[Ed. UPDATED 2:49 PM – The Google cache is now once again returning the Fight The Smears page with the relevant admission.]

[Ed. UPDATED 9:33 AM – Looks like they missed a spot or returned the document to the web.  Hurry before it vanishes.  The following link is still active:


With all the new media attention swirling around the issue of Obama’s eligibility to be President, I thought it might be helpful to re-release an important blog post I created back when my law suit was pending before SCOTUS.  I’ve done this for two reasons.

1.  The image that contains Obama’s admission of his birth status having been governed by Great Britain is being scrubbed from the web.  It was highlighted originally at Obama’s own Fight The Smears website which has now vanished.  The relevant admission appeared just below the Certification of Live Birth which he used to declare he was born in the US.

2.  The admission by Obama that his birth status was governed by Great Britian is the one fact which the main stream media has NEVER acknowledged.  In all of the coverage on the web and on radio and TV nobody will talk about it.  Instead of discussing this admission openly, they mock the entire movement.  It’s the new Soviet form of sarcasm.  They’ve found a new way to censor people, just act like a bunch of bullies in a sandbox and pretend you are in kindergarden.  Kick sand in the face of those who won’t do your bidding and threaten anybody else with sand in their face if they don’t laugh along.

Thank God for punk rock.  That music liberated me from all fear.  When The Sex Pistols back in 1976 put it to the Queen they got the snot kicked out of them everywhere they went.  But they started a revolution, a revolution along with The Ramones and The Clash and the world was changed.  They certainly liberated me and taught me to question authority.

I brought my law suit against the NJ Secretary of State to rid the ballots of  McCain, Obama and Calero.  Yet, I have been called a racist more times than I can count.  Furthermore, I have never said that the definition of natural-born citizen has been certainly determined in the courts.  I simply pointed out various historical cases and  comments which support the definition I believe is most on point – that to be President one must be born in the US to parents without foreign allegiance who are US citizens.

It’s hardly a fringe concept to expect and demand that the Commander in Chief was never a citizen of another nation.

It was Obama who originally said his birth status was governed by Great Britain, not me.  He said it.  He proved it.  Now  it’s like the emperor’s new clothes.  Nobody in the main stream media has the guts to discuss it openly.

I originally posted the following on  December 5, 2008 – the date SCOTUS discussed my case in private conference.


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

“ Clarifies Barack’s Citizenship

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

Read that last line again.

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

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

And this leads to the relevant question:


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


[Ed. Notice the link to Fight the Smears is now broken.]



  1. Thank you, Leo. Sent E-Mail copies of link to your article to all of my friends and many other bloggers. Please try to keep this going and assist others.

  2. Robert B. Davies Says:

    Check out the first paragraph, page 40.
    If this is correct, Obama’s mother lost her citzenship when she married Obama Senior.

    [Ed. You need to read further. The law changed through the years. She did not lose her US citizenship by marrying Obama, Sr.]

  3. Robert B. Davies Says:


    Sorry, second paragrraph. Expatriotization ACT of 1907.


    [Ed. I read it. That law does not apply any longer. She did not lose her US citizenship by marrying Obama, Sr.]

  4. Mitchell Staff Says:


    You were correct when you stated that the BC issue was a smokescreen hiding the real problem BHO has with the NBC requirement. You are also correct that the rule of law has left this country and we will probably lose our sovereignty soon. The only thing the ‘globalists’ have yet to do is ban firearms (and that’s coming soon). Once they take away the peoples ability to fight back, they can dominate. It’s sad that history can repeat itself over and over again and the majority just don’t ‘get it’.

  5. Robert B. Davies Says:

    The Cable Act of 1922 Repealed the Expatriation Act of 1907.

  6. Wrong.

    The laws of other nations do not effect US laws or our Constitution.

    [Ed. That’s a clever but deceptive mantra – but it is not relevant. The issue is not as you suggest… The governing law is the Constitution which requires natural-born citizenship. The Supreme Court in Minor indicated that there are doubts surrounding the citizenship of native born persons who have foreign parents. That is a US Supreme Court decision which was unanimous. That is US law. British law made Obama a citizen of Great Britain at birth. The US did not have then and does not have now the power to strip one entitled to UK citizenship of such rights. Furthermore, the US State Department Foreign Affairs Manual CLEARLY states that a dual citizen who is in the other country is more subject to that nations’s control than our own.]

    Besides this was a well known fact and one that has already been nefore SCOTUS and they dumped the case. Why would they do that?

  7. Just as an FYI for those that don’t already know…

    The Constitutional sections related to Presidential eligibility, versus ineligibility or disability, go beyond just Article II Section 1.

    Review the 12th, 14th (section 3), and 25th Amendments.

    Congress has a Constitutional duty to evaluate the constitutional eligibility of the President and Vice-President.

    Sample phrases:

    “constitutional disability of the President.” – 12th Amend

    “But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” – 12th Amend

    “…if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”
    – 20th Amend.

  8. Members of Congress (Senators and Representatives) have a Constitutional duty to:

    1) Personally inspect a certified copy of Obama’s original birth certificate, sent to them under seal directly from the State of Hawaii. (Just as was done with the certification of the Electoral College vote)

    2) Ask the Supreme Court to clarify the meaning of the Constitutional phrase “Natural Born Citizen”.

  9. Tony Stark Says:


    Thanks for replying to that deceptive statement that claimed that laws of other nations do not affect US laws. That is a meme being spread around by Obama’s supporters, and your reply greatly clarifies that point.

  10. Leo,

    Might this matter of “governed by the British … ” be yet another clever distraction?

    After all THE issue is the non-citizen status of Obama’s father, as you keep reminding everyone. If we get lured down the tunnel of the Nationality Act of 1948 or his British/Kenyan citizenship, or the Expatrioti-zation Act of 1907, or his Mother’s citizenship, etc. it just confounds the whole affair.

    His Dad was never a U.S. Citizen. Period; End of Story; Case Closed. Next please.

    [Ed. No, I don’t agree with you. He made an admission as to being governed by a foreign nation. How the hell can that not be relevant?]


  11. Leo,

    OK, I’m not a lawyer so I must, and I do, defer to your excellent judgment. My remark is a layman’s perspective. I/we can immediately grasp the one issue (his Dad was not a citizen) but the “governed by” can confuse me, and more importantly creates an opening for innumerable rebuttals on all manner of legal technicalities. Easy for you and your peers to deal with, but not so the rest of us. Heck, even the simplicity of his dad’s non-citizenship has received blank-stares from many/most I have spoken with these past months.

    We need a broad “political consensus” to initiate ANY legal effort, again as you have noted. Couldn’t you save the import of Obama’s admission for the detailed court room arguments? The KISS principle comes to mind: “Keep It Simple, Stupid.” America’s great electorate is far more the latter than a bright & informed & open legal mind.

    But this IS your call, of course. Thank you for listening.


    [Ed. nothing is more simple than an admission against interests… it’s even an antidote for hearsay…]

  12. sheikh_yer_butay Says:


    I am new to your site and I love it, but in reading some of your blogs I am getting discouraged. Do you think any of the surviving actions against Obama have a snowball’s chance? I have donated some money to help on a few cases and need to know if it will do any good before I donate more.

    [Ed. No, I don’t think any of them will prevail other than drawing awareness to the issue and that’s all we can really do. The courts are shilling to their keeper.]

  13. Unbamboozleus Says:

    I have met with the same blank and vacant responses to the dual citizenship/governed by Britain matter. Then people just change the subject or even go so far as to say the Obama himself was wrong about his statement on There’s just no where to go from there.

    I am so glad that you have made this latest excellent post.

  14. Leo,

    As a non-legal person I must respectfully disagree. An “admission against interests” leaves me with, huh? What interests?

    [Ed. He’s admitting his birth status was governed by a foreign nation. That’s against his interest in trying to portray himself as a natural born citizen of the US.]

    Obama has “admitted” his father was never a citizen. Why isn’t that enough … for the general public anyway? The later court room arguments are another case entirely.

    You know I have been one of your solid supporters since October, and I remain so. I am merely being “the messenger” as to the enormous difficulty that even my truly “educated” friends are having. They just cannot grasp this whole matter. “His Dad” they say, “Who cares?! The Constitution? Huh? It doesn’t even define nbc.” etc., etc.

    Just your trusty reporter calling in from America’s hinterlands.


  15. Leo,
    The link you posted is a copy of the site – not the real one. If you look closely, the last .com in the URL, it doesn’t end with but instead It is an accurate copy of the site as far as I can remember.
    Thought you would want to know.

    [Ed. I wasn’t sure where it came from but seeing as it’s been scrubbed from the web pretty clean, this one stands out. It does look accurate, but my screenshot image is of the original.]

  16. This is the 2nd paragraph where the author cleverly omitted. Very Hannitesque.
    “Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

    Please point to where “Natural born citizen” is clearly defined in the constitution or any subsequent supreme court rulings defining it.

    [Ed. It’s not clearly defined. But the most on point definition comes from the Minor case where they indicated doubts exist as to the citizenship of native born citizens of foreign parentage. I have never said it’s clearly defined. Regardless, the weight of evidence suggests that a person who was a citizen of a foreign nation should not be Commander in Chief of this one.]

    It’s Darwin’s evolution. If any species cannot adapt they will become extinct.

    [Ed. And the USA as a Constitutional republic is closer to extinction than ever before with the current President.]

  17. Robert B. Davies:

    The Cable Act of 1922 was repealed in (from memory) 1936 so that it is no longer relevant.

    What is more relevant, though, is that the Nqationalization Act of 1790 which used (apparently a misguided use which was corrected in the 1795 act) the term “naturlal born citizen” also had a provision as the next clause which said:

    “…Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: . . .”

    This “provided” reference ramained in pretty much that same wording in the acts of:

    1934 – which allowed mother’s transmitting of citizenship under certain conditions; repealed by 1941 act.
    1941 supereceded by the present act …
    1952 contained later amendments in the 1980s and later.

  18. How’s this for simplicity:

    1) The issue is Presidential eligibility.

    2) The Constitution explicitly requires that “No person except a natural born Citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President”.

    3) Nowhere in the original Constitution, its ratified Amendments, or Supreme Court decisions, is the term “natural born citizen” conclusively defined.

    4) Any consideration of the founders’ original intent for Presidential eligibility must take into account the writings of the man who became the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (John Jay).

    On July 25th, 1787, John Jay wrote the following to George Washington, then Presiding Officer of the Constitutional Convention:

    “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

    It was this letter that caused Clause 5 of Article II to exist in our Constitution. Since the oldest natural born citizens in 1787 were only 11 years old, a grandfather clause was included for those who were citizens at the time of the Constitution’s adoption. But the clear intent was to disqualify “Foreigners” from becoming President and Commander in Chief of our armed forces.

    5) On a web site run by the Obama campaign (it explicitly states “PAID FOR BY OBAMA FOR AMERICA” at the bottom of the page), it was openly admitted that Barack Obama had FOREIGN citizenship from birth until his 21st birthday.

    I think it is pretty clear that John Jay and George Washington, our first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and first President, would “declare expressly” that Barack Hussein Obama (also known as Barry Soetoro, Indonesian citizen) is NOT eligible to hold the office of President.

    [Ed. Agreed.]

  19. I’ve always thought from day one when posted that thing about Kenya, father, governed, etc was to throw people off. Why even bring this up unless you are hiding something and try to steer people into the opposite direction. Albeit it back fired on them!

    [Ed. It was the very definition of hiding in plain site. They stuffed it right below the COLB cabbage patch. And until my suit was filed in late October 2008, just a week before the election, nobody really made a fuss. They almost pulled it off without a hitch.]

  20. thinkwell Says:


    Some claim Obama was legally adopted by his stepfather Lolo Soetoro and thus became an Indonesian citizen by default. They also claim that Obama only informally repatriated upon his return from Indonesia, likely switching his assumed mantel of allegiance as he found convenient.

    They further claim that if he exercised his adoptive citizenship (e.g., application to Occidental as a foreign student or travel in Pakistan under a foreign passport) after the age of majority he thereby gave up his legal right to automatically revert to whatever U.S. citizenship status he may have had prior to his adoption as a child.

    The claim is that once he made the adult choice to “go Indonesian”, although he still may have retained the right to repatriate, it would then necessarily require going through a formal naturalization process, thereby obliterating any Natural born status he may have had (i.e., NBC strike two).

    What do you think?

    [Ed. I don’t think any of that effects whether he was NBC at birth. If he rejected US citizenship as an adult that would be relevant but I don’t believe that happened. It would be very stupid for him to have done that and I don’t think he’s stupid at all.]

  21. Remember this:

    Obama Casts Self as World Citizen

    “I come to Berlin as so many of my countrymen have come before, although tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for president, but as a citizen — a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world.”

    Obama called himself a “citizen” (sufficient to be a Senator), not a “natural born citizen” (required to be President), and he was very interested in being perceived as a “fellow citizen” by foreigners.

    Our Consitution expressly declares that our President must be a “natural born citizen”, not a “citizen of the world”.

    Our first Chief Justice clearly wanted to keep foreigners away from our government in general and the Presidency in particular.

  22. sheikh_yer_butay Says:


    In response to Tony’s comment. Doesn’t Mario Appuzo’s “Kerchner, et al v. Obama, et al” list several court cases all of which harken back to Vattel’s definition of an NBC? All the cases Appuzo mentions date before the 14th Amendment. I am at work and will have to go back and read it again tonight.

    [Ed. But Minor dates after the 14th Amendment and that’s what makes it so important in killing the “Native born = Natural born” argument. If that were true then the 14th Amendment would in fact define nbc, but SCOTUS in Minor rejected that notion.]

  23. They missed a spot in their cleaning:

    The link you had showed a link to what I’ve posted here. Funny though – the birth cert image is gone. Hmmm….

    [Ed. The Google cache is back up with the COLB.]

  24. bho boo Says:

    the new bot meme is evidently following your website
    Now, they’re saying that Minor was “overturned” and therefore irrelevant. Can you comment please?

    [Ed. The nineteenth amendment conferred suffrage regardless of sex and thus had the effect of overturning the core holding regarding woman’s suffrage in Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. (88 U.S.) 162 (1875), which had held that denial of the ballot to women did not violate the fourteenth amendment’s privileges or immunities clause.

    This is not the same as another Court coming in and saying the Court in Minor got it wrong. The Constitution was Constitutionally changed via the Amendment process and in so changing the law made the holding in Minor as to woman’s rights to vote irrelevant.

    It’s encouraging that the argument is now shifting from the BC to the real issue of Obama’s birth. I sense a certain panic out there. But I just don’t know what his supporters are worried about. Maybe they know something we don’t. I personally don’t believe our courts or legislators will have the spine to do anything anyway. But like I said, maybe somebody out there knows something I don’t. I’m seeing some pretty desperate attempts to discredit Minor though. This is a clever one, but is easily debunked.]

  25. Harry H Says:

    Key to this is the intent of the Constitution. Can’t begin to review it all here, but I have seen accounts of English law that the founders would logically have been influenced by when they used the term “natural born citizen.” That background and honest logic itself would support the proposition that the Constitution was intended to ensure that our President held allegiance to ONLY this country.

    It seems clear that a person with dual citizenship at birth, such as Obama, does not naturally, automatically have undivided loyalty to the U.S. The founders wanted to ensure against that questionable allegiance, so they specified the president must be “natural born”–that is, he must be of such a birth that he naturally, automatically, indisputably belonged to this country and to no other at birth.

    The only way a child can absolutely satisfy that Constitutional requirement–so that no debate would even be possible–is for the child to be born on U.S. soil and have parents (plural) who are U.S. citizens. I’m confident that this is what the founders intended.

  26. sheikh_yer_butay Says:

    In response to Tony’s comment and question asking for definition of NBC in case law. In Kerchner, et al. v. Obama et al, Atty. Mario Apuzzo cites the following:
    THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen);
    SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
    MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel);
    EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel):
    UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)

    [Ed. Mario has done an excellent job of researching the issue. Thanks for posting these.]

  27. [Ed. The Code does not establish natural born citizenship. It establishes classes of citizenship. What more can I say? Had Congress decided to write the Code and insert the term “Natural Born Citizen” where “Citizen” appears then they would have done that… if they though they could do it. They didn’t. As for the Constitution online, that’s not law, it’s just somebody’s web site and therefore it’s their personal, albeit wrong, understanding.]

    Hello Leo,

    I’m glad you are addressing this issue again. Because I myself am in the thick of arguing this very same subject with people who are adamant that Prez. Obama is in fact a natural-born citizen. And they site Title 8, Section 1401 of the U.S. Code.

    I looked at the code and did not find where it stated all individuals listed would qualify as natural born. Would you please take a look at the code and the website, US Constitution Online? There is a statement at the end of the list claiming that all are natural born citizens.

    US Constitution Online:

    Thank you
    Natural-born citizen

    Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

    Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”

    Anyone born inside the United States *
    Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
    Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
    Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
    Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
    Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
    Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
    A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

    * There is an exception in the law — the person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

    Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

  28. Unbamboozleus Says:

    When will we expect to know anything about the Kerchner, et al. v. Obama et al, Atty. Mario Apuzzo case?

    [Ed. I don’t know.]

  29. Harry H Says:

    I fear that mainstream media, the Congress, and even our benighted courts cannot steer our nation out of this mess without social disruption.

    It’s up to members of the military, like the one officer who already put himself on the line, to assert their right to know that they are following lawful command. As the Nuremburg Trials established, military officers have an obligation to question orders they have reason to believe are improper.

    The validity of any orders under a constitutionally disabled Commander-in-Chief is questionable. Military people, you have a right to request that Obama establish as fact that he is a natural born citizen of these United States, as required by our Constitution.

    If Obama can’t do that, which he can’t, for the good of your country please just fly Obama to Indonesia, where he either has or can reclaim his citizenship. History will bless you for sparing us a heap of misery.

  30. bho boo Says:

    Another bot meme is a dare to “link it” about Obama’s admission of British citizenship at birth–I think they thought it was all scrubbed, well it will be soon enough, but that page clip has been archived several million times by now. They’re so juvenile, nasty.

    I don’t get why bots want a southeast asian jihadist for president? I mean, he titled his book in Indonesian “Jihad, from Jakarta to the White House” instead of Audacity of Hope. How much more clear could he be?

    [Ed. Had to snip you there…Im sure you know why.]

  31. Leon Brozyna Says:

    Mr. Donofrio:

    Just did a screen shot of that page and I must say that the statement they make about Mr. Obama being a native citizen is quite crafty. It is technically correct since it doesn’t claim he is natural born; this allows for media and other supporters to go forward and spin it and use it against the BC agenda. We should take President Clinton’s 1992 mantra about the economy and update it to: “It’s the Constitution, stupid!”

    As for any court acting on any of the suits still pending, while I can always hope, I believe you are right – nothing will be decided. The best we can realistically hope for is a single term for Mr. Obama. In the meantime we individually should each speak out on the constitutional issues, making it clear that it’s not about personality or birth certificates.

    Leon Brozyna
    CW2, USA (Ret)

  32. Hi Leo,
    Thanks very much for the clarity on this issue. In order to counter the blank stares I get when explaining why Obama is not an nbc based on his father not being a US citizen, I ask them to consider the following hypothetical situation:
    What if Osama bin Laden (never a US citizen like Barack Obama Sr.)married an American woman (like Stanley Ann) and she gave birth on US soil to a child who later runs for POTUS?
    Certainly our founders were attempting to avoid this exact situation.
    Am I right to say that if Obama is elibible to the Presidency, so would this child be when he/she attained the age of 35 years and lived in the US for 14 years?
    I am forwarding your links to everyone I know and asking them to forward them along as well. The truth is the only answer.


  33. Leo,

    My three posts today were an attempt to inform you of the difficulty I/we have in attempting to convey this topic to others. Now, I for one do fully understand all you have written, but others I talk with do not. The intent of my posts today were to request/suggest you keep it simple, and save your numerous excellent “legal” arguments for the courts.

    Would you please reread my posts today from that perspective to see if you might now direct your posts a little more to this non-legal audience?

    You have built a most compelling case against Obama as an nbc. I believe the “legal work” is essentially done and we must now work to build a far broader public awareness & consensus then we currently have. Only then might any court take action. To reach the more general public we must keep it simple. I understand you and am 101% on-board, but my circle-of-friends barely give it a thought, and they are the ones we must shift to our view. Keeping it simple is the only way we can do so.

    I apologize for yet another post. Thank you for your attentive listening.

    Warm regards,

    [Ed. Tell your friends whatever you think will work. I’m telling my readers to focus on his admission that he was governed by Great Britain at birth AND that his father was NEVER a US citizen. There you go. Can’t get any simpler than that.]

  34. […] Leo Donofrio once again responds to the idea that the press seems fixated only on the birth certificate and not Mr. Obama’s […]

  35. Harry H Says:

    Maybe Robare could say:

    Do you believe in constitutional government? We don’t have that now.
    We have a constitutionally disabled President who must be removed from office if we are to have a legal Commander-in-Chief. Because Obama’s father was British, he is not a “natural born” U.S. citizen” as the Constitution requires; that is, his allegiance did not naturally, automatically, indisputably belong to this country and to no other country at the time of his birth.

  36. bho boo Says:

    OK ! But do you think Fukino is slow rolling to reveal another parentage to back up her natural born citizen statement?

  37. Leo,

    Ahhh … “AND” being the operative word here re governed by GB “and” his father never a citizen. I had somehow collapsed the two considerations into one. Thank you for the clarification.


  38. Ladyhawke Says:

    For those having trouble getting folks to understand this issue, I have had some success with these:

    I have used the Osama bin Laden hypothetical situation posted above.

    I think one problems with Obama’s admission to being governed by Great Britain at birth is that sounds quite benign as Great Britain is our friend.

    [Ed. Yeah but to the Framers, Great Britain were the terrorists at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. That’s the irony.]

    Ask them to think about substituting China or North Korea in that statement.

    Ask them how they would feel about the potential conflicts if Obama’s father were alive today and prominent in Kenya.

    Hope this helps!

  39. bho boo Says:

    This Daily Kos fraudulent BC from the UK seems to validate your claim that the bots want to keep the focus on the BC and away from the USC.

  40. Leo, keep the fire burning dude. here is some more out-of-the-box redneckian logic:

    can we get our friends in the UK to get them to submit a bill to revoke Obama’s British citizenship, since his birth was governed by Great Britain?

    …let’s stir that pot! 😉

  41. Tony Stark Says:

    There’s a new article up about Obama still retaining his British citizenship.

  42. Leo,

    My son was born in a military hospital (121 Evac) in Seoul, South Korea in 1979. My wife at the time who was Korean was a Naturalized US Citizen and I was a NBC in the military.

    After my son was born I received a birth certificate with a registration number from the US Embassy Seoul and a US passport application for my son. The application was processed and a passport issued listing him as a US citizen.

    This document is still used today by my son and meets all legal tests for citizenship/birth.

    If my former wife was still a Korean National when my son was born, they would have registered the birth with the Korean government and he would hold dual citizenship with Korea until the age of eighteen.

    When my son attended elementary school they were studying about the US Presidents and he said, Hey maybe I will be President someday. It was at that point I explained to an ten year old why he could hold any elected office in the Nation except the office of President.

    I went on to explain that our Founders of the Constitution felt that anyone born in another country was born on tainted soil and to be President you must be born on Native soil to two US Citizen parents.

    Finally I explained that if his mother was still a Korean citizen and he was born in the USA, he would have to choose which country he would be a citizen of by the age of 18 as he would be a dual citizen. After we talked he prepared an assignment on what we discussed and took it to school.

    After work the next day my son approached me and said his teacher told him I was wrong and he could become President because he was a US Citizen and born naturally (I swear it is true).

    After I composed myself and picked myself up off the floor, I went to my meager library of Air Force study references and grabbed a small booklet that contained article II of the Constitution and asked my son to take this to class the next day to show his teacher.

    Coincidentally the school he attended was Admiral Nimitz Elementary school next to Hickam AFB, Honolulu, Hawaii. My son was enrolled in the GATE classes at Nimitz.

    Does anyone wonder why we are in the position we are today?

    [Ed. Thank you for serving and for properly educating your son. Well done.]

  43. kyright Says:

    Along with your blog, which I am so greatly appreciative of, I often referred to The Obama File: Strangely, today, coinciding with the huge media attention the NBC issue is now getting, there was first a message posted at the top of the blog saying something to the effect that there would be no more daily posts due to lack of support. And now, none of the pages are accessible and there is only the single message that the site is closed. There was an amazing amount of research catalogued there, that many others researching this issue linked and often referred to. This is very strange. Anyone know the author or whether the site has moved elsewhere??

  44. Something that may be of assistance — probably not much assistance as far as an official argument, but at least it helps to historically make the point — is this quote from Madison in the Virginia ratifying convention of the Constitution.

    “It is to be presumed that, in transactions with foreign countries, those who regulate them will feel the whole force of national attachment to their country. The contrast being between their own nation and a foreign nation, is it not presumable they will, as far as possible, advance the interest of their own country?”
    Quoted from: Madison. “Thursday, June 19, 1788” (misprinted by Jonathan Elliot as “Wednesday, June 18, 1788”). Jonathan Elliot. “The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution.” The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. Book compiled by Jon Roland of The Constitution Society, September 5, 1995 at Updated October 21, 2001. Specific section which was cited accessed July 29, 2009.

    Madison’s point reflects the mindset that a government official involved in foreign affairs will obviously seek the interests of his own country more than that of another country, and that in fact, they will seek their own country’s interests to the fullest possible extent. This gives us good reason to believe that the founders intended to exclude dual citizens (like Obama) from the ‘natural born’ category, seeing as a dual citizen may well have conflicting national interests, rendering such a person incapable of fully and properly representing the foreign interests of the United States. In Obama’s own case, he had foreign citizenship until he was an adult, by which time he would certainty have had the chance to intellectually-develop at least something of a national attachment.

    Side note to Unbamboozleus: I believe August 3rd is the date that the judge is supposed to rule on the motion to dismiss in the Kerchner et al v. Obama case.

    [Ed. Excellent research. Excellent point.]

  45. A signed confession – what a slap in the face!

    Well, “we’ve” done a GREAT job with Strategy (awareness and education) and with using Tactics (word-of-mouth and the Internet).

    For those not familiar with Military terminology – Strategy is procedure and Tactics are the tools.

    Strategy is timeless and tactics are (in some cases) dependent on technology (such as the Internet).

    NOW, it’s time that “we” return an insult for an insult….

  46. DrJim77 Says:

    Kerchner, et al. v. Obama et al, Atty. Mario Apuzzo case is due for ruling on dismissal due to lack of standing on or around August 3d.

  47. I now can access the web site. I couldn’t last week!

    [Ed. Pretty amazing that came back online today.]

  48. [Ed. Something is up. But I’m not sure what it is. Originally I thought they were getting ready to unleash his long form BC… now Im not so sure. I’m confused. This is beyond weird. I was so done with this then it blew up and I strted looking at Minor again and it dawned on me that this case was decided 6 years after the 14th Amendment was adopted which truly proves that SCOTUS at that time ws rejecting the notion that the 14th Amendment defined NBC. I had to write about that. Frankly, Im already tired of it again. The media protection is massive. He’s being surrounded by love even by GOP cretins like Coulter and O’Reilly. And they are pretty damn GOP creepy. And that’s what’s really really creepy.]

    Something is going on. John Bachelor is a real sharp guy. I listen to his radio shows and he has the intellect to see the real issue … NBC & not the Birther stuff. To write this B.S. maybe something is up. Also at the end he trashes Palin where in an earlier column he is Pro Palin. Don’t add up to me

    Will the Birthers Doom the GOP?
    by John Batchelor
    July 28, 2009 | 11:45pm
    The GOP, reduced to hosting loonies who obsess over Obama’s birthplace, is slipping into the ash heap. The Daily Beast’s John Batchelor on why Republican incoherence may doom the party to the fate of the Whigs.

    The romantic yarn that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, not in the United States, and is therefore an illegitimate POTUS is the core of a still-evolving conspiracy theory that now explodes like a neutron stink bomb splashing on the right wing while leaving the center and left idly smiling and curious.

    What is going on with the despondent Republican Party that it hosts loonies called the birthers in its ranks?

    The birther episode is not a media story, or even a story about Obama’s unique youth, but another illustration of the slow-motion decomposition of the GOP.

    The answer may be that the birther phenomenon is a mutation of a political virus called incoherence. Incoherence is fatal. It killed the Whigs (and led to the creation of the Republicans); it killed the Klan and the American communists. The birther mutation looks to erase what remains of the GOP’s credibility with the electorate, already at an all-time low and still sinking to third- and fourth-party numbers, if there were a third or a fourth party.

    In sudden alarm Monday night, 158 House Republicans voted with the Democrats to endorse the self-evident fact that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. No whipping by the GOP leadership was necessary. The House Republicans understood that birtherism has jumped to a pandemic Phase 6, multiple infections in all states, much too late to stop with a quarantine on the Hill.

    Already, a handful of House Republican members show signs of succumbing to the symptoms of brain fever—wagging fingers, dry-mouth stammering—by co-sponsoring a bill to require presidential candidates to submit a birth certificate. The primary patient is California Republican John Campbell, who showed tertiary impatience with his triteness on TV when he proposed, “It doesn’t matter if I have doubts or not, OK?”

    August recess means that the Hill Republicans must go home to their districts to face the birtherite pod people, and there will be additional farcical confrontations similar to what the chump moderate Republican Rep. Mike Castle faced recently at a town-hall meeting in Delaware, when birthers flourished their birth certificates at him.

    The pandemic is out of control, and those who argue cynically that birtherism is being stoked by the media, or fed by the cunning White House political operation to gain sympathy for a panicky presidency, are not examining the peculiar details of the potency of the illness.

    This is not a pandemic that spreads only by the airplane, the Internet, or even by word of mouth, because a single exposure to the central whopper is not usually sufficient. Daily reinfection is needed or the disease goes dormant like algebra. Birtherism has found a durable vector, ubiquitous like insects and slippery like long-tailed mammals, in the institution of talk radio and its cable-TV compadre. The boss vectors just now are the burlesque artist Rush Limbaugh—“Barack Obama has yet to prove he’s a citizen”—and Limbaugh’s parasitic rival of bloviation, faux rueful Lou Dobbs: “I don’t know what the reality is. No one does.”

    What is also striking about this mutation is that, as a talking vector, you do not need to endorse the birther template that the president was born of an 18-year-old girl who raced to Mombasa in time to deliver in an unnamed setting. You are just as effective a vector if you deny the birtherite creativity, if you produce the Hawaii documents, if you say the magic words “smear” or “tin-foil.”

    White House press secretary Robert Gibbs is a fertile source when he uses the briefing room to evince exasperation: “…this question in many ways continues to astound me.” Cable-TV stars such as the giddy Chris Matthews—“The birthers don’t let the facts get in the way”—and the stern Bill O’Reilly—“The Factor investigated it and found out that it’s bogus …”—become like Typhoid Marys, spreading an illness to which they claim immunity. Ratings, anyone?

    Grimly, the birther episode is not a media story, or even a story about Barack Obama’s unique youth, but rather it is another illustration of the slow-motion decomposition of the GOP. The party, having lost its principles, its confidence, its courage, and then having lost an election, now experiences what it is to lose its mind, too, while it slips into the ash heap with other novelties.

    The conduct of the Republicans in Congress since January has been astonishingly frail, as if the party had lost immunities to race-baiters like Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich, to liars like John Ensign and Mark Sanford, to yammerers like Eric Cantor and Michele Bachmann, to the goofily vain like Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, and Mike Huckabee.

    The party has wasted away to the point where opportunistic eruptions like the birthers and much worse are natural sorrows. Republican incoherence didn’t begin with Mombasa. There is logic to the closing down of a great political party that has abandoned its own greatness to cheer on churls. Perhaps what appears terminal cowardice is only venality; perhaps what sounds like a death rattle is only the wrinkled ranting of crones in the Senate; perhaps the polls showing the Republican brand not as well regarded as Drano are just outliers. Perhaps, too, like miscreant HAL 9000, the GOP is warming up to sing, “Daisy, Daisy.”

    John Batchelor is radio host of the John Batchelor Show in New York, Washington, D.C., San Francisco, and Los Angeles.

    Trashing Palin Now ….

    This his piece July 4-5 I believe on Sarah Palin

    UPDATE: Rather than a blow to a career, Sarah Palin’s decision to resign underlines her self-awareness, writes The Daily Beast’s John Batchelor. She is now unmatched for the 2012 primary.

    Plus: Read more of The Daily Beast’s coverage of Palin’s resignation and the GOP implosion.

    The early excuse for the Republican circular firing squad of the holiday weekend is that Weekly Standard editor and party brainiac Bill Kristol claims that pugnacious McCain campaign enforcer Steve Schmidt has been caught gossiping to Vanity Fair’s Todd Purdum about Sarah Palin’s rambling and incoherent vice-presidential campaign last September and October. (Now that Palin has announced her resignation from Alaska’s governorship, the late excuse for the fisticuffs will certainly be that the boys smelled a special mom baking an apple pie in the kitchen of the GOP and they got in line early with a plate and appetite.)

    Purdum, writing with a polite disdain, does flatter Palin as “the sexiest and riskiest brand in the Republican Party,” before he goes on to mention unnamed McCain campaign sources who tell stories of Palin’s erratic behavior on the trail supposedly caused by her “post-partum depression.” Kristol asserts as evidence that Schmidt was the source of this defamatory rumor that Kristol knows that Schmidt has recently emailed Palin out of the blue. “Perhaps Steve was nervous someone would finger him for the Purdum piece,” Kristol proposes.

    What Palin begins with an announcement from Wasilla is not only a campaign, it is an Iditarod of a crusade.

    Firing back, Schmidt immediately emailed a reference to Bill Kristol’s distant youth when he worked for the perennial GOP chump, Vice President Dan Quayle: “I’m sure John McCain would be president today if only Bill Kristol had been in charge of the campaign.”

    Meanwhile, the sniping continues to deteriorate, with erstwhile McCain campaign advisers like Randy Scheunemann choosing sides with Kristol (Scheunemann hates Schmidt, who tried to force him out of the campaign as a leaker and confiscated his BlackBerry), while Schmidt reveals that he had the permission of McCain and Palin to ferret out who was leaking unkind details on Palin to the media. No comment yet from the senator and the governor on their genius of a Plumbers Unit. Another campaign aide, Nicole Wallace, and her husband, Mark Wallace, are mentioned as founts of poison on Palin. “This is all news to me,” Nicole Wallace proclaims.

    Is this normal after a losing presidential campaign? No. Nor is this a normal year for the Republicans. Kristol and Schmidt and their cronies all know that the Republican brand that they depend upon for a job and for money, lots of money, has been wrecked to the point of no return. They are veterans of a lost cause with one wild adventure to try before history moves on—and the adventurer’s name is Sarah Palin.

    Palin’s sudden announcement that she will resign the Alaska governorship at the end of July, delivered alongside the fireworks of the 4th of July, underlines her self-awareness that she must respond to the pyrotechnics of her stature in the GOP—and must respond in an explosive fashion. Discarding the demands of an Alaska job that is at best part-time, undemanding, predictable, banal, means that she will now devote full-time to traveling the “lower 48” in order to speak, speak, speak. Wherever she goes, she is Alaska, moose-hunting, and Wasilla. As a candidate, she begins the nomination hunt with a formula that none of her rivals can match, not even Mitt Romney, not only because she gave up something in order to go for the White House but also because she reached this decision by being drafted.

    What is going on right now in the Republican Party—even as the professionals scramble to react with grins and snorts to the news of Palin’s Alaska resignation—are the early scenes of the 2012 campaign for the presidency with Sarah Palin as the once and future hero. Like Joan of Arc, Catherine the Great, Elizabeth Regina, and, skipping four centuries of quarrelsome princes, Margaret Thatcher, the Republican Party has already decided that the governor of Alaska will rescue the GOP from its ruination. What Sarah Palin begins with an announcement from Wasilla is not only a campaign, it is an Iditarod of a crusade—first woman, first mom, and second moose-hunter into the White House.

    If you scoff at Palin for president, you are likely insufficiently cynical to work on a national campaign. Eight months after the election, the governor is as natural and gifted a presidential candidate as anyone since Huey Long. The farther she stays away from Washington and the longer she pushes away those sharpies clamoring for her to raise PAC money, to prepare gray-bearded policy positions, network at the barbecues in Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina (well, maybe not South Carolina right now), the more box-office irresistible she will be to Republican primary voters. What most recommends the Palin boom is that she is now, 40 months to the election, as celebrated by the GOP right wing as she is reviled by the Democratic left wing.

    Rather than a blow to a career, the Purdum piece in Vanity Fair is a spectacular tribute to a force of nature that became an “ineradicable” caricature before she became a household name. Tina Fey’s talent is a walking advertisement for presidential debates to come. Purdum employs his talent for disregard in order to collect a posse of anonymous tattletales, back-stabbers and snitches—many of them unsurprisingly males—to weave a political biography that is compelling in its improbability and breathtaking in its portrait of a young, deceitful, driven, unapologetic, spontaneous, and cunning scalawag. Purdum’s notion of a sober put-down is to quote the wooden fossil of a cigar store Indian, Governor Walter S. Hickel, who complains that after he helped Palin get elected governor, “She never called me after that.” The stories about Palin and her rambunctious daughters, her riveting special-needs child, her cheerful parents, her innate affection for the strangeness of Alaska, and her magical romance with her rock-star attractive husband Todd are all a setup to learning that in the governor’s office she is Elmer Gantry in a skirt, as clannish, vengeful, petty, tireless, ill-read, pouty and manipulative as anyone Hollywood could dream up and play Mildred Pierce. The darkest revelations about Palin are that she didn’t like preparing for the tedious TV interviews; she treated the dull Biden debate as irrelevant; and she wanted to make her own concession speech on election night. In sum, the governor does not like losers, does not like to lose, and was liberated the moment she shed the burden of bootless John McCain.

    What Kristol and Schmidt know is that the only Republican candidate worth cutting each other up about is Sarah Palin. The governor certainly does not need either of them other than as stable hands for Joan of Arc’s replacement horses or as Joan Crawford’s makeup artists. In fact, the governor does not need much more than a ballot line from the aimless, tongue-tied, villain-rich GOP. She certainly does not need the GOP to do well in the congressional mid-terms in 2010; she does not need the party to improve its flabby polling on health care or trust; she does not even need the Republican Party to raise a voice to explain her positions on the burning controversies on Capitol Hill. Palin does not need to prove anything at all about wise government, because she appeals directly to the anti-authoritarian crowd that has been with us since Shay’s Rebellion in 1787. It is an accident of history, and of John McCain’s whimsy, that Sarah Palin caught Potomac Fever in September ‘08, and it will carry her either to the White House or to that place even rarer, where the Kingfisher dwells, called what-could’ve-been

    So Leo as you can see at least to me something is up . Leo what do you think???

  49. billvanallen Says:

    Colbert’s interview of Orly Taitz focused on the lack of US citizenship of BO’s father — only way NBC eligibilty would be satisfied would be to dig up BO’s father and have congress somehow retroactively naturalize him.

  50. Ladyhawke Says:


    I have several very prominent Democratic friends that are now disturbed about the lack of documents to support Obama’s past – so this is not just a GOP issue.

    I do think it is simmering and about to boil. The powers that be know that the real issue is what you write about, Leo – NBC and not the birth certificate.

    If Obama is found to be ineligible, there are some GOP darlings that will find their own POTUS ambitions quelled, like Bobby Jindal. I do not know where Mr. Batchelor stands on him – but he was not mentioned in the above articles.

    Curious, to say the least.

    [Ed. I got to say, after all this Fukino stuff, I want to see the damn BC more than ever. It won’t make him eligible, but it sure is dramatic!]

  51. Now on HotAir Blog …

    Of course Obama’s a natural-born citizen, says … Jim DeMint

    Posted by ALLAHPUNDIT … What Demint said …

    On Monday, however, the South Carolina Republican found himself defending Barack Obama from the fringier elements of his own political party: the conspiracy theorists who insist the president was not born in the United States.
    “I may have disagreements with [the president] on issues,” DeMint told the Huffington Post. “But he is my president, he deserves our respect, and we need forget that nonsense …
    “He is not only a citizen,” he added, “he is our president.”

    Oh … Demint did not say NBC but ciitzen … So ALLAHPUNDIT is lying…

  52. Harry H Says:

    What’s up with media is the thought-police, and apparently some feel they better disinform about Obama’s unlawful grip on power, or their power to communicate could be impaired.

    A relative in a distant state tells me his local paper has now entered the fray, but the AP story it published makes no distintion between native/natural or certificate/certification. Typical whitewash.

    And for some the subject is too big for their cognitive framework to hold at this time. They are in denial. That same distant relative, who is not even a Democrat, admits I may be on to something, but he is not interested in pursuing “the birth thing” further. He wants to talk about bailouts, healthcare, wars. Whether or not Obama holds unlawful authority over our armed forces is not “interesting” to him.

    If we keep plugging–stay positive, Leo!–we will eventually awaken enough interest to make someone in Washington take their Constitution seriously.

  53. Patriot Says:

    Way to go paisan. Keep up the good work.

  54. maybe the Queen of England can re-gift that iPod that Obama gave her back to the USA – loaded with a copy of Obama’s UK passport?

    …and also copies of their Home Office certification to the US Dep of Education for his eligibility as a foreign student as a bonus!

    Brits to the rescue of their former colony! 😉

  55. Mr. Obama not only admitted this, but in a White House press conference, Robert Gibbs stated not that Barack Obama was a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, but quantified his official Barack Obama response in Mr. Obama is only a citizen of America.

    As Robert Gibbs is playing cute with words, this is a legality which is relevant in disqualifying Mr. Obama.

    [Ed. I thought that was WILD when he failed to state his boss was a natural born citzen.]

    For those who are now trying to pedal this as a problem for the GOP, the fine Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma settled it in an interview with, “I trusted Barack Obama so I voted to confirm”.
    That is the shot heard round the world, because the GOP has now set the stage to give themselves an out stating Obama might have lied to them and further actions to disqualify him can follow.

    This is just the first quarter Americans, and the fine people behind the search for Truth have already backed the patrician media, politicians and cartel cronies back. They are now speaking in terms of birth certificates which hold no water in court as Mr. Obama was registered on a common hearsay probably sworn in by a relative in his Grandmother, with no doctor or 3rd party to back it up.
    This is the logical reason why Mr. Obama is hiding everything as he knows how corrupt Hawaii was and is in pulling this for importing pineapple pickers and later for illegals to boost welfare ranks for government funds flowing into Hawaii.

    Americans have Obama and Axelrod Inc. running scared in scrubbing the entire internet. I just blogged on this Obama comment in being British and once again the evidence is coming down, but it is forever as people have saved the information from Mr. Obama’s own site.

    God bless America and the entire Truth to come out. In His Name. Amen.

    It is always winning day when Axelrod Inc. is wasting more resources trying to cover up their mistakes.

  56. I have never got an answer from anyone on the fact that my friends Uncle could not enter Navy Officers School because his father was not a US citizen. The Navy said back then (1940s) that both parents HAD to be US citizens. Why can’t someone get the information from the US archives about this?

  57. Here is the latest bot logic given to me…when you say Obama isn’t eligible to be POTUS they say, “well he is POTUS so he’s obviously eligible”. Dumb, I know.

  58. Leo, quick question: Say everything goes your way. Considering Chester A. Arthur put two Justices on the Supreme Court, could you quickly summarize the legal repercussions of nullifying his presidency?

    [Ed. It’s just a question of doubt isn’t it. ]

  59. Zeeshopper Says:

    Hi Leo,

    I found a book called “An exposition of the Constitution of the United States‎”, written by Albert Orville Wright in 1883.

    The Author gives the definition of the term “Natural-born Citizen”. I’m not sure if it’s very accurate, but still it’s interesting to see a definition from back then.

    Here’s the link:

    [Ed. Good find, but I don’t agree with that explanation. He ignores alot of stuff.]

  60. well Leo, if some believe the media controls everything, then how did you get where you did?

    The MSM is just that! Mainstream. And this information is not mainstream. The MSM is way behind the curve here. And their learning curve is just beginning, because the idea of his eligibility was dismissed without further scrutiny. The story was supposed to die.

    Obama became President. and Bingo. Done!

    Oh but not so fast……….talking heads…

    It came from the “grassroots” and this is why it is “uncontrollable”. The MSM is just now trying to gain a foothold on the story so that they can handle it. Just like they planted Gingrich at the Tea Parties…although he had nothing to do with it..and they figured the Tea parties would end…


    This is how stories are controlled that come from the grassroots..

    By MSM “piggyback”. They take it and frame it…and make it what they want. They cannot control the grassroots on this issue. And everyone involved are causing them to pull out their hair. Whoever got that woman in Hawaii to read that Statement, obviously did not talk to CNN…

    Chaos brother….that’s what you’re seeing….


    No matter what they say, they cannot win. Because a birth Certificate is a very VISCERAL thing to Americans. We all have to show ours.

    Period. That’s how most people feel. It is our ticket to many places.

    Now the MSM was not expecting, most probably Lou Dobbs what kinds of emails he began to receive from grassroot sources…

    About the Constitution and your case re: Natural Born Citizen.

    The Birth Certificate is the thousand cracks in the glass ceiling…

    What is above it? Is the truth and the Law…

    Take Heart Leo…

    This has awakened a nation…

  61. And here is another counterpoint a very upset bot used re: MvH: “One more time, “for the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts”
    meaning, basically “we’re not going to get into that, because it isn’t relevant to this case.”
    The question of NBC was definitively answered by the court later in 1898 in US v Wong Kim Ark. THAT is the case that set precedent, and that precedent disagrees with you.”

    [Ed. Tell them to see my latest on Wong Kim Ark.]

  62. Not sure it’s a relevant Obama admission, but I remembered Obama admitting in the Keyes/Obama Senate debates that he wasn’t eligible. So I went to youtube to see if I could find it, and all I found was This

    Been scrubbed.

  63. A question of doubt? Not an answer, Leo. You’re basing your entire case on a dissenting opinion of a single Supreme Court Justice. If what you’re lobbying for comes to pass, you’re going to invalidate a good portion of our tariff laws, plus the rulings of Justice Horace Gray, who incidentally ruled on Wong Kim Ark. You take a lot of pride in saying exactly what you mean. If everything goes your way, please, describe what happens to our legal system.

    [Ed. Doubt is the perfect answer because nothing is going to change as to Chester Arthur’s presidency. It’s too late. The decisions must have finality. Nothing he did will be undone. All that will change is the increasing doubt that accompanies the actions of a usurper now revealed.

    Furthermore, what are talking about regarding this single Scotus justice and my whole case? That’s insane brother. No idea what you’re on about at all. Entire case? One justice? As they say in Canada, “Eh?” Explain.]

  64. Two points:

    Point 1:

    I see from azgo’s post that fightthesmears is back on line. I was going to point out that the pertinent material that they referenced did not go away.

    Point 2:

    I just wrote a second letter to the editor of the Arizona Republic in response to their political cartoon that depicts “birthers” as clowns.

    Limited to 200 words, this is what I said.

    It is clear to me that virtually everyone who brings up the “birther” issue has not done any research.

    The question of whether or not a president meets the eligibility requirements in Article II, Section 1 is a constitutional question of utmost importance.

    The questions that need to be answered are:

    Who is a natural born citizen?

    Why did the framers place this requirement only on the office of president and not on members of Congress?

    Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875) had no doubts about who is a natural born citizen.

    “[I]t was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

    Waite did have doubts about the circumstances that govern President Obama.

    “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts…”

    President Obama was a British subject at birth because his father, who was a native of Kenya, was subject to British law.

    Is President Obama a natural born citizen?

    The Arizona Republic won’t print this letter either, but I’ll let you know if they do. My first letter was similar in content. I wrote that one in response to an AP article about the “birthers”.

    [Ed. It’s the new improved Soviet censorship… just use sarcasm to discredit opposing views. The media has turned into the bully in the sandbox. Talking heads dissing each other in cable news flame wars pass for real news. Every news source prints the same exact story from the new ministry of truth. 1984 is here in spades. But we’re too busy laughing with Tweety and Bill Maher and Jon Stewart and Colbert to realize we are being controlled.]

  65. Jan made a great point
    What if the son of a foreign King or power came here and had a child with an NBC mother, could that child become POTUS ?
    The Framers had it right.

  66. […] straight from Natural Born Citizen.  Very interesting. [Ed. UPDATED 2:49 PM – The Google cache is now once again returning the Fight […]

  67. Doesn’t the U.S. Constitution override whatever was in the The British Nationality Act of 1948?

    [Ed. That’s a clever but distracting way to frame the issue. It’s like asking, “Do you still beat your wife?” US law is not being overruled by the BNA of 1948, US law is upheld by acknowleding that Obama had a father… and that father’s rights extended to his son and those rights made Obama a citizen of the UK at birth. You are suggesting that US law could take Obama Sr.’s rights away by denying Obama Great British citizenship… US law can’t do that.]

    And the Constitution says that if you’re born on U.S. soil (which Hawaii was, and still is) you are a citizen.

    [Ed. And you are a citizen. Not all citizens are “natural born”. Naitve born does not equal natural born.]

  68. Naitve born does not equal natural born.

    I agree completely. What’s interesting is that Obama supporters have started a blog apparently to directly counter your blog.

    Your blog is

    Their blog is

    I’m getting people commenting on my blog with talking points originated from that blog, such as from the following post:

    Lynch vs Clarke

    [Ed. This is a NY state case which has no federal authority.]

    You may want to monitor that blog and see what the Obama team’s best arguments are. We’d all love it if you debunked their best arguments, soon after they publish them.

    [Ed. Sounds like they are getting nervous. First they ignore you… looks like we are past that stage.]

  69. Leo…

    The “natural-born citizen” concept is an extraordinary issue because of its past, current and future socioeconomic effect on the country. Since the legal meaning of “natural-born citizen” has not been succinctly defined in the Constitution or by a federal court, do you think someone who contemplates running for President in the future would have standing to get a federal declaratory relief judgment as to whether they are a natural-born citizen if born on U.S. soil to a U.S. citizen father and non-U.S. citizen mother?

    [Ed. That’s a good question. I dont have the answer at this moment to give you. I lean towards there being a way… just not sure.]

  70. That is my thinking…. and since both McCain and Obama spent hundreds of millions without realizing the legal minefields that lay in their quest for the presidency, I sure think a declaratory judgment might be financially prudent for everyone with an interest in who is the next president…. And I have someone in mind who may let the left… and the right… and the decline to state… go at it for ruling which inferentially lets the supporters and opponents of the Obama administration know which way the wind may ultimately blow. Just imagine the potential consequences to world order if this dispute was being waged back on September 11, 2001…..

  71. Dear Friends, How can the Commander and Chief of USA be a citizen of another country or dual citizen as I see it? How can you pledge alligience to two countries and govern the USA? It’s plain to me that natural born citizen is not the same as citizen.

  72. This was printed when right after Katrina Maybe R. Lugar has some answers. It seems the writer peg Obama as a foreign spy, but it clearly states he was from Kenya. Hmmm.

    Did Russian president Putin, suspecting he might be blamed for Hurricane Katrina, jump the gun? Just prior to Katrina hitting the Gulf, Putin noted that two U.S. Senators were in Russia snooping around off- limits secret facilities. That is U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D., Ill.) originally from the former British colony of Kenya and a year previous, before Obama was elected, was publicly fingered by me as a British spy; and his accomplice in Russia, U.S. Senator Richard Luga r (R., Ind.).

    Putin had both of their passports seized and the two Senators were kept for a while in custody of the FSB, the new Russian secret political police. (An exclusive news bulletin was on}

    3. Some assert that a friendly foreign power, also having high technology, made the man-made Katrina suddenly take a right hook and veer slightly away from New Orleans and directly hit the refineries and facilities of British Petroleum , owned by the British monarchy.

    4. In an exclusive bulletin on Cloak and Dagger, we told how the Bushies’ Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), sabotaged the levee which holds back the nearby lake from swamping below-sea-level New Orlea ns. More than 25 eyewitnesses to this treason are primarily but not exclusively blacks. FEMA operatives vowed to find these finger-pointers and snuff them out. A friendly foreign power is keeping the witnesses safe.

  73. 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

  74. My father was born in Canada and my mother in France, but I was born in the US. While serving in the military, I was required to fill out paperwork for a clearance that detailed my citizenship and asked if I was a citizen of another country. Honestly, I wasn’t sure if I was a citizen of France, Canada, or both. It turns out that because my parents were born abroad, I COULD become a natural born citizen of those countries but I had to file for that citizenship to get the rights conferred to me.

    [Ed. You have mis-read the law. No statute states that you would be a “natural born citizen” if you filled out certain papers. That’s 100% false. No statute uses the words “natural born citizen”. You would be a citizen at the time of your birth. All citizens, whether born a citizen or naturalized, are not natural born citizens. If you were a natural born citizen, you don’t have to do anything – your citizenship is self evident and beyojd the need of statutory aid.]

    It was not automatic. Likely, President Obama’s father’s UK citizenship likely would make Obama a natural born citizen of the UK but ONLY if he took the time out to apply for those rights and obtain a passport.

    I’ve been looking into this more and more but I have to admit, I don’t understand this conspiracy – do you guys really want Biden to be president that badly?

  75. It seems entirely reasonable to me by the plain language that natural born citizens would be those citizens who were citizens by virtue of birth as a opposed to a naturalization process. Even the term naturalization seems to mean ‘to make one a citizen like those naturally born into citizenship.’

    I’m not sure what other classification of citizen there could be besides natural born or naturalized.

    [Ed. Just look in the Department of State Foreign Affairs manual where they tell you the other classification – citizen by statute.]

  76. Colloquielle Says:

    You’re, like, frothing at the mouth wrong. British law does not, and never has, made someone a citizen if they’re not born inside the country without their express application. I’m a dual national of the UK and Australia, born in Brisbane, and even with an English father I still had to leap through all KINDS of hoops to get my UK passport. (I also hold a Masters in Law from a London University.) It’s not automatic, Obama IS your president, and thank goodness America looks a lot less like the giant basket of crazy than it has for the last eight years. It’s like a grown up has finally taken charge. I love how the freepers are suddenly so interested in the Constitution – as if Bush left any of it unmolested.

    [Ed. The Bush administration should be prosecuted for crimes against this nation. That being said, you couldn’t be more wrong. In case you missed it, Obama admitted he was governed by Great Britain at birth. Obama went to Harvard law school. He taught Constitutional law. Yet, Obam chose to sayat his own web site that he was “governed” by Great Britain at the time of his birth. Perhaps Obama knows the law a little better than you? Furthermore, I believe there may exist a GB passport with Obama’s name on it. He’s never said there wasn’t.]

  77. I called the Michael Medved show and read the “relevant admission”. He barely let me read it, then challenged how this was pertinent. I said that “That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…” he just cut me off and started talking over me and having his staff laugh on air. He then said that a naturalized citizen was a natural born citizen, he then said that all 14th amendment citizens are natural born citizens.

    Michael Medved is a bought off fraud. But at least I got a few words in.
    Call him 1-800-955-1776 get the word out. If nothing else, people need to know.

    [Ed. He’s a propaganda agent. They are all showing their true colors now. We have a takeover in progress.]

  78. Am so disillusioned, even a conservative talk show host who I listened to for years, is just a fraud. Very twilight zone.

  79. I did get to ask your pointed question first off though,
    “HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’S STATUS BE “GOVERNED” BY GREAT BRITAIN?” so that got through. I’m impressed with how violent Michael Medved was, he’s a total plant, a total fraud, he tried again and again to challenge, I even got to squeeze in Minor v. Happersett, he didn’t like that and cut me off again. I got to quote Article II s.1 too, that’s when he started saying 14th amendment citizens were the same as natural born citizens. Then a few callers later he mocked about any other birth certificate callers, even though zero mention of any birth certificate was made. He puts you on mute and talks over the top of you. It’s a way for him to sound like he’s stifled you into not knowing how to counter the almighty Medved, pffft.
    Medved is a podperson (ayayayayaya!) They clearly don’t like Constitutional know-how, clearly. Thanks to your site I was able to get the truth out a little bit more.

    [Ed. Good job. They don’t like educated attacks on their propaganda.]

  80. I also noted he kept asking, “why is this of concern to you?” wanting to personalize it, but I just said, “because Article II s.1 of the US Constitution requires…etc. I never made it personal, he wanted me to say something to tangentialize the conversation, instead I forced him to lie on the radio by stating all 14thers are NBC.

    This is his email, he’s as culpable of telling a lie as is the WSJ’s Taranto.
    This seems a concerted drive to keep the focus off the constitution, on to the paper bc, mock birthers and to lie about the law.

  82. Great Job bho boo!!!!!!!

    The media tools aren’t as educated as you.


    They are losing Leo, not winning…

    Thank you dear friend, for teaching us….

    I admire you greatly.

  83. […] Obama admits he was a dual citizen governed by British law at birth, how can he be considered a natural born citizen of the […]

  84. […] to the national table separate from the birth certificate issue.  For anybody who was aware of Obama’s British birth admission, Pelosi’s certification couldnot have settled the issue of whether Obama was eligible since […]

  85. […] to the national table separate from the birth certificate issue.  For anybody who was aware of Obama’s British birth admission, Pelosi’s certification could not have settled the issue of whether Obama was eligible since […]

  86. […] Obama admits he was a dual citizen governed by British law at birth, how can he be considered a natural born […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: