen of the United States.”

    Let me correct that mangled sentence.

    “Not being an American Citizen alive at the time the Constitution was adopted means I am not exempt from the specific additional requirement I be a natural born citizen. I was born a British Citizen to a Kenyan father and therefore I am NOT a natural born citizen of the United States.”

  104. Great White Says:

    willem, very frivolous – yet long winded argument you have there. The libs are the ones that are frothing at the mouth over this. Objectively speaking their ranting and behavior and Obama’s obfuscation on this issue would leave any rational hominid to wonder what is going on. I just pulled out the copy of the birth certificate I used to prove citizenship for my passport, grammar school entry and breeder documents like my drivers license and what do ya know – the hospital name, doctors name and embossed state seal are on that birth certificate. Why aren’t they on the document Obama is trying to foist on us. Perhaps because the document is not valid?

    This guy is David Axelrod’s Frankenstein and the sooner he is ejected from the Whitehouse the better. He and the other cowardly, socialist dems and his 8 repub traitor allies have already created huge problems for our futures and he really needs to just go away.

    BTW Jindal is not the President at least not that I have heard and I doubt whether he will ever have a chance to be.

    If you are really interested in the Constitiution take a deep breath and read it. You will note there are strict guidelines for who can be President and a Kenyan birth is not one of them. What a great scam this guy is running and to the dismay of the libs it is blowing up in his face. The birth issue is not going away but gaining traction and will cause this fraud real problems. As his ratings drop he will become powerless so if he doesn’t go away he will have less and less impact. He is in over his head. I would get a thrill out of a perp walk out of the Whitehouse. “You Mr. Obama like Osama have the right to remain silent…” A day without listening to BHO on the campaign trail would be a little bit of heaven.

    The reason ORLY TAIZ is getting so much pub is because she knew how to get him served and has him on the gaff – her case is going to be heard in California of all places and BHO will hopefully have to produce his paperwork. His luck can’t last for ever and like I said this is never going away until he proves his citizenship like he should have had to do, before Congress, before being inaugurated. The clowns in congress need to do their jobs and issues like this would not occur. It is never too late to right a wrong. If we attempt to live with this guy for any length of time we’ll be looking at growing racial unrest, atomic Iran, an attempt to emasculate Israel and no telling what the RNK will attempt. No country in the world takes this clown seriously and it is a dangerous neighborhood. In case you haven’t noticed. So forget Jindal and prissy arguments throw the bum out.

    I hate it when incompetents are in charge, like the last 16 years, I despise it when frauds take over.

  105. Ron Villachoy Says:

    I always thought you were one of the only intelligent “birther”

    I hope you guys don’t succeed in your cases, I love Obama
    and I’d hate to see America go to war with each other over something like this. If Obama gets “removed” there will be race wars and many whites will be fighting on the same side as the blacks and people like you will be targetted for ruining our country Leo.

    [Ed. Isn’t that the way it goes? You don’t back down from an issue just because some people don’t see eye to eye. I believe in the law and that my interpretation of it is true. Obama isn’t eligible. That’s the bottom line. Doesn’t matter what the fall out is. It will be worse if he doesn’t get removed. The country has dealt with race issues. It’s something we’ve been through. We will get through it again if need be. I know many people from all different races who do not believe he’s eligible for POTUS. If he’s not removed the precedent set has the power to end the nation’s existence by allowing infiltration to POTUS by foreign powers. That’s the bottom line.]

  106. slcraig Says:



    I can find no rule barring Motion to Submit Amicus in support of Petition.

    I am a lay person and not all that bright, but I can not sit around and do nothing.

    Now I have this terribly constructed case sitting at the 10th Circuit, 09-6082, with a Motion to invoke Rule 2.1, suspend the Rules and Hear the Question and a Petition to SCOTUS, 08-10817, under Rule 11, Petition before Judgement, asking them to direct the 10th to HEAR the Question.

    I realize that the construction of my work does not conform to the technical specifics required but I also see that the Courts have it in their authority to overlook technical deficiencies and proceed on the question and merits.

    The fact that the Solicitor General waived their right to file brief in opposition is considered 1st as a show of confidence that the case will not be heard, I understand that, but it also leaves it entirely to the discretion of the Court, lacking opposition to ANY aspect of the Petition.

    I understand that asking anyone to join in support of my case subjects them to ridicule for taking such a poorly constructed legal filing seriously, but I believe I have all the elements necessary to make the case although not necessarily in the proper order to be cognizable as such.

    I can not help but to believe that at this point of time that an Amicus Brief in support of the Petition with the elements properly arranged and presented might influence the Court to grant the writ, invite the Respondent to submit a brief and direct the 10th Circuit to proceed on the merits.


    1. Is it possible for an individual Citizen, without formal legal training of a professional practitioner, approach the Court Pro Se In Forma Pauperis and get a hearing on the merits of a question of individual, National and Constitutional importance?

    2. Is the statement from the opinion in Marbury v. Madison; “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, ……” correct, and if so, what is the Constitutional interpretation of “Natural Born Citizen”, as found in Article II Section I Clause V of the Constitution, that would then be held as the Constitutional and legal definition?

    3. What is the Constitutional and legal definition of “Natural Born Citizen”?

  107. Great White Says:

    Ron, Everybody loved Obama as a centrist uniter. Now that most people understand he is a left wing ideologue surrounding himself with outright whack jobs (look at his AG, Czars and Sotomayor) I would think you would wake up. He has proven himself to be a racist (Cambridge incident), an apologist (World Tours), incompetent on the economy (too many examples to cite), a liar (splitting Jerusalem and public financing) and the list goes on. He doesn’t know from one minute to the next what position to hold and will become unhinged due the amount of public criticism. You may have noticed he has a hard time with criticism. The current administration has problems and they are growing. He is losing credibility at an alarming rate and is beginning to make Biden look like a genius.

    The first step in a cure is admitting there is a disease. This left wing fraud is a problem and the cure is to get him out. For once Congress needs to grow a pair and act like they have the best interests of the American people at heart. Their jobs and the country’s future are on the line. If they don’t get moving there will be a lot of new faces in 2010 and that goes for both parties. In the last 7 months the Democrats under Obama and Pelosi (Reid is just a tool) have abused their power and over reached. They are losing their grip even on the Dems.

  108. Loud and clear, Great White.

    Still, your narrative does nothing to change the fact that BHO admits he was a British Citizen at birth; does nothing to change the requirements set forth under Article II; does nothing to change the fact all the facts necessary are in evidence. The rest is speculation and hearsay.

    Why devote your efforts to speculation and hearsay when the necessary facts lay unused in broad daylight at your very feet?

    Personally I see little gained by impeaching Obama. Do you really think Joe Biden is the answer?

    The greatest internal threat to liberty and our constitution sits with the 111th Congress, particularly with the Congressional Progressive Caucus, but the orthodoxy in congress is not much better.

    Which is worse, craven authoritarian progressive legalism or provincial parlor sloth? I don’t have an answer for that. What we have today is the world’s greatest power being run by a legislature whose performance looks weird combination of “Good Times” and “The Lawrence Welk Hour.”

    Orthodox provincial Republicans have been incapable of communicating to our greater society and, with the exception of a Palin or Pawlenty, have no compelling ideas and no constructive vision. What the orthodoxy calls “conservative” and “liberal” to me says more about their laziness and ignorance of the changing culture around them.

    What I appreciate most about your view and your comments, Great White, lies in the important contrast you create. All I ask is that you reflect on the best use of your anger and frustration, and how that converts to the most effective traction in your desire to protect our nation.

    Personally, I don’t see the issue of eligibility as being about me discovering a device to get rid of a President I don’t like. That very mentality is preventing millions from seeing the facts at their feet and doing the nation harm by poisoning the discourse necessary to have “the family discussion” about our political parties playing footsie to elect their respective candidates who are not natural born citizens.

    I have yet to see Obama lie about the elibility issue. He has told the truth about his British Citizenship at birth. There is a crease of unsettled law that might be ruled in his favor, though it would require overturning centuries of precedent in changing the definition of natural born citizen.

    In this eligibility issue, we are looking at the naked pathology that controls both major political parties; an issue that exposes the renegade symbiosis as collaborative institutions conspiring AGAINST our Constitution and against We The People.

    I propose it is this very symbiosis; this cryptic superior culture of beltway insiders that our founders most fears and ardently endeavored to prevent in designing and drafting the Constitution and separation of powers. One only look at the handling of this issue and the corporate media that panders to the beltway to see the scale of insider-dealing that become normalized. The behavior is authoritarian/totalitarian. And un-American.

    We can blame individuals, but technology disrupts the social order. Modern technology has evolved to the degree that our “beltway society” has effectively detached from the public, who now identify more with their counterparts in foreign government than with you and I, and our fellow American Citizens.

    I don’t blame Obama for that. Impeaching Obama doesn’t solve that.

    Exposing what the political parties have done and exposing their offensive stunt for what it is… that is the beginning of a public dialogue and national awakening that is long over due.

    Birther madness and Obama-hatred points the nation in the wrong direction and serves the interests of the very forces that intend to subjugate the American population and taxbase to fund an international movements that regard the families of beltway elite as royalty.

    What was old is new again. The decent of the masses into feudalism is the natural byproduct of concentrating political power among families of powerful elites. Our Constitution was designed to prevent that concentration, and to minimize the infiltration of foreign interests with the Executive Branch.

    Go watch the Mel Gibson film “Braveheart” and contemplate the timeless nature of families and power.

    What you see there is happening here, now.

    That is the real problem.

  109. willem, very frivolous – yet long winded argument you have there. The libs are the ones that are frothing at the mouth over this. Objectively speaking their ranting and behavior and Obama’s obfuscation on this issue would leave any rational hominid to wonder what is going on. I just pulled out the copy of the birth certificate I used to prove citizenship for my passport, grammar school entry and breeder documents like my drivers license and what do ya know – the hospital name, doctors name and embossed state seal are on that birth certificate. Why aren’t they on the document Obama is trying to foist on us. Perhaps because the document is not valid?

    Dear Great White,

    Jerome Corsi is reputed to have said he has evidence that you were really born in Zambia, and that you have committed fraud in all of your applications. An old woman shining shoes at the Nairobi airport was caught on video saying “We often had Great Whites in Zambia — they were breeding there, you know.” (Corsi said she misspoke only a little — she meant “Great White was born there.”)

    Consequently, you’re not allowed to have an opinion on this matter until you can present us with the original, signed document that you were born in the U.S. A certified copy of any document from any state is not satisfactory — it would be best if you can present the doctor who delivered you at my office door within the week.

    I have already discovered your clever trick in shutting down the offices of Zambia so that we cannot find the evidence to impugn your claims. Clearly you have plotted this from the start.

    Good luck proving you’re not an illegal alien imposter who has committed several felony frauds.


  110. Great White Says:

    Ed Darrel, I have no idea what you are talking about. No time to try to figure it out.

    williem, the constitution provides for a limited care taker period while new elections are held, so yes it would be better to impeach Obama. The sooner the better. They even had the forethought to allow that there might be a problem with an elected official.

    He hasn’t lied about his birth because no one will ask. If Congress would ask and he does lie it is a Federal offense and he would hopefully end up in jail. The head of the belt way elite being lead out in chains would rattle a few of the clowns, don’t ya think?

  111. Ed Darrel, I have no idea what you are talking about. No time to try to figure it out.

    Worse, you don’t have any idea what you are talking about, and you haven’t take the time to figure that out.

    If Obama is impeached, by the way, Joe Biden becomes president. We have a Constitution, you know. It’s spelled out there.

    The Constitution also requires that we honor the documents from the State of Hawaii. If you have evidence those documents are in error, present them. In fact, you’re obligated under Hawaiian law to take such information to the local DA. Of course you don’t live in Hawaii, so you can shirk that duty.

    But if you have the evidence, why don’t you share it?

    Of course, if your evidence is hoax, you would be liable to criminal prosecution, too — but you’re so sure, it can’t be wrong, can it? Call the DA in Honolulu today.

  112. Great White Says:

    Hay Ed, Take a valium and simmer down or maybe you have and that is why you can’t retain a thought long enough to express it. Nice try though.

    You can pick up a copy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights on Amazon for $5.00. Pick one up and read it. There is a provision for a limited time provisional gov’t, in case an ineligible is elected, while elections are held. The signers were brilliant. J Biden would be in charge during that 90 days or whatever it would take. I don’t care if the Armed Forces takes over. Anything is better than the extra governmental body Obama has set up.

    You’re asking me to prove a negative. I haven’t seen anything disprovable because a real long form document with hospital and doctor name has not been presented. You know the one Hawaii says they destroyed in 2001 but the governor verified existed in Nov or the one FactCheck.Org saw in the same time frame.

    Orly Taitz is doing exactly as you suggest and has a hearing in Calif. to resolve these issues. It should provide entertainment for all. Unless the Weaseler In Chief figures out away out of it. Things will catch up to him. It shouldn’t be long. This is turning into a massive headaches and growing exponentially. By merely talking it down CNN, Politco, Geraldo… are forcing it to grow. The silent majority is waking with a vengeance.

    [Ed. I think you’re naive Great White. If you think that the current PR campaign regarding the BC is a result of the mainstream media being woken up by people in the eligibility movement… I’ve got a big Bridge between Manhattan and Brooklyn to sell you, cheap. Got it in a will actually. Thousands cross it every day. You could put your own toll up.

    But seriously folks we should talk business, the BC issue is being paraded by the unseen hand of power. They have a reason for allowing all of this BC PR… and you aint gonna like that reason. You have false hope and you’re playing into their plan.]

  113. slcraig Says:

    To Ed Darrell Says:
    July 27, 2009 at 11:15 am

    I’m just curious, what is your definition of natural born citizen, keeping in mind that the Constitutional useage implies there is a DIFFERENCE between a ‘citizen’ and a ‘natural born citizen’?

  114. slcraig Says:


    I’m not sure what your thinking about the increased chatter re: the BC, Hawaiian Born, is a ‘citizen’, so on and so on without touching on the real issue.

    But I am concerned that an ‘acceptable’ BC is about to hit the ‘market place’. And the Bulls will start a buying frenzy that will push the Bears off the boards.

    In response, and prompted by the lack of response by the Defendent in my case, the US, I have prepared a ‘Motion for Procedual Orders’ in an attempt to exploit the lack of response and Waiver of Brief by the US.

    I know you think I’m nut’s and mangling the process to which you are devoted, but the Court Rules clearly show they have broad descretion to take considered actions, why not on this issue?

    See 28 @ 2106

    [Ed. The new chatter is really disturbing. There are only two possibilities

    1. The BC issue is about to be killed as Obama finally shows a perfect long form Hawaiin BC

    2. Obama is going to be removed in order to start a race war and institute martial law

    I believe it’s number 1. But whatever it is, it’s being controlled and the birthers are being manipulated. They feel like they have made headway but it’s all been planned in advance.]

  115. Agreed. The Birthers are being very easily manipulated from within and without. The issue has been deliberately and skillfully made complex.

    I too suspect the stage is being set to validate the presentation of irrelevant “proof” being teed-up cooperatively by obsessing Birthers.

    As for a threat of race wars I don’t believe it for a minute. But could there be a well-paid orchestrated uprising of riots, sure.

    As for martial law, they could do that over H1N1 alone.

    There are any number of options to be exploited in bad faith by those in positions of authority with a totalitarian character.

    That contrasts in a troubling way with the significance of the NBC dodge. The singular matter of his British Ciizenship at birth is there for all to see.

    No mistaking that one. It’s remarkable how its being ignored, and the obfuscation plan to bury it from view of the awaking masses is working beautifully thanks to the easily manipulated Birthers.

    Game Obama. Brilliant misdirection strategy. He should be able to run out the clock with little difficulty.

  116. slcraig Says:

    Gibbs, just said he was born in aHawaii and he is a citizen………….but he has not said he is a natural born citizen because he doesn’t need to.

    There is no Legal Constitutional Definition.

    So now they will prove he was born in Hawaii and IS a citizen, then SCOtUS will rule on NBC definition with a grandfather Clause… for him.

    Can they do that?

    [Ed. They can.]

  117. slcraig Says:

    Yea, They can and will if the BC comes out 1st and establishes his ‘citizenship’.

    If so, will he have just been lucky or has he been playing a game of chess on the board he set up?

  118. Great White Says:

    At the end of the day, if Obama not driven off, what will count is the perception of the American people have about how this whole issue was handled. If he is proven an impostor then the Dems will look like the scam artists and grifters they are and the GOP will look spineless. Even if Obama stays in power, if things keep heading in the direction they are going, in six months he will be all but emasculated. By 2010 he will be out to pasture. After this recess I suspect Congress will come back and not be too eager to pass any bills for fear of reprisals.

    The American electorate is moderate to right of center where most of them were led to believe Obama was on issues. They should have known after he lied regarding Public Financing that he would lie about everything else. After 8 years of Bush they found him attractive.

    What the country doesn’t need is what it is being put through at the moment, more devision with a knee jerk racist, community organizer at the helm. We, on the losing side, were willing to give him a chance because we had McCain tossed on us and didn’t want to pass him along. We got what you libs voted for and it is quite a mess. Hence the ill will and animosity to your man. I think we should all say a prayer and try to get enough of this current batch of losers out of Congress in 2010 and finish the job in 2012. What the country needs is honesty from those in public office, jobs and capitalism. None of which will we see under the “One” – thanks for the moniker Oprah.

    We have the most educated and in most cases greatest people in the world living in this country. It was created with unbelieveable foresight. After a 200+ year run at prosperity and growth we are now close to capitulating to a power hungry Washington elite that are completely out of touch with what got us here. They are willing to sell votes to illegal aliens, coddle terrorists and in the name of political correctness allow an impostor to occupy the White House. Pathetic. I am encouraged by one thing and that is that the population is slowly waking up. Once awake I hope we can find the politicians to fill the shoes we need them to fill. I’m not so excited about that prospect.

  119. Goldie, I have good news for you. You said:

    also just learned he sent 20 million dollars of taxpayer funds to Hamas for Hamas people to come to America and the money will provide food and housing for them until they become citizens.

    Didn’t happen. That’s a hoax some people are passing around to use to scare older Americans into giving money to political causes and scams. If you know any old people, tell them not to believe anything from anyone who spreads that false tale.

  120. Great White excitedly wrote:

    Hay Ed, Take a valium and simmer down or maybe you have and that is why you can’t retain a thought long enough to express it. Nice try though.

    I don’t use valium. I’ve seen too many people led to hallucinations on Constitutional issues by unintentional misuse of the drug.

    You can pick up a copy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights on Amazon for $5.00. Pick one up and read it. There is a provision for a limited time provisional gov’t, in case an ineligible is elected, while elections are held.

    Which article and section, or which amendment would that be, Great White? I’m having difficulty finding such a section.

    But I understand that the Secret Friends of Joe Biden are about to go public with their “Biden in 2009” campaign, urging Obama be thrown out of office so Biden can take over.

  121. I’m just curious, what is your definition of natural born citizen, keeping in mind that the Constitutional useage implies there is a DIFFERENCE between a ‘citizen’ and a ‘natural born citizen’?

    The Constitution makes no distinction between a “natural born” citizen and native born citizen. The Constitution implies a difference between a citizen naturalized after being born in another nation, and a person born into U.S. citizenship.

    Unless you want to argue Shakespeare, there is no functional, practical or legal difference between “natural born” and “native born.” If you want to argue Shakespeare, I’ll point out that there is no difference, in citizenship law, between a child pushed through a birth canal and a child born by Caesarian section.

    [Ed. This will be your last post here and your last word on the subject. I’ve left it unedited and exactly as you’ve written it… it’s so ridiculous and childish that I will allow it as a museum piece to show the petty childish manner within which many Obama supporters operate when their man’s eligibility is properly threatened.

    The reader has chosen to make an observation that the words “natural born” refer to medical conditions and not to eligibility requirements. He fails to acknowledge historical sources and documents which evidence the true meaning of “natural born citizen”. Furthermore, he equates “native born” with “Natural born” and he also states, wrongly, that the meaning of natural born is defined in the Constitution.

    To rebut this, one needs only to look at the words of SCOTUS in the MInor decision wherein they stated unequivocally that the meaning of “natural-born citizen” is NOT written into the Constitution… the case was decided in 1874 while the 14th Amendment, which allowed for some types of “native born” citizenship, was adopted in 1868. The Minor Court clearly states one needs to look outside of the Constitution to define nbc.

    Good day, Darrel. Don’t bother posting again. Your tone is not one of intellectual discourse to find truth. You are a shill and you are not welcome here.]

  122. The Birth cert issue IMHO is being used by Axelrod Inc. to divert attention from Obama’s falling poll numbers.

  123. IMHO … Real simple … The Natural Born Citizen issue will never be answered by the Supreme Court. The reason is that both parties currently run by elitists want to run the candidates they want. They can sell to Americans that if you are born in the USA you can run for President. Both McCain & Obama were covering for each other & for future prospects. Oh as a side note that is why these fellows fear Sarah Palin… She would run them out of town.

  124. Oh wait … Leo I found this … Wash Post

    Hawaii again declares Obama birth certificate real

    The Associated Press
    Monday, July 27, 2009 11:43 PM

    HONOLULU — State officials in Hawaii on Monday said they have once again checked and confirmed that President Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen, and therefore meets a key constitutional requirement for being president.

    Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said she hoped to end lingering rumors about Obama’s birthplace.

    “I … have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen,” she said in a brief statement. “I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

    So-called “birthers” – who claim Obama is ineligible to be president because, they argue, he was actually born outside the United States – have grown more vocal recently on blogs and television news shows.

    Fukino issued a similar press release Oct. 31, but was prompted to speak out again because of the renewed attention on Obama’s beginnings. Hawaii’s Health Department has been flooded in recent weeks with questions from individuals and several national TV news networks asking for proof that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii.

    “They just keep asking over and over and over again,” Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo said.

    The Constitution states that a person must be a “natural-born citizen” to be eligible for the presidency. Birthers contend that Obama’s birth certificate is a fake, and many say he was actually born in Kenya, his father’s homeland. They’ve challenged his citizenship in court.

    One widely circulated YouTube clip of a town hall meeting showed a Republican congressman getting booed for saying Obama is a citizen. Talk show host Rush Limbaugh and CNN’s Lou Dobbs have also raised the issue, and 10 Republican members of Congress co-sponsored a bill that would require future presidential candidates to provide a copy of their original birth certificate.

    However, it appears Congress has moved on and has accepted Obama’s island birthplace. The U.S. House on Monday unanimously approved a resolution recognizing and celebrating the 50th anniversary of Hawaii becoming the 50th state. A clause was included that reads: “Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.”

    State law bars the release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who does not have a tangible interest.

    However, Obama’s birth certificate along with birth notices from the two Honolulu newspapers were brought forward even before he took office. But that’s done nothing to shake the belief by many Obama critics that the president was born abroad.

    First time I have seen Natural Born citizen … Wash Post no less … Leo what is your take???


  125. to Max Says:

    I find it the same as I view all of the mentions of ‘citizen’, ‘native born citizen’ and any other variation that the MSM and leftist have contrived, in total disregard for intellectual and journalistic honesty.

    They will continue to adjust the mirrors and stoke the smoke until and long last someone with influence and courage confronts the MSM with the historical facts and explains the Constitutional imperative and meaning of Natural Born Citizen.

    [Ed. It’s truly a wonder to behold the way the main stream media and main stream blogosphere protects the fraud and bars all serious legal discussion. Welcome to the Soviet form of law control… we say what the law is whether it’s the law or not… and any pissant who tries to step up will be dealt with… look at these buffoons like Chris Matthews, Jon Stewart, O’Reilly, Rush…even Dobbs who may have simply been led to look like a buffoon with his useless BC questioning… none of them will dare answer the simple question:

    How can a person who states their birth status was Governed by Great Britain be a natural born citizen of the USA?

    There’s a billboard for you WND. They are the worst culprits of all sounding the false charge. I never worked with WND and consistently ordered them to step off my case – rejected their letter writing campaign and called them Constitutional frauds for failing to focus on the nbc legal question and British birth… they also jeopardized Officer Easterling’s freedom by printing a headline which was false that stated Easterling disobeyed a Presidential order. They better be careful or Easterling could sue them for millions if he wanted to.]

  126. slcraig Says:

    As always post or not at your descretion……


    I originally found you site as a link at a forum that I was and remain active in.

    Since grasping the point, fact and laws that govern I have tried to keep the thread of that forum on point and ‘educated’ on the law and the effects to the Constitution when the laws are ignored.

    Over the last several days we have been inundated with those that would derail, denigrate and obfuscate. A situation that I have noticed at a number of sites.

    My constant reflex to look over my shoulder and anticipation of the next shoe falling has been a bit un nerving.

    Every attempt I have made to get anyone at the publications you cited and many, many others, to explore the definition of NBC and the characteristics that distinguish it from citizen has been met with silence or a curt ‘The 14th Amendment’, then left without opportunity to discuss or rebut.

    My supplemental brief has been docketed at SCOTUS and indicated that it has been distributed.

    I prepared a motion for procedural orders to the 10th circuit in reaction to the non-responses from the Defendant, USA, for the order to suspend the rules as previously moved for as well as to accept 2nd amended complaint and, the Coup de grâce, the Declaratory Judgement.

    These are all items subject of the Petition to SCOTUS but in find no bar from the Procedural Order Motion and having NO demurs from the Defendant, I figured why not.

    I know I am taking liberties with the law that you could not would not consider, but I am a lay person and citizen who previously considered my self an American Natural Born Citizen and I refuse to go into the night quietly as long as that Legacy remains undefined.

    [ed. Best of luck to you. Keep us informed.]

  127. Great White Says:

    ed. Good call on Ed Darrell. You did him a great service in translating him for the rest of us. I couldn’t figure out what he was trying to say.

    I have just finished watching the beer summit and all is good with the world. How could anyone want to remove a regular guy Obama from office?

    WND has pics of copy of a real 1961 Hawaiian birth cert if anyone wants to see an official copy instead of a CLB.

    Thanks for your blog. Keep up the good work.

  128. My wife introduced me to your site about a week ago, and your adroit handling of the bottom line “fact of the matter”, has caused me to greatly modify my point of view regarding the “long form birth certificate”.

    She had also mentioned you are currently looking to gather broadbased “We the People” type of support for future legal action? If this is the case (and I have not read all of your posts, so there is a very real chance I missed what your current and or future plans are regarding the nbc issue and any pending of future attempts to bring it before the court.

    Thank you for sharing your information, your legal point of view, and in being willing to stand up for not only in what you believe in but for what is (regarding the Constitution and “rule of law”) the right thing to do.


    Guy S.

  129. Leo, I would like to send you a historical writing that I found sometime ago. The writing was for the Congress of 1853, in addressing naturalization laws It discusses British, French and US dual citizenship, also what constitutes a NBC in all three countries, the law cited is very old. I know you have done a huge amount of research and I thought you might want to add this to your research file.
    If your interested send me an email and I will respond and attach the file.

  130. Not according to the FAM issued by the State Dept…

    Foreign bases are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US and thus jus soli citizenship at birth can not aquired by children of military personel even though they are born on base.

    [Ed. Agreed. That was part of my law suit against McCain. But he was not even born on a base. He was born in Colon Panama.]

  131. Joss Brown Says:

    Leo wrote:

    Agreed. That was part of my law suit against McCain. But he was not even born on a base. He was born in Colon Panama.

    The birth certificates showing that McCain was born in Colon, Panama, might be a forgery. I read an article once that showed that either two typewriters were used on the document or it was later tampered with digitally, using a font that doesn’t match. In another article, a journalist wrote that he had actually (in private) seen McCain’s BC, which said that he was born in that naval hospital in the Canal Zone.

    Either way, McCain was never natural born.

    [Ed. I haven’t seen McCain make any claim that the BC and COLB were forgeries.]

  132. [Ed. Very interesting comment. There are couple of inaccuracies, but I have addressed them. Nice job, Alan. ]

    I’d also like to point out, and it bears repeating over and again – the so called Vattel rule for defining natural born citizen – needing to be born on the soil of two citizen parents – wasn’t conceived by Vattel – it WAS in fact the recognized “law of nations” definition discussed by George Collins in the American Law Review article from 1884, which does in fact mention Vattel. But Vattel simply included the “law of nations” definition of natural born citizen in his treatise “Law of Nations”, but Vattel did not come up with it – the definition was the recognized international law rule as to nbc. Recognized by nations all over the globe.]

    I note in many postings here and elsewhere references to the work of Vattel (Emmerich Vattel). His original work was written in French and titled Le Droit des gens ou principles de la loi naturelle (1758, edition of Carnegie Endowment (1934). What I have found missing in references to Vattel is a critical nexus between him and Benjamin Franklin, both a Framer of the Constitution and one of the 56 Signers of the Declaration of Independence.

    This missing link is important because I believe it sheds light on Obama’s full knowledge as a “Constitutional expert” that he is not eligible to be President based on Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the Constitution.

    I shall elaborate on the connection between Franklin and Vattel’s work subsequently herein.

    By way of general historical background surrounding the framing of our Constitution, there had been considerable interest in several European countries to define what constituted the essence of citizenship, and the concept of what would constitute a natural born citizen. The issue had been engaging international legal scholars like Vattel for at least 30 years prior to the drafting of the U.S. Constitution.

    Because the Constitution itself does not define a natural born citizen, we must follow the protocals we find in historical linguistics when trying to interpret an historical document, i.e., by referring to other documents, writings, common law, linguistic idioms, and a host of other clues commonly known at the time.

    [Ed. Yes, that’s the process as stated by the SCOTUS in the Minor case. Such process was confirmed by the SCOTUS in Wong Kim ark as well.]

    Although cited many places, it might be helpful to repeat here Vattel’s definition regarding natural-born citizens before moving on to the connection between Vattel’s work and Benjamin Franklin.

    Most Vattel citations are from his treatise, The Law of Nations, written in 1758 that was taken essentially from his original French work cited above. ibid. Cf. Book One, Chapter 19, § 212, Of Citizens and Naturals:

    “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. 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.”

    Let me now move on to Benjamin Franklin. I must first, however, take issue with what I have read elsewhere that Franklin “ordered” three copies of “Le droit des gens. . . ” For the following information I cite and give full-credit to author Abraham C. Weinfeld, who wrote in the University of Chicago Law Review, “What Did the Framers of the Federal Constitution Mean by “Agreements or Compacts”?
    Author(s): Abraham C. Weinfeld
    Source: The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 3, No. 3 (Apr., 1936), pp. 453-464
    Published by: The University of Chicago Law Review
    Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1596635 N.B. JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. (I interpret the foregoing as granting me permission to quote for a personal, non-commercial, non-remunerated commentary. Any use, quotation, either personal or commercial by others would be prohibited without first obtaining written permission from JASTOR, Cf. URL contact reference above).

    Quoting loosely from Weinfeld’s article (ibid. pp 457-459) there was a certain Charles F.W. Dumas, a Swiss living in Holland. He had at one time read Vatell’s work and, knowing what was happening in America vis-à-vis the framing of its Constitution, he brought out a new edition with notes inspired by recent world events and generously sent three copies as a gift to Benjamin Franklin. We know this because the article cites an existing letter from Franklin to Dumas ackowledging the receipt of the three copies.

    On December 19, 1775, Franklin stated in his letter to Dumas . . .”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 (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed), has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author . . .”

    One can logically conclude that the Framers and other educated people (who like Franklin knew and could at least read French if not speak it since it was the official language of diplomats) were familiar with the definition of a natural-born citizen. Because of the intense interest in the subject for at least three decades, plus the works of Vattel and others, one can assume with relative assurance that the definition of natural-born citizen would be well know among the educated. Thus, the Framers in their inimitable style marked by an economy of words probably did not feel compelled to define the term in the Constitution itself. We should recall that the Constitution, for all it power wisdom, is a document of only 4,400 words. Because of its brevity, and to be sure that the various State legislatures, whose ratification was necessary to adopt the Constitution, fully understood the language of the Constitution while considering its ratification, voilà, there appeared “The Federalist Papers.”

    For those among you who have not read them, I would urge you to do so. Originally written as 85 essays by three of the Framers, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, these essays appeared regularly in the New York newspapers. They were subsequently printed in other papers around the country, and finally put into book form about a year before the Constitution was officially ratified. They are a veritable treasure house of information and explanations of what the Framers meant by the language they used in the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison wrote most of the Papers, with John Jay contributing only five.

    If you will permit me a slight diversion from topic, I am constantly struck at how these incredible individuals somehow had the uncanny ability not only to explain the Constitution, but to see into our present day. For example, in Federalist 62 by Madison (although some scholars think the author might have been Hamilton) Madison is discussing the economic and international dangers that can come about due to constantly changing government policies. Is this not a description of the state of our own government today?

    I think you will find in 62 remarkable parallels to the economic paralysis that grips our country today. This is so succinctly embodied in a few lines in Section 4, Federalist 62 I want to include them. I find the thoughts expressed there, marvelously mirror what is happening in our Country today; thus I have included them. In Section 4 Madison states:

    “The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if they be so voluminous that they cannot be read or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined as a rule of action, but how can that be a rule which is little know, and less fixed. . . .In a word, no great improvement or laudable enterprise can go forward which requires the auspices of a steady system of national policy.”

    Sound familiar? We have Bills of over 1,000 pages, earmarks, amendments, and constant attempts to totally transform our Country at the peril of ignoring, even shredding, the very Constitution that gave birth to the most incredible Country in recorded history? Laws so voluminous and so rushed that no one reads them. They are printed and amended in the wee hours of the morning before the vote. When some members do plod through the turgid and confusing language, they find them truly incomprehensible. Yet the members of Congress, who forget that they work for us, not vice-versa, vote despite not even knowing what the legislation contains. How can government leaders reconcile their solemn oath taken by the President and all members of Congress to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies both domestic and foreign, without even reading a Bill? In addition, they later find that the legislation they approved is riddled with Constitutional violations, not the least of which is the destruction of citizens’ privacy and personal liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1 through 10!)

    [Ed. Exactly. It’s a mess and it’s intended to be a mess. Imagine a country where the legislators do not read the laws they enact. The USA is that country and the citizens have stood for this for a long time. The Patriot Act – say no more.]

    As troubling as Americans find Obama’s passion for sealing every document from his past, the issue is not really about the Birth Certificate. We are dealing with a very smart, calculating, even ruthless Chicago politician. Obama may very well have a hospital BC in addition to the questionable COLB we saw on the internet. What a masterpiece of deception it would be if public demand grew to such a crescendo that he produced it at the last minute as part of a well-conceived plan all along. Should a legitimate B be produced, the issue would be completely diffused while the real legal issue of whether he meets the test of being a natural-born citizen would get lost in a premeditated whirlwind of deliberate obfuscation and misdirection. Masterful!

    [Ed. I know. Hopefully, by raising that as a possible tactical plan we may be causing pause for them. If they follow through, it’s going to make this blog look very prophetic.]

    Americans tend to have short memories even about calamitous events like 9/11. During the primaries, Obama had a web site for about three weeks called Fight the Smears. On it, Barack Obama actually admitted that his birth status was governed by Great Britain. His statement about his birth status being governed by Great Britain was placed under the image of his COLB on the web site. Shortly thereafter, however, the admission was gone like a puff of smoke. The site had been sanitized!

    There is no doubt that the British Nationality Act of 1948 governed the status of children born not only in the U.K. but in British colonies as well. Thus the Act governed the nationality of all of Obama Senior’s children. British citizenship was conveyed based on the paternity of the child. This, of course raises the issue of dual citizenship which would destroy any status as a natural-born citizen. In Indonesia, Barry was enrolled in a private school that required he be an Indonesian citizen. At the time, Indonesia did not permit dual citizenship. This produces the same destruction for his natural-born status. His sister is still an Indonesian citizen.

    [Ed. I have to disagree with you there. The SCOTUS case of Ms. Elg deals with this issue. If a person is a natural born citizen at birth, the subsequent loss of US citizenship later, as a minor, will not take the US citizenship away. It cannot be waived by your parents while you are a minor. The natural born part is simply a circumstance of birth and is not effected at all. If Obama was nbc at birth (and there’s really no way he could have been, but just hypothetically speaking), then the Indonesia situation does not change nbc status.]

    Moreover, the situation for Obama is further complicated by the fact that U.S. law at the time required that the citizen-mother have lived in the United States for five years after turning 16 [Ed. It was 14 years of age]. She gave birth at 18, so it is not possible that she met that requirement. [Ed. This is only relevant as to persons born abroad. If born in Hawaii, Obama’s citizenship in the US depends on the 14th Amendment.

    The Founding Fathers were literally paranoid about a foreigner becoming POTUS and Commander-in Chief. This is why they used the term Natural-born. For an Obama apologist to resort to the use of “citizen” mentioned in the 14th Amendment is ludicrous and pure rationalization in that the 14th Amendment does not even deal with the office of President! It does, however, clearly state that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. This, by extension, requires just compensation if deprived of property. How convenient that those provisions apparently did not apply to GM and to over 700 Chrysler Dealers who received not a penny in compensation for their dealerships! By Chrysler’s own admission the White House insisted that these dealers be terminated. Is it merely coincidental that most of the terminated dealers just happened to have financially supported the Republican opposition?

    [Ed. I still believe these Chrysler Dealers might have Quo Warranto cases under the SCOTUS Newman holding. I would speak with one of them if they contacted me. This would be a potential source of litigation I might be up for.]

    To end, I would ask you to reflect on the judgment that history passes on us all. Just as historians have labeled King George III of Britain as “the King who lost America” will the 111th Congress, especially its imperiously arrogant leaders, earn the epithet “the Congress that destroyed America?” Satis, finis, salva nos, et lux perpetua luceat nobis.

    [Ed. Here here.]

  133. 9-7-09 pme czar gpme. another new one added. people ask how these are vetted. i say why wonder about that, nobody vetted obama at all. even the supreme court did ot question him as far as i can determine. obama should have been asked for all documentation, especially after he received the fulbright scholarship from columbia for foreign students. that doesnt sound like any investigation to my humble mine.

  134. The second great post Ive read on your blog.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: