Wall Street Journal Caught Spreading False Legal Propaganda Via James Taranto


Yesterday, American journalism reached a new low when James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal published legal propaganda that appears to blatantly lie to readers.  In discussing the issues surrounding Obama’s birth to an alien father, Taranto added text to a US statute which does not contain such text.  Here is the offensive passage:

“Someone born overseas and after 1986, but otherwise in identical circumstances to Obama, would be a natural-born citizen thanks to a law signed by President Reagan.”

No such law exists.

The words “natural born citizen” do not appear in the statute discussed by Mr. Taranto.  In fact, the words “natural born citizen” do not exist in any US statute.  Those words only appear in the Constitution –  Article 2 Section 1 – and only as a requirement to be President.

The US code Taranto makes reference to is TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401 (g):

§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years…

The statute does not use the words “natural born citizen”.

Mr. Taranto needs to get back to Hogwarts fast and try a new spell.  His magic wand didn’t add new text to the US Code overnight.

Had Mr. Taranto made the focus of his article the issue of whether persons who obtain citizenship at birth by statute are also natural born citizens for purposes of meeting the Presidential requirements of Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, such a discussion would have been proper.  His legal analysis as stated in the article would be wrong, but stating such a question presented and taking a position thereto is a correct form of editorial.

But that’s not what Taranto has done.

Taranto and The Wall Street Journal have done something far more damaging and nefarious than simply mis-analyzing the law.  He’s written – and they’ve published – a piece of propaganda here which makes it appear as if the text of the law contains words which are not there.

Let’s call that what it is – propaganda.  They weren’t content to ask a legal question and honestly deal with both sides of the argument from a non-partisan and pure journalistic intent.  No.  This article is an attempt to trick readers into believing laws exist which do not exist.

The statute does not include the words “natural born citizen”.  Regardless, those who read Taranto’s article are left with the impression that the statute includes those words.

And that is journalistic evildoing personified.

Statutes that grant citizenship – at birth or later in life via naturalization – provide rescue to those people whose citizenship is not self evident at birth.  If you’re born in the US to parents who are citizens then you are a natural born citizen and you do not need a statute to create your citizenship which is natural and self evident.

Statutory citizenship does not give rise to natural born citizen status – which is not a right but a requirement to be President.  All citizens have the same rights, but not all “citizens” can be President.  Not even all “natural born citizens” can be President.  The Constitution put the requirements for President in the Document to exclude persons from eligibility, not include them.

Taranto’s article is a gauntlet thrown down in your face.  The fourth estate has signaled – through this blatant propaganda attack on the law – that it is willing to lie to your face – IN YOUR FACE – Amerika.

Perhaps all other measures to control this issue are failing. And perhaps my constant pessimism that this blog isn’t doing any good to wake people up is misguided.  Blatant propaganda tells me somebody somewhere is getting desperate to make this all go away.

The Wall Street Journal via propaganda agent James Taranto has taken a drastic course of action from which the point of no return is clearly mapped.

We aint in Kansas anymore, people.


109 Responses to “Wall Street Journal Caught Spreading False Legal Propaganda Via James Taranto”

  1. Leo, your discovery of this propaganda (you’ve called it for what it is) and rebuttal needs to be heard as an WSJ editiorial or letter to the editor or something of the sort! Don’t let them get away with this!

  2. naturalborncitizen Says:

    The Wall Street Journal will not acknowledge this blog post. I would be shocked if they did.

  3. Leo,
    From the manipulation of the Stock Market by the Government, Fed and “private” entities like Goldman Sacks, to the blatant propaganda produced on TV (MSNBC, CNBC) and printed sources, like WSJ, or our local newspapers, it is clear that We the People are being manipulated and controlled. I have sent dissertations about the Constitutional Legality of Obama to our local Propagandist News Columnist, with no response. I have watched CNBC blatantly give false and misleading economic news and opinion in an effort to call the recession over, in order to hail Obama as the messiah that saved the economy (Nothing is further from the truth, he and Bernanke should be taken out in handcuffs for stealing from our grandchildren’s grandchildren.). Orwell was certainly right on the money. How so many people are involved, including supposedly Conservative sources that refuse to acknowledge the constitutional arguments, even while bashing Obama in other ways, astounds me. We continue to sleep while being taken over from within. Will we awaken in time? I kind of doubt it. I have already apologized to my children for my generation allowing this to happen… to us and them. I doubt that they will ever see the America that I grew up in, unless we rise up and have our finest moment.

  4. naturalborncitizen Says:

    I agree with the commenter that this propaganda needs to be called out. I’ve printed the response. Please spread this post far and wide. It’s very important.

  5. withheld Says:

    Leo and everyone, any blog or website that you visit that has a contact or tip line you should send this and anything else you feel importatnt to them. For example I have entered this and others to drudge report tip line bottom right of page. Doug ross journal and others. I have already fired off three e-mails to WSJ. Come on people get with the program. It is clear what the agenda is. Go to drudge and enter it, we have to get peoples attention. Go to National Review and submit. come on folks take responsibility and do something, don’t and suffer the consequences.

    [Ed. Thank you for doing so. I hope this article energizes more people to act as you have done. Nice work.]

  6. It’s NOT propaganda.

    REAL propaganda fools even the educated masses.

    Even the fools that fell (and still fall) for Obama’s lies and FRAUD know the TRUTH.

    They are just in DENIAL about it.

    The WSJ is simply exposing themselves as a “puppet” news outlet (like far too many nowadays)!

  7. Each and every account of the “birther” controversy that I read in the media only strengthens my conviction that the reporters are as a minimum intellectually lazy. They may even be dishonest.

    I believe that they think or assume that “citizen” and “natural born citizen” are one in the same without any further thought. This is the most charitable spin one could put on Taranto’s article in the Wall Street Journal.

    Based on the comments that many of our Congressmen and Senators have made, they are guilty of the same “crime”. Even most of the eligibility laws that I have seen, both at the federal level and state level, focus on the birth certificate. To be fair, some do call for additional documentation that would show that the candidate would meet the eligibility requirements in the constitution, but without a definition of NBC how would anyone know what documentation to provide?

    No one wants to dig deeper into the controversy. They accept what they see on the surface: It’s birth certificate all the way and mere birth on U.S. soil makes one a natural born citizen.

  8. I’ll make a bet.

    IF the wsj recognizes this rebuttal to their article, it will be printed along with their screwed up logic as to why a citizen and a natural born citizen are the same thing, complete with some obamathon legal professor who will back it up.

    wanna bet?

  9. I think this video clip is fitting right now.

  10. I am so tired of the MSM and pundits with journalism and law degrees who act so ill informed on the NBC issue. I know they know everything we know. They have to. They are not stupid. They are purposefully trying to confuse average joes out there to lull them back to sleep. I do not understand why the right is in on it too as I would think they would want to get to the bottom of this since Obama’s policies have been so damaging already. Thank you, Leo, once again for a great post.

  11. Yesterdays Phila. Inquirer opinion piece by Professor of law – Temple Univ… What’s he thinking?

    “‘Natural-born’ isn’t so simple to define
    The stipulation is a relic to be retired.”


    “The Obama citizenship (non)controversy should be used not to better define arcane constitutional language, much less to impose filing requirements for the presidency. Rather, it’s an opportunity to get rid of the birth requirement altogether.”

    What a dope.

  12. Leo,
    Here is my response to Taanto in “comments”.

    “You have No Clue what you are talking about. The Law signed by Reagan has Nothing to do with what a Natural Born Citizen is. The meaning of the term (Born on US Soil to 2 US Citizen Parents) can only be changed by amendment. Do you actually research anything before you write, or is this piece the pure Propaganda that it seems to be? Obama is Not a Natural Born Citizen because his father was not a Citizen at the time Obama 2 was born. He could have been born in the White House on JFK’s lap, and he would still not be qualified as a Natural Born Citizen.


    Others have sent your link there also.

    [Ed. Thank you.]

  13. Taranto stricken from my blogroll in 3, 2, ….

  14. Unbamboozleus Says:

    Your readers have your permission to distribute this post freely, correct? I believe that it should be seen by as many eyes as it can possibly be put in front of.

    The issue is alive. Let’s do everything possible to make it well.

    [Ed. yes, my readers may distribute anything I write on this blog freely.]

  15. themadjewess Says:

    Hi, they have me there on the (WSJ) too.
    A friend does, but got what I said out of context, which is OK.
    Obama is NOT an American citizen. He is a DUAL, so (even if) the usurping IDIOT shows ANOTHER FRAUD B.C., he is still a DUAL.

    But…. Gov NM Bill Richardson spilled the beans on poor Obama long ago, and where did HE disappear to?

    Obamas YES WE CAN Land…where anything goes….

  16. It is clear that neither of the major political parties vetted Obama for what are constituionally required qualifications for the Office of President. There is enough circumstantial evidence to require that such vetting be done now.

    Rather than require exhaustive probing of Democrat propaganda, all media should storm the ramparts of the DNC and the White House, and demand a “White Paper” from Obama providing records to which he has refused public access. Instead, he and his Campaitn Committee have used law firms Strumwasser and Woocher and Perkins, Coie, Ltd. to deny release of these relevant records in response to legitimate requests. Objective journalists would have pressed Obama and his law firms for information on how much and for how long he has denied TRANSPARENCY.

    At a minimum, he should release documents about Kenyan and/or Indonesian citizenship, his passport history showing if he travelled under a foreign passport at any time, his declared status as a U.S. or foreign citizen at admission to Occidental College and Colombia and Harvard Universities, and, finally, a copy of his long form, hospital generated birth record, showing hospital of birth, and names of attending medical personnel and witnesses. Did he ever accept educational subsidies based on foreign student status?

    Recently reported statements from the Hawaii Department of Health state state unequivocally that hard paper records exist for births prior to converson to a computer created electronic database. At the least, prior statements from Hawaiian authorities have been vague, evasive, narrow and imcomplete.

    In the interests of TRUTH!


  17. Brett Curtis Says:

    I was explaining the eligibility issue to a liberal friend of mine that is convinced that citizen = natural born citizen. At one point, I had her sit down and actually read the eligibility clause. To my surprise here is what she read:

    “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States.”

    She stopped reading there in a great “Aha” moment, and insisted with glee that she’d made her point. Pointing out that she hadn’t finished reading the sentence didn’t help. To such an audience, there is no defense to the propaganda, and the media knows it.

  18. Even if the U.S. Code did define a “natural born citizen,” that portion of the statute would be invalid. It’s like when that bill was introduced in Congress declaring Sen. McCain to be natural born; Congress doesn’t have that authority. For a statute to pretend to clarify, define or otherwise alter the Constitution in any way, is a violation of the Article VI supremacy clause.

    A statute can establish rules for naturalization under Congress’ delegated powers, but it certainly can’t make someone “natural born” in the original intent of the Constitution.

  19. Leo:

    I was certainly confused about the natural born citizen issue until I discovered the great divide between the 14th Amendment-US Code 1401 and the Article 2 Section 4 of the Constitution. The 14th Amendment-US Code DOES NOT mention the words NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

    Most people stumble over this. There are people who do not care. There are probably who care about the issue, but do not investigate. The trouble I have with O’Reilly, Beck, Hannity is that they will say something like “We have investigated the issue and Obama passes muster.” Well, Fox News is gravely mistaken! There are also people who are vocally resisting.

    If a person actually investigates the issue for himself, looking at the places is the Constitution that speak of mere citizenship qualifications(Article I, Section 2 and Article I, Section 3) they will discover ordinary citizens can properly qualify for Congressional offices, but only a natural born Citizen may attain to the Office of the President.

    On another blog I used your historical analysis of how the parents of the Presidents. Here is what I said to one seemingly bent toward the birth certificate issue. The man did not have a response, as I recall. This points why History is so important.

    “Then also, and I stand corrected on this point, the parents of the natural born citizen could be foreign born. However, their foreign birth requires their naturalization to the United States as qualifying parents to present their son as natural born before his own birth.

    Why am I saying this as a qualifier? Presidents James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Woodrow Wilson, and Herbert Hoover all had foreign born parents who were correctly naturalized before the birth of their sons, each on American soil. These cases are explained on Leo Donofrio’s Natural Born Citizen website. (https://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com) Only Chester Arthur failed to actually meet the test since his foreign born father naturalized after Arthur was born. So, we have historical precedence as to how the natural born citizen clause is to work. I am sure that you noted that Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Hoover held the Office after the ratification of the 14th Amendment. Yet to hold the Office, these men’s parents had to rightfully qualify as American citizens for their sons to hold the Office. Andrew Johnson held Office during the time the 14th Amendment was ratified on July 28, 1868. Therefore, we have Presidents, before and after the ratification, with citizenship issues and those issues were resolved in like-manner over a long period of time.”

    When I compare the to Obama Sr. and Obama II, it is really no contest.

    Leo, thanks and keep up the great work!

  20. Hennie Bogan Says:

    Nice going “withheld” (above)!
    How about we who care get business card size handouts made, cheapies that say:

    TRUTH – The Real News
    Hottest Issue In The Fight For Our Constitutional Republic.
    OBAMA is not the true president until he meets all requirements.
    He must be shown to “We” as being a “Natural Born Citizen”
    His father was not a U.S. Citizen at his birth.
    Both parents must be citizens at birth.
    The Supreme Court MUST make a ruling.
    Go to http://www.naturalnorncitizen.wordpress.com
    and http://www.freedom-force.org

  21. Hennie Bogan Says:

    Sorry for the misprint; should be http://www.naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com

  22. Unbamboozleus Says:

    I’ve got to wonder if all this recent flurry of near panic MSM propaganda is related to the ruling in the Appuzzo case that’s due on Monday. Something is definitely going on.

  23. This, from a concerned African American female scholar:
    Why Obama’s birth certificate issue won’t go away: Vanderbilt expert
    ShareThis7/30/20092:18 pm

    The controversy over President Obama’s birth certificate will not go away as long as he refuses to release sealed records, including the original birth certificate, according to Carol Swain, professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University.

    “I believe that the president should end the speculation by being transparent about all aspects of his background,” Swain said. “In fact, it can be argued that the president belongs to the people and to scholars, biographers and others who are entitled to know every aspect of his past. Only great men can ascend to this height, and their lives should be examined and studied for the lessons they offer.”

    Swain said that what is posted online for the president is a certificate of live birth. “It is the failure to release the long form that keeps suspicion alive,” she said. Swain noted that she strongly disagrees with those who want to criticize Americans, including journalist Lou Dobbs, who continue to raise the issue.

    Other sealed records that Swain has called for the president to release include those pertaining to his education, foreign travel and state legislative business.

    Carol Swain is available for media interviews at carol.swain@vanderbilt.edu.

    Media contact: Ann Marie Deer Owens, 615-322-NEWS


  24. Joe The Blogger Says:


    I’m not sure which of your recent topics is most appropriate for this post, so I’ve just included it here in your most recent topic. The issues that I raise here are a response to several wide ranging issues connected with the following crucial part of The Constitution.

    “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; 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.
    -US Constitution (adopted September 17, 1787) Article II, Section 1, Clause 5

    I have always been troubled by one aspect of your interpretation of the above clause. You have stated words to the effect that one cannot change the circumstances of one’s birth (in particular ‘Natural Born Citizen’ status) and I agree with that. You have concluded that that means that a ‘NBC’ of the USA, cannot subsequently lose that qualification to be POTUS. I disagree with that interpretation. Please correct me if I have misunderstood you on this point.

    The Framers clearly intended to ensure that the ‘Natural Born Citizen’ requirement for POTUS, should be implemented as soon as possible. However, they clearly did not want to rule themselves out of contention for the position of POTUS (technically, under international law, they and most of their compatriots had been born as subjects of the British Crown – as had their parents). The adoption, in 1787, of The Constitution, started the clock, in international law, for the new nation of The United States of America. Clearly, the Framers also wanted the POTUS to have a minimum qualification in terms of experience of life and they chose the age of 35. So this means that the earliest date that a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ of the newly formed USA, could take office was not until 1787 + 35 i.e. 1822.

    The Framers also stipulated that the POTUS must have ‘been fourteen years a resident within the United States’. This allows for a POTUS to have been resident outside of The USA for 21 years in the case of a 35 year old (i.e. 3/5th’s of his or her life). This seems extraordinarily generous, some might even say lax, but this may actually add further weight to the importance that the Framers attached to the POTUS, being a ‘Natural Born Citizen’. The thinking being, that if one was born in The USA of parents who were both citizens of The USA, then one’s allegiance to the Country was well assured, and therefore could be trusted with 21 years or more exposure to foreign influences. They would not have wanted to exclude ‘Natural Born Citizens’ who were working abroad as Ambassadors (or their staff) or American businessmen working abroad. They may also have wanted to ensure that ‘Natural Born Citizens’ of the original 13 United States of America, would not be dis-barred, from serving the USA as POTUS, as a result of spending many years as pioneers in the ever westward extending ‘territories’ of The USA.

    So to summarize, the Framers of The Constitution wanted ‘NBC’ as a minimum qualification to be implemented as soon as possible. In the meantime, they accepted non-NBC citizenship as a minimum qualification. So this leads me to the point of this post. Would the Framers of The Constitution have been content for a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ of The USA, who had in some way, as an adult, wilfully, renounced his US citizenship (which is allowed in US law – even for NBC’s), to become POTUS? Or in short, would the Framers have INTENDED to allow a non-citizen of the USA to be POTUS? The Framers wanted to minimize the risk of a POTUS having an allegiance to a foreign power. Surely, wilful relinquishment of US citizenship and the consequential naturalization as a citizen of a foreign Country would cancel out the privileges that would otherwise have been available to a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ of The USA, i.e. to serve as POTUS or Vice-POTUS?

    I think that this issue is important in understanding and exemplifying the need to assess the ‘ORIGINAL INTENT’ of the Framers of The Constitution, whenever ambiguities, caused by exceptional circumstances, arise. If they had written The Constitution in such a way as to anticipate every eventuality, however unlikely, then it would have been thousands of pages long (or even never finished) and would never have been adopted.

    I don’t believe that this issue has any adverse effect on Mr Obama, because I don’t believe that he was a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ in the first place. However, I do think that this issue is important when considering the issue of candidates providing full documentation prior to the election for POTUS. This should include all original vital records, such as the candidate’s original long-form birth certificate, but also including the birth and marriage certificates of the parents and any naturalization documents of the parents. This should also include ALL passport records of the candidate and any other documents that might have a bearing on the ‘NBC’ issue and also, whether or not a candidate had relinquished his US citizenship in any way. What if a candidate had voted in the elections of another Country or had a foreign passport or served in the armed forces of another Country? Could any of these activities have de-facto caused a NBC candidate to lose US citizenship? If so, would the Framers have intended this candidate to be eligible to serve as POTUS. The Framers had just emerged from a costly, lengthy and bloody conflict to rid The USA of foreign control. They did not want to take any chances that this nightmare would have to be repeated. The safety of the Nation comes first.

    To serve as President of The United States of America is a privilege. It is not a right.

  25. Jacqlyn Smith Says:

    I say call it like it is…..LIES to cover for a FRAUD in our White House!

  26. Jerry Christenson Says:

    Attorney Donofrio,
    I’m pleased for your new found vocation (poker) sounds like fun and good luck. But, I was unhappy that you’ve retired as an attorney.

    I was hoping (praying) that you would hook up with Mr. Walpin (you told me he had Standing) (and now, maybe Maj. Cook) and file the Qou Warranto that America needs to have Obama prove his Natural Born Cotizen status. Can you state if you contacted either to ‘advise’ on the best route to prove what they are both trying to do?

    I’ve also sent a reply to Tarranto and the WSJ Editors asking for a response to their propaganda.
    Good Luck,

    [Ed. Thank you for contacting the WSJ. I cannot reach out to a potential cleint. That’s not the way I operate – it’s shopping. I don’t do that.]

  27. Predcition: Anyone that questions the Wall St. Journal will be labeled nutty.

  28. It appears that hell has just frozen over.
    This from, of all places, the Huff’n Puff Post:

    The only thing weirder than the Birthers are the anti-Birthers, who blame the Birthers for being conspiracy theorists yet actively feed the conspiracy by refusing to call for President Obama to release his birth certificate.

    The state official in Hawaii who manages such things has reiterated that there is indeed an original birth certificate on file which would confirm President Obama’s having been born in Hawaii and that she has seen it, but state law won’t allow her to release it unless the president authorizes it.

    So what’s the problem here? Release the original and let’s be done with this madness.

    I realize there are some faith-based Obama supporters who believe without seeing, but the rest of us in the reality-based world are starting to get that strange feeling we got when Mark Sanford tried to convince us that he was away from his family on Father’s Day, hiking the Appalachian trail in order to clear his head and write a book.

    During the last campaign, John McCain faced similar questions and promptly responded by releasing his original birth certificate. That’s how normal people with nothing to hide handle these things.

    Most American’s aren’t Birthers or anti-Birthers, but we are beginning to wonder why the president doesn’t put this one to rest once and for all. Every day he allows this circus to continue is another day that he behaves less like the President of the United States facing weird accusations from fringe groups and more like a strange politician flying to Argentina to visit his soul-mate while pretending to be hiking the Appalachians.

    I’ll bet the poor slob that wrote this doesn’t realize that he just, more than likely, got his ass fired.

  29. BuckeyeTexan Says:


    Must the SCOTUS sit back and wait for cases to be submitted to them before they can determine the constitutionality of an issue or is there some aspect to their duties that would require or allow them to intervene in legislative matters (or otherwise) that clearly have an issue of first impression that needs to be addressed and settled according to a Constitutional interpretation of the law? Can the SCOTUS bring an issue before them for discussion/resolution by their own choice/initiative?


    [Ed. I don’t know of a way they can do this without it being put before them in a case… and they had the chance, twice. Believe me, they had good cases with mine and Cort’s. The issues were properly presented via the lower courts and federal standing was not involved. But they chose to give no guidance. Something appears to be up though. It feels like IM watching a script unfold and we all might have been manioulated form the start. The whole circus is in town this week kiddies.]

  30. The last time I blasted the WSJ for being incorrect, they replied that they had no control over their featured editorials and used the excuse that it’s an opinion piece. That’s akin to saying, “I didn’t lie, he did. I just repeated what he said.” Sooooo mature.

    But I went ahead and blasted them again anyway. Just because they allow opinion pieces, doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be held responsible for spreading lies.

    The problem with this particular lie is, it denigrates what the Founders intended (I can prove that, don’t argue with me) and purposely shoots a bullet into the Constitution. What a lousy patriot you are, Mr. Taranto and shame on you too, WSJ.

    Nice catch, Leo! Give ’em hell.


    PLEASE RECALL – THAT THE VERY FIRST EXECUTIVE ORDER SOETORO/OBAMA signed in office was his “EXECUTIVE ORDER” to seal and conceal ALL of his Presidential Documents & Personal Identity Records, Personal Identification Documents, Credentials, & Presidential Records!!


    Here is a MUST SEE YouTube video I have recently seen & I think ALL AMERICANS NEED TO WAKE UP QUICKLY & ALL PEOPLE MUST SEE THIS YouTube video:

    1) In the YouTube video below we can see Soetoro/Obama is PUBLICLY saying many lies. Listen to the OUTRAGEOUS LIE Soetoro/Obama says at 7:19 in this video. At 7:19 Soetoro/Obama said, “My father served in World War II and when he came home, he got the services that he needed!!”


    THE 100% TRUTH IS: Soetoro/Obama’s father was a foreigner who NEVER BECAME AN AMERICAN USA CITIZEN, a Kenyan Muslim Communist named Obama Sr. Soetoro/Obama claims publicly,
    “My father served in World War II and when he came home, he got the services that he needed!!”

    BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA’S FATHER NEVER SERVED IN ANY U.S.A MILITARY BRANCH & OBAMA SR. RECEIVED NO U.S.A GOVERNMENT MILITARY BENEFITS!! So, in what Military and in what country did his “father serve?” It wasn’t the U.S.A. Military that his father served in!!




    The “Home” Soetoro/Obama is talking about is Kenya, & his father NEVER served in ANY Military in the USA!!

    We must start marching in the streets by the millions TO DEMAND that the USA Military MUST go into the White House & immediately handcuff this Insane & Demon Possessed Constant Liar, Extremely Dangerous Insane Psychopath Madman, the Serial Criminal and the Criminal Usurper Soetoro/Obama!
    Soetoro/Obama is a Radical Islamic Muslim Dictator-In-The Making/Radical Socialist/Communist/Marxist Illegal alien/citizen of Indonesia DOMESTIC ENEMY TERRORIST sitting in OUR HOUSE – OUR WHITE HOUSE!! Obama is directly working to destroy the USA, ALL Americans, and to murder many billions of people on earth because Obama is INSANE with Megalomania and Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and he is also demon possessed with many demons from hell that are inside of his soul.


    Here is a MUST SEE YouTube title:



    Listen to Obama the 100% Constant Liar – Publicly Lie at 7:19!

  32. Claudia Says:

    thank you Leo,
    I am posting everywhere I can for the coming weekend. We have to get this out there and make them pay attention….

    You are the most wonderful and insightful person to come out of this whole election scam. Stay safe….

  33. […] suggesting that the words “natural born citizen” are in certain laws when, in fact, they’re not: Yesterday, American journalism reached a new low when James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal […]

    [Ed. Thanks, Phil.]

  34. here are the e-mail addresses for WSJ:

    wsj.ltrs@wsj.com; newseditors@wsj.com; a.murray@wsj.com; a.latour@wsj.com; darren.mcdermott@wsj.com; dave.pettit@wsj.com; d.bernard@wsj.com; k.sells@wsj.com;

    my response:

    I have always respected the Wall Street Journal, however, you have uncovered a truly ugly head and it is because of the blatantly false propaganda allowed to be printed in Tranto’s article, that mainstreet Americans no longer can trust what they read.

    By allowing such propaganda like this to be published just goes to show the lack of respect you have for the constitution, for journalistic ethics and also the lack of respect for the readers who have trusted you.

    I am writing to urge you to run a retraction and correct this error. Americans are tired of the obama propaganda machine and are tired of being treated like sheeple.

    (redacted personal info)

    below is the real text of the law and an explaination as to where your writer went wrong with the LAW!

    I attached the gut of Leo’s article below my response.

  35. Here is a PERFECT example of “propaganda”….


    Many (or most) of the “educated masses” believe it to be true.

    Although, every angle and indication (for the few that carefully look) shows it to be FALSE.

    The answer is REALLY – KENYA !!

  36. Leo,
    Can you comment on Stare Decisis as it may apply to a judge’s unwilingness to do the right thing.

    [Ed. I don’t understand the question, Katie.]

  37. Why all the sudden is the Natural Born citizen question coming up … D.O.T. IMHO of something down the pike …

    [Ed. Feels that way don’t it.]

  38. The WSJ doesn’t seem to even have an ombudsman to report this sort of thing to. But the WSJ is owned by Newscorp and there are some public e-mail addresses of Newscorp executives listed at http://www.newscorp.com/management/newscor.html and some executives who oversee the WSJ at http://www.newscorp.com/management/WSJ.html and http://www.newscorp.com/management/DJ.html

    I suggest e-mailing them about it.

  39. Stare Decisis is used in this article by James Lewis, a contributor to American Thinker. Does this term represent or provide a realistic and legal cop-out?

    “The birth debate about Obama is real enough, but it is legally complicated, as analyzed by legal beagle Andrew McCarthy at National Review. No judge is going to question the Constitutional qualifications of an elected president. I’m sorry, but that’s the practical reality. The judge is going to follow stare decisis —

    [Ed. It’s not an accurate use of the word at all. There is no SCOTUS case law precedent to fit this fact pattern. Stare decisis has to do with one court following the precedent set by a prior holding of a court with equal or greater authority. There’s never been a US President challenged this way before. The paragrpah is badly written and legally not accurate.]

    the sheer weight of commitments that cannot be reversed without creating chaos. Once the political system of the United States, the voters, the media, and the politicians themselves are all committed to the proposition that Obama is president, trying to reverse it would mean riots in every city in the nation. At some point even debatable claims become irreversible. That is why Al Franken is now the US Senator from Minnesota, even if his election was corrupt and wrong. It’s water under the bridge. Leave it to history. “

  40. Joe The Blogger Says:


    “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable”. John F. Kennedy

    Mr Obama, Congress, the main stream media and the Judges are ALL trying to suppress the Presidential ineligibility issue. The resultant chain-reaction through the internet and internet radio is already well advanced and is now unstoppable unless and until Mr Obama is forced to answer the charges that he is Constitutionally ineligible to act as President of The United States.

    Time is running out. Eventually this will reach ‘critical mass’.

    We must now make maximum effort to persuade the main stream media to force Mr Obama to answer our questions and concerns. The Judges must also do their Constitutional duty and give full consideration to the merits of this issue. The safety of the Nation is at stake.

  41. MissTickly Says:

    Sorry, I meant to say this: “If it was no one that works in the department of health, it won’t be their policy to disclose the criteria they used. But we might find out another government official (even Obama, himself) declared…”

    Can you correct my post while you hurling insults at it, pretty please!

  42. MissTickly Says:

    Oh and I don’t know constitutional law so correct me if I am wrong about anything concerning that part of my comment.

    My larger point is, if I can get you the info on how they decided he is a NBC, can you take it from there?

    [Ed. they could never “decide” he was NBC… ]

  43. MissTickly Says:

    Imagine, if Obama declared HIMSELF a natural born citizen????

  44. It seems that the wsj comments are being censored.
    This morning there was a positive and direct to the point and issue comment by a Commenter named ‘OldBossSameAsNewBoss’ or very similar, and referred to this web site. The comment now has been removed. I took note because the comment was right before Michael Voeltz Comment on page 3 of comments, which also refers to this web site.

    Must have really struck a nerve. I wish I would had gotten a screen shot!
    But a person doesn’t know, it’s like a roadside bomb in Iraq, you don’t know where or when it’s gonna go off and it’s not fair play !!!

    [Ed. I saw that comment, but I didn’t know they took it down.]

  45. Joe The Blogger Says:


    “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act”. George Orwell

  46. This is an awesome website with great information.

    Wall St journal propaganda is nothing new. They will always protect the super international banks, especially when they know Obama is backing them and is a front for them on many levels.

    A natural born citizen, as defined by the early writings of our country’s founders, definitely meant that a person with TWO PARENTS were considered natural born citizens. Having one parent who is foreign born and one parent who is a citizen does not make you a natural born citizen.

    Look up 1st congress, session 2 chapter 4, from 1790. This will tell you the framer’s intent.

  47. MissTickly Says:

    And this just occurred to me to. If anyone other than Director Fukino or someone with the authority in her dept. declared him a NBC they would have had to have Obama’s permission for that person to view it because they would not be able to let someone without a ‘tangible interest’ in the record to view it. The Press Statement did not indicate who verified it, just that it was verified. But it was almost written to lead one to think the Director did. I don’t think she did. Someone else did but they were hoping for questions about policy and criteria and throwing off the scent so we wouldn’t ask WHO did it.

    Wonder who it was? I really am starting to wonder if Obama just declared it himself.

    This much we should be able to get to the bottom of because it’s information the public has the right to know: the procedural operations of a government agency and how business is conducted. We can very easily find out ‘who’ verified it, then ‘what ‘the criteria is through a FOIA and UPIA requests.

    I am anxious to know if you think you can work with this angle or not!

    [Ed. I would encourage you, the MSM press and bloggers to contact her and ask her how she came to that statement about nbc. Certainly. I don’t think you’ll get a telling response.]

  48. Leo,
    Here is a followup by Taranto, a supposed rebuttal of the reader comments to him.

    “• A child is not a natural-born citizen unless both parents are U.S. citizens. That this is false should be obvious. It is uncontested that Obama’s father was an alien. Thus if both parents had to be citizens in order for a child to be a natural-born citizen, the question of Obama’s eligibility never would have come up. He would have been ineligible right off the bat and would not have run for president. The birth certificate and place of birth would be irrelevant.

    Nonetheless, the birthers have blown a lot of smoke around the meaning of the phrase “natural-born citizen,” and we are here to clear it up.

    Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution stipulates that the president must be a “natural born citizen” (or, in an obsolete provision, a citizen in 1788), but it does not define the term. The original interpretation relied on British common law, under which, as Justice Horace Gray noted in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), “every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”

    The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, established this principle as a constitutional right: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Aside from the children of foreign diplomats and (theoretically) military occupiers, the only U.S. natives not to be natural-born citizens were Indians born on reservations–and this exception was abolished by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

    Other statutes have extended natural-born citizenship to some children born overseas to U.S. citizens. There is a theory that these statutes are unconstitutional–that the Constitution, in granting natural-born citizenship to those born on U.S. soil, thereby denies it to everyone else. Although this view is eccentric, it is an open legal question. According to the State Department’s Consular Affairs Manual (at page 9 of PDF), “the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.” Since Obama was born in the U.S., he is in any case a natural-born citizen by constitutional right. By contrast, John McCain, born in Panama, is a statutory natural-born citizen.

    Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning. As Chief Justice Morrison Waite noted in Minor v. Happersett (1874):

    Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
    No doubt some birther somewhere is fervidly developing “proof” that Obama hatched from an egg and thus is not a citizen. Where is the shell?”

    Can you believe that? I know that is a rhetorical question, but it kind of makes you believe in the mass hypnosis theories espoused by some about Obama apologists. How is this guy allowed to write an opinion piece on a subject that he clearly has no clue about? He actually says that since the fact of Obama’s alien father was well known, that he never could have run in the first place, so he must be legal. How’s that for circular logic?

    [Ed. Not one word of humility concerning his adding words to statutes and creating new laws with his pen. I’m not going to remove that from my front page for a while… just let it linger. He must have freaked out at the walloping his reputation took today so he’s going on the offensive to distract from his propaganda yesterday. This is just his legal opinion today… yesterday was just evil.]

  49. MissTickly Says:

    [Ed. they could never “decide” he was NBC… ]

    Correction: They decided IN THEIR MINDS. I thought that was understood.

  50. MissTickly Says:

    AND OF COURSE I JUST MEAN WHAT THEIR POLICY is to declare it, not what the constitution says.

    I hope this is understood.

  51. Looking for Taranto’s CV I stumbled across this:

    Obama moving to federalize philanthropy and the non-profit sector?


  52. MissTickly Says:

    Do I need to add that is the point of this whole venture? We can’t go having government agencies operating outside of the Constitution.

    I believe we would have ‘standing’ to do something about that. Correct me if I am wrong.

  53. MissTickly Says:

    My posts are out of order.

    By using the Freedom of Information act, and Hawaii’s version (UIPA) we can find out the policy and procedure that allowed Dr. Fukino to issue her statement.

    First we request this info:
    “Who has the authority to verify that a vital record maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health satisfies the criteria that indicates that the owner of the record is a natural-born American citizen?”

    Based on this answer, we file an Information request to the appropriate person (X) to get this info:

    “Please send me an electronic copy of the written criteria that is used by (X) to declare an individual, based on their vital records, a natural-born American citizen.”

    <[Ed. I would encourage you, the MSM press and bloggers to contact her and ask her how she came to that statement about nbc. Certainly. I don’t think you’ll get a telling response.] >

  54. MissTickly Says:

    Oh, and I am learning that if an Information Request is ignored or rejected by the agency it was sent to. There are Offices of Information that you can then file to, that will declare a judgment as to whether the agency acted properly. And they must cite law/statute to back that judgment up.

    Sure you can try and change the law, but I think they have only 10 days to do it.

    If I am understanding correctly.

  55. MissTickly Says:

    Oops, that should read as this:

    “Oh, and I am learning that if an Information Request is ignored or rejected by the agency it was sent to, there are Offices of Information that you can then file to, that will declare a judgment as to whether the agency acted properly.”

  56. MissTickly Says:

    This is what one would look like that would go to Janice Okubo and can be emailed even:

    Under the Uniform Information Practices Act of the State of Hawaii, “…the people are vested with the ultimate decision-making power. Government agencies exist to aid the people in the formation and conduct of public policy. Opening up the government processes to public scrutiny and participation is the only viable and reasonable method of protecting the public’s interest. Therefore the legislature declares that it is the policy of this State that the formation and conduct of public policy—the discussions, deliberations, decisions, and action of government agencies—shall be conducted as openly as possible.”

    • Who has the authority to verify that a vital record maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health satisfies the criteria that indicates that the owner of the record is a natural-born American citizen?

    Please consider this request as a Hawaii UIPA (Uniform Information Practices Act) request under section 92F-12.

  57. As to Dave’s comment above regarding our framers intent, it was chapter 3:

    SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.
    APPROVED, March 26, 1790.

    [Ed. The natural born citizen language was repealed in 1795 and Congress never tried to define nbc again in legislation. The next time they did anything with regard to nbc was the Senate resolution for John McCain which is not law.]

  58. Hey Leo I just of this … If the 14 Amendment makes Obama a Natural Born Citizen, and then it would also make Naturalized Citizens as well

    14th Amendment:

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

    See what I am getting at … all Persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens. It lumps together those born in the USA or naturalized are citizens. That is why they did not use natural Born Citizens because foreign born who naturalized can’t be President. Wow. So again Leo if you follow my train of thought the 14th Amendment it does make a distinction because a naturalized citizen is not eligible to be president.

  59. MissTickly Says:

    And what legal options are there if the Executive Branch at the White House was operating outside the Constitution if Obama did declare himself a Natural Born Citizen and it turns out to be untrue according to the Constitution and precedence?

    [Ed. Apparently there’s no legal options for citizens who care about the Constitution. The Government will not respond to a petition for redress of grievances and the courts will not allow citizens standing to question the Government and the Prosecutors will not sign our Presentments… we have no rights accept to vote but now the computers vote for us. AmeriKa, change has come.]

  60. MissTickly Says:

    At the very least she is declaring knowingly false statements as a government official. Is there any crime here in the release of the statement on Monday?

    And frankly, isn’t the Hawaii Department of Health operating outside of the rule of law/statute allowing someone who is not qualified to to look at his record and ‘verify to them’ without having SCOTUS verify it?

    Could one bring a lawsuit on those grounds alone and ask for ALL OBAMA’S VITAL RECORDS in discovery?

  61. MissTickly Says:


    “I have seen the records verifying Barack Hussein Obama is a natural-born American citizen.”


    “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama
    was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

    [Ed. If you try to make a case that seen does not equal verify, it’s not going to be taken seriously. But even if you make a compelling argument it still won’t be taken seriously. Welcome to age of beating your head against the Government stooge wall of decepticon motivation.]

  62. I took another look back to Mitt Romney in regard to being a Natural Born Citizen. Both his parents were born in present day Utah. They moved to Mexico & had Mitt’s father. Then they moved back to the U.S. Mitt’s father married a US citizen & Mitt was born in 1947 in Michigan. So if Mitt’s Grandparents were Citizens (I believe they were) then by statue even thought Mitt’s parents were born in Utah before it became a State, they would be Citizens but not Natural Born Citizens. This also would apply to Mitt’s father. He was born to U.S. citizens in Mexico & by statue Mitt’s father would be a US citizen but not a Natural Born Citizen. Again both parents are U.S. citizens by statue. So if am right, Mitt would be a natural born citizen since he was born to U.S. Citizens & in the USA. FYI I support Palin not Romney but I want to be objective & right about this.

  63. Civis Naturaliter Natus Says:


    It may be that Obama team got Fukino to declare Obama a NBC, so that in Court his lawyers can argue that in virtue of the 10th Amendment, the right to declare who is a NBC is reserved to the states, and HI declared him a NBC.

    How would you respond to such a legal argument?

    If you believe publishing this post would give Obamateam too much ammo, then don’t…

    [Ed. This is along the lines of what Miss Tickly is saying. I wouldn’t put anything past them on this issue. It’s being controlled by the same mind who opposed my NJ App. case and Cort’s Connecticut case… it’s the same people doing the defense. There’s an MO.]

  64. This goes right to the core of the problrm that has been eating away at our country for quite some time now.

    Leo, I’m sure Scalia would have loved to have heard yours or Cort’s case if it would have been up to him, alone.

    [Ed. I’m not so sure. Had Scalia wanted to write about this issue he could have included a written attachment to the Court’s decision not to accept the stay applications. ]

  65. Watch Justice Scalia mop the floor with Justice Breyer.

  66. Part II

  67. Leo, are you ready to appear on the “Glenn Beck Show?” (radio, TV, or both) I DVR Glenn’s show on Fox everyday. Eventually, someone will put this on youtube. I do not have the means to do that. On today’s show, Beck announced a feature on his website. The feature is entitled: “U.S. Constitution Watchdog.” This allows anyone to alert Glenn to any concern they may have about violations of the Constitution.

    I believe it is about time for Glenn Beck to be educated on Article II, Section I, Clause V, and what the significance of a natural born citizen is, and more importantly why the founders believe that it was essential to ensure the national security of the United States. I can think of no one better than you to be his tutor. (Possibly even you teaming up with Apuzzo) I believe that many here, and also at “Citizen Wells,” (and possibly elsewhere) will be more than happy to lay the “groundwork.” My question to you, dear Sir, is are you “game” to close the deal? Glenn Beck may have well just handed us a “gift.”

    [Ed. I don’t think so.]

  68. What a dope.

    Here is the link to the semi-rebuttle from Taranto.


    He says “we” debunked. Guess he thought he had a lawyer in his pocket, because saying “we” might hold the Wall Street Journal liable for the incorrect qoutes that he authored. Usually the paper will say they don’t support the opinions of the coulmnist, but Taranto thinks they were in full support.

    [Ed. See my latest …”Wall Street Journal via James Taranto continue propaganda lies.”]

  69. The Wall Street Journal and GOP are setting up Jindal to be the next young Presidential Candidate.

    1. Two unfavorable op-ed pieces about Sarah Palin in the WSJ in ONE week.
    2. Palin did what she could to help the GOP in 2008 and the GOP did nothing to help the truly middle class governor with funds for her defense against ethics charges that probably wouldn’t have never been brought if she had not been a vp candidate. (no I’m not a Palin supporter)
    3. The WSJ offers an alternate version of what a natural born citizen is, calls people questioning eligibility birthers, and claims that requiring that both parents be citizens at a natural born citizen’s birth is nutty.

    [Ed. That’s not all they did – they also lied and tried to make people think a statue was signed by Reagan which used the words “natural born citizen” – no such statute exists. They lied.]

    4. GOP lets Obama’s candidacy pass and gives him a pass when Congress certifies the vote. No answering questioning of Obama’s status to the questioning of McCain’s status.
    5. McCain is GOP candidate (set-up?) with questionable citizenship status.

    Palin out of the way, citizenship issues “dealt with”, no other young Presidential candidate prospects ->>>>>Jindal can (and will) run in 2012

    All of this is just politics as usual. Doesn’t anyone care about the country and Constitution?

  70. Should have added:

    The statements that challenging the eligibility of Obama will guarantee him another term. Look at it this way: GOP feels that Jindal is the only GOP candidate who is young, well spoken, and party uniting that can take on Obama and win in 2012.

    Really suggesting that Obama is a shoe in in 2012 without Jindal would show a lack of GOP confidence. Surely they have someone else, maybe not as good looking, that has the experience and smarts to do the job. I don’t buy that Jindal is the GOP “one”, but I’ll bet that’s what the GOP leaders are thinking.

    [Ed. Jindal is the candidate who can NEVER challenge Obama on nbc status. That’s why Jindal is the front runner. Protection.]

  71. Hi Leo,

    This is just getting ridiculous and I think they all know we are right and doing their darndest to keep the mass confused as to ‘NBC’, so I wrote again.

    I am not as eloquent as most, but I do try:

    Dear Editorial Managers & Editorial Managers,

    This is going beyond propaganda. Mr Taranto’s new op-ed is nothing but pure hogwash. What is his law degree? What Supreme Court citizen cases has he read to determine his conclusion? What Constitutional refence has he used to determine his conclusion? The Federalist papers? Congressional minutes of the time? I ask, What is his credentials for being able to write such a legal opinion?

    I also ask, when did standing up for the constitution and the rule of law become ‘fringe’?

    This response from Mr Taranto is another left-winger, liberal slap in the face to conservative Americans and is a disgrace to your good name and we will continue to report his and your abuse until it is corrected or retraction is made stating Mr Taranto is not studied in constitutional law and thus the op-ed is just an opinion, NOT FACT!

    For the facts, you can go to http://www.naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com and contact Leo Donofrio, Esq. He is learned in the constitution and is always willing to tell it like it is, even if it does not bode in his favor.

    This is no laughing matter and it will not go away and we will continue to pound those that continue to spew nothing but propaganda & lies.



    we will keep pounding them :

    wsj.ltrs@wsj.com; newseditors@wsj.com; a.murray@wsj.com; a.latour@wsj.com; darren.mcdermott@wsj.com; dave.pettit@wsj.com; d.bernard@wsj.com; k.sells@wsj.com;


    Mr. James Taranto:

    You Sir ought to be ASHAMED. What kind of an American are you? You completely misrepresent the truth in your article concerning our current President.
    Below I have quoted the exact copy from your article.
    “This is something of a technicality: Someone born overseas and after 1986, but otherwise in identical circumstances to Obama, would be a natural-born citizen thanks to a law signed by President Reagan.”
    What you write above is propaganda at best or an outright misrepresentation of the truth. I don’t care for either political party, BUT I do believe that you have a professional obligation to present both sides of an argument honestly, you have done neither. I looked up the law which you addressed in the article and post it below for your edification:
    § 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
    The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
    (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years…
    Contrary to your assertion above the LAW IS ALL ABOUT TECHNICALITIES sir, and you will not find the as yet , undefined “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” clause anywhere in our federal laws or in ANY AMENDMENT to the Constitution, including the 14th. As yet, undefined because the US Supreme Court has not yet! However what it has meant up till now in its strict form is those born on the soil of their country to parents who are citizens of the same country. There is no mention of NBC in the law you addressed. A plain citizen cannot be POTUS.
    However, now that I have pointed out your deception upon the readers, I would like to point out that according to the US Supreme Court decision as found in Marbury v. Madison; nothing in the constitution is superflourous or repetitive. If you can dismiss the clause of Natural Born Citizen, why not also dismiss, “freedom of the press.” Each and every bit of the document protects someone from abuse by another. And I for one will fight to protect it and vote to properly change it as designed and NOT STAND IDLE while you who lacks integrity, never mind an absence of civic duty to at least uphold journalistic ethics seeks its destruction by ignorant propaganda.
    Signed, Shawn Quin

  73. Ladyhawke Says:


    I just posted this to Mr. Taranto’s latest garbage. I figured it was better to be short and sweet, as others had already brilliantly rebutted him with detail:

    You have taken great poetic license putting the description “natural born” before the noun “citizen” without citing anything of legal significance.

    Frankly, you should be ashamed – not that it will matter to you.

    All the best to you!

  74. MissTickly said earlier, what if Obama had declared he was a natural born citizen? He did just that when he signed the Arizona “Candidate’s Nominating Paper” to qualify for the AZ ballot. So he is guilty of false swearing as well as subversion.

    But I doubt this Congress would impeach Obama if he nuked Omaha. At most we can hope for Congressional hearings of some sort if people push hard enough.

    An earlier post worried about riots if Obama is removed. That is precisely why quick, decisive action by the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the best way to handle this:

    The Joint Chiefs request that Obama establish as a fact that he is a NBC. There are secret meetings with the JC’s, Congressional leaders and the Supreme Court in which it becomes clear that O cannot establish the requisite fact. Obama is persuaded to accept deportation to Indonesia, sans Secret Service.

    This way Obama’s coup is reversed before riots can start, and Pelosi takes over the White House and comforts the nation like a good mother should.

  75. Somebody up the chain in this conversation asked how Ms. Fukino was able to declare that President Obama is a natural-born citizen. I emailed Janice Okubo a couple of days ago with the same question, and she replied that the statement Ms. Fukino read had been reviewed and approved by the Attorney General, Mark Bennett. I’ve contacted Mr. Bennett, and am waiting to hear back from him. I’ll provide an update if/when I hear something back.

    [Ed. That’s new… very interesting discovery. Nice job.]

  76. rainbowseeker Says:

    It seems to me that Taranto’s response to his walloping is merely another attempt to twist the intent of the founding fathers who spent most of their time trying to prevent exactly what we have right now….a person in power with direct ties to foreign powers. Something they wanted to prevent at all cost when it came to the office of President. It’s as simple as that.

    Who ever had the duty to screen the candidates for President screwed up badly and now we are all paying for it. But the truth is the truth the same as the law is the law. Someone has to stand up for the truth and I for one intend to continue demanding that.

    The truth will be served only when BHO is required to supply his records, including his long form, official birth certificate, all his school records from everywhere, and his historical travel records.

    After all his job as president requires the highest security level in this country…..all those records and more would be required of anyone applying for any important job in this country requiring a security clearance…..jobs such as working for the CIA or HS. I see this as simply an issue of supply the records……do your duty to your country, Mr. President. That’s all we are asking.

    And people like Taranto need to be as interested in these records as the rest of us so called “birthers” or they are being very, very foolish. That’s what I think we need to ask of the WSJ….the truth……not another twisted editorial. JMHO.

  77. MissTickly, I have a good friend here in Michigan that works for a city hall in a major city .. (not detroit) I asked her your question as she is in the clerks office and deals with BC requests all day long. She stated that in our state when an individual walks in and requests their cert, they must show ID and pay ten dollars and three dollars for each additional request. I would not be allowed to get the cert of another individual except my children. (perhaps my spouse, but I did not ask).

    They are all filed according to year, whether electronic or not. Anyone in the office could pick up the book and view… However, she stated if it was anyone of that stature or whose privacy was in question, their cert would be most likely locked up and not viewable. She gave me the example of the mayor of another city that was born in the city she works at. Her cert is not viewable to just anyone in the office.

    She also stated she would imagine that in HI with all of this in question more than likely they have a staff in the office dedicated to this alone. She said she cannot even imagine how busy that office is on a daily basis. She said she is not even sure that the woman who verified has actually seen it.. I guess we will get to the bottom of it.

  78. Mitchell Staff Says:


    One thing is certain. You have continued to do the research and are not repeating talking points. You don’t ask for money. I can’t get my teeth whitened or find love on your site. Your whole argument is sound and deviod of the ‘circus’ that is ‘long form Birth Certificate’. So either you are:

    A: A dillusioned lawyer who really believes in the American system and the rule of law. or…

    B: A sophisticated NSA psy-op to weed out people who can see through the distractions they offer and the lies they spread.

  79. Ladyhawke Says:


    Perhaps you and your readers will find this humorous.

    I was having a discussion earlier tonight with my adult daughter and her boyfriend – both of whom understand the issues at stake to save the country.

    I was telling them that I spend my days online looking for blogs and other places to educate those that do not know about the difference between a simple citizen and those that are natural born.

    They wanted to know if I found any approach that works.

    I told them there were two things that seem to be effective.

    First, I ask folks to imagine that if Obama is constitutionally eligible, so would the spawn of Osama bin Laden born by an American woman in New York City. They nodded and approved.

    Second, I ask them how they would feel if Obama’s father were still alive and prominent in the politics of Kenya.

    My daughter instantly asks, “And what happens if Osama bin Laden kidnaps Obama’s father?”

    I laughed – she gets it – and I will be adding that to my online posts in liberal enemy territory.

    I hope some of you found this amusing.

  80. The same paper is discussing the nature of NBC as though it were understood as most of us realize the concept. Where were these assclowns during the election? I’m dumb so I’m just asking. Albeit it is a blog…



  81. A couple of times recently I’ve seen a crack in the defense of Obama and the supporters moving to a fallback position. The story now is, if the BC shows that Obama is not a citizen, or the courts determine that Obama is not a natural born citizen, he still would remain in office because he has already been sworn in. The Legislative branch would have to impeach and try him to have him removed from office. Of course this is dead wrong. If found ineligible, Obama would not be and would never have been President of the United States. He would be just an ordinary private citizen. Impeachment would have no meaning. I think the Obama supporters are starting to get worried and beginning to roll out plan B. It’s the “so what” defence.

  82. Mr. Donofrio,

    I’m not sure where the train left the tracks…somehow we failed to educate the media, the electorate, and the representative government on the fuandamentals of NBC. It’s a shame as to what the condition of the effort is now. We are faced with the PROPAGANDA of an illiterate media uncaring of the facts or the welfare of their readership. Unfortunately, it is not only the media.

    We are “tin foil hat wearing fringe crazies akin to the 911 trufers” that are solely focused on a Mr. Obama not being a US citizen (BC) and nonplussed that he is not white…boy, that’s alot of baggage to carry thanks to some litigators and prominent voices.

    Forgive me, if I am not grateful.


  83. MissTickly Says:

    Also, I encourage you to look at the guidelines. There were exceptions on OTHER rules for Birth/Vital Records.

    But NO exceptions on the two rules I cited.

    I feel I have made my case well, citing not one, but TWO rules.


    [Ed. You have made your case well. Did you see the comment a few back where a reader got a response regarding the question you are asking… he was told that the Hawaii AG authorized Fukino.]

  84. Leo, I just sent the e-mail below to nine different WSJ managers/editors.

    What is wrong with the WSJ that you allow James Taranto to publish “legal propaganda” that apparently is lying outright to your readers? Have your credibility and journalistic standards sunk to such a low level that you are now resorting to despicable tactics of lying and trying to throw sand in the eyes of Americans who want Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president to be adjudicated in a court of law? You obviously must realize that Obama is on thin ice because of his own public admission that he is not a natural born citizen as required by the Constitution to be POTUS, since he was born of a Kenyan father who was subject to the British crown. That allegiance and citizenship was passed on to his son, Barack Obama, Jr. So, we have a usurper in the White House. Are you willing to jeopardize your profession, your livelihood, your reputation to aid and abet Obama in his cover-up? When the stuff hits the fan, if you are anywhere close to that man, you can expect to get hit with it also. You media types will get caught up in Obama’s vortex because you failed your duty to the American public to vet Obama, to investigate the cause of the lawsuits on the natural born citizen issue. You have failed miserably and are part of the cause that will tear this country apart. It’s coming.

    What you need to do is to read attorney Leo Donofrio’s article on your fraud. https://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/31/wall-street-journal-caught-spreading-false-legal-propaganda-via-james-taranto/#comments Better yet, invite Leo to rebut Taranto in an editorial and let the guys have at each other. The only way you will regain any credibility is to get educated yourself on this Constitutional issue and then educate your readers. If you do not clear up this “mother of all issues” you can kiss your reputation and credibility good-bye. Not only that, America will never forgive you for aiding and abetting this Obama scheme to usurp the office of POTUS.

    Disgusted in Colorado

  85. Guess who said the following words:

    I remain distressed that the White House during this confirmation process, which overall went smoothly, failed to provide critical documents as part of the record that could have provided us with a better basis to make our judgment with respect to the nomination. This White House continues to stymie efforts on the part of the Senate to do its job. I hope with the next nominee who comes up for the Supreme Court that the White House recognizes that in fact it is its duty not just to the Senate but to the American people to make sure we can thoroughly and adequately evaluate the record of every single nominee who comes before us.

    Who said that?

    Barack Hussein Obama. Yes, really.

    I hope the Obama White House recognizes that in fact it is its duty not just to the Senate but to the American people to make sure we can thoroughly and adequately evaluate the record of Barack Obama.

    Where’s your birth certificate, Barry?

    Where are your college records, Barry?

    Where are your passport records, Barry?

    Before the Senate can confirm your Supreme Court nominee, the Senate must first put to rest the questions about your eligibility by:

    1) Inspecting an official copy of your original birth certificate, delivered under seal directly from the State of Hawaii, and

    2) Asking the Supreme Court to clarify the definition of “natural born citizen” so that the senate can support and defend the Constitution (relevant sections include Article II Section 1, and the 12th, 14th, and 20th Amendments).

    It is your duty to the American people to make sure we can thoroughly and adequately evaluate your record and your eligibility to hold the office of President.

    Sowing and reaping, Barry, sowing and reaping.

    [Ed. That was really well said, my friend. This comment here needs to spread far and wide. Putting their own words back in their face is always the best way to fight.]

  86. MissTickly Says:

    On ruling on my UIPA request:

    “An agency must balance the significant privacy interest against
    the public interest in disclosure of the information. If the public
    interest is found to outweigh the individual privacy interest,
    the agency must disclose the information. Where an agency
    cannot identify a significant privacy interest, the slightest
    public interest in disclosure will require the agency to disclose
    the record.”

    I would say protecting the safety of the president presents SIGNIFICANT public interest.

  87. Mick Says:
    July 31, 2009 at 5:22 pm
    He actually says that since the fact of Obama’s alien father was well known, that he never could have run in the first place, so he must be legal. How’s that for circular logic?

    I seem to recall a guy named Leo telling us to expect such nonsense after Obama put his British birth citizenship out in plain sight 😉

  88. MissTickly Says:


    Just a short time ago my router went down. I find it VERY curious and wanted to post that here. I am pretty saavy with computers, and I noticed a network called “Fightclub” I have never seen before when I searched for my network.

    I am ethernet connected at the moment.

    If I don’t report back everyday for the next 2 weeks, please alert the proper authorities.

    Just for the record!

  89. Joss Brown Says:

    The propaganda is everywhere. There was an article on salon.com about Lou Dobbs, Taitz & Co.—link see below—, where it reads the following (relevant passage italicized):

    But Dobbs knows that the crowd of conspiracy theorists he’s now supporting won’t be placated that easily. When he brought Keyes and Taitz on his show, he mentioned that he’d asked Taitz, off-air, whether the release of a long form birth certificate would satisfy her. “She said no,” Dobbs told his audience, and then directed the question to her again. “Both parents have to be citizens in order to satisfy the requirements of natural-born citizen,” Taitz responded. In other words, for the de facto leader of the movement, her questions can never go away, because Obama’s father was a British citizen at the time of his son’s birth. (For the record, Taitz is wrong about the law here, as she very often is; in the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case, the Supreme Court said a child born in the U.S. is a natural-born citizen regardless of their parents’ citizenship.)


    [Ed. Funny how they all insert the wors “natural born” into laws and cases where they do not exist. Wong Kim Ark said just the opposite…Gray clearly stated WKA was NOT natural-born.]

  90. Taranto did something similar last November. He made some references to the legal challenges to Obama. He may have even mentioned you or Philip Berg. And then we went on to publish inaccuracies about the Natural Born argument. I cancelled my years old Wall Street Journal subscription that day.

    Mr. Donafrio, you are doing one fine job. I would put you in a class of people who used to walk the earth 200 years ago.

    Have a great day.

  91. Neil B ☺ Says:

    I’m sure this has been discussed here before, so forgive the question again: Just what is the right definition of “natural born citizen”? It seems not explained right there in the original passage. What is the history of legal precedent, how do you work that into the way that early US Presidents were born to originally British subjects, maybe some in Territories (which are not clearly explicated in COTUS, are they?) etc. McCain, Canal Zone; is that clear?

    How good is the Wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen ?

    [Ed. The first few Presidents were eligible under the grandfather clause… they were “citizens” at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. McCain wasn’t eligible and he wasn’t born in the Canal zone, not according to the BC and COLB circulating online.]

  92. BTW, look at this:
    Some say, that is the closest legal equivalent, but still no definitive ruling if equivalent to NBC.

    [Ed. It’s not. The statute does not use the words “natural born”.]

  93. Max:

    Mitt’s father George, was a Democratic candidate for President who ran against Nixon in 1968 and lost. George was born in Mexico and his parents were not there on diplomatic nor military assignment. I don’t remember any discussion on this matter during that campaign, but I was rather young at that time to be interested in politics.

    Newspapers are now available online and it would be interesting to do a search on George.

    Remember that before Watergate, the Presidents were treated with more respect and similar public respect may have been extended to Presidential candidates also. Romney never made it past the voters, and was never subject to review by the Electors or Congress.

  94. MissTickly Says:

    [Ed. You have made your case well. Did you see the comment a few back where a reader got a response regarding the question you are asking… he was told that the Hawaii AG authorized Fukino.]

    Interesting, I will look into that.

  95. […] Donofrio responded to my comment saying: That was really well said, my friend. This comment here needs to spread far and wide. […]

  96. On August 1, 2009 itooktheredpill cited a quote by Obama, as follows:

    “I remain distressed that the White House during this confirmation process, which overall went smoothly, failed to provide critical documents as part of the record that could have provided us with a better basis to make our judgment with respect to the nomination. This White House continues to stymie efforts on the part of the Senate to do its job. I hope with the next nominee who comes up for the Supreme Court that the White House recognizes that in fact it is its duty not just to the Senate but to the American people to make sure we can thoroughly and adequately evaluate the record of every single nominee who comes before us.”

    What is the date of the quote and source? I think that is needed!

  97. When a sufficient body of citizens agrees that there are serious and legitimate questions about the authority our Commander-in-Chief holds, the concerns of those citizens must be addressed by their government, or we are right back to 1776, standing with Thomas Jefferson.

  98. Miss Tickly (if you’re out there),

    I’m the one who got a response from Ms. Okubo regarding who approved Ms. Fukino’s statement.

    I’m not sure I understand your “case”, but if you want to get in touch with me and discuss it, you can go to http://www.yourfellowcitizen.com and contact me there. I’d be happy to listen to what you have to say.

  99. Leo,

    A new Idea and I do hope you will check this out.

    The website is http://goooh.com/ and it stands for “Get Out of Our House!” It means the House of Representatives. Thanks to Wanda Randle for sending Tex a way to change things in Congress.

    545 PEOPLE By Charlie Reese Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. To read this last, see my page at dixhistory.com

  100. Whistleblower Says:

    Hamilton’s first draft of our Constitution (1787), Article IX, Section 1, suggests that the qualification for president should contain;

    “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a citizen of the United States”

    That suggestion was not accepted, and instead, the more restrictive “natural born citizen”, sugested by our soon-to-be first Chief Justice, John Jay, was adopted.

    If “born a citizen of the United States” was to have the same meaning as that of “natural born citizen” we would have had no need to change the original suggestion.

    For those interested in reading “in context”, I invite you to look at page 407 of “The works of Alexander Hamilton”.

    [Ed. BRAVO! That needed to be said and I failed to say it. Good job. This is such a strong point that it needs to go at the top of a blog post.]

  101. rainbowseeker Says:

    I don’t care what they call us or how often you say it…..a lie is a lie and repeating it does not make it true. The gentleman here in this blog points us all at the direction of the law and how NBC is established though long past history and more recent history.

    The fact remains that anyone can see BHO could certainly be viewed as having ties to another country….possibly more than one that seriously call into question his loyalties to this country. Our founding fathers would have ruled him ineligible to be president beyond a doubt based on past law rulings. If we had his “records” we could prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt. And those preventing us from seeing those records are in violation of the spirit of the law as well as actual law based on the constitution.

    I am very grateful for this blog entry and the one written earlier today for helping me to figure out a way to approach a supporting statement to the “birthers” so called right wing rant that will sound intelligent and not hesterical. I think it’s real simple to simply ask how anyone can approve of a person being our president who has gone to Kenya and shown his abject interest in the politics of his step brother……is this not the most obvious sign of conflict of interest? And if that doesn’t do it then listen to the tapes of the head honcho in that country bragging about their ties to our president…..even though now you won’t hear anymore how he was actually born there. That’s all the proof I need to tell me that the man in power right now here in our White House has serious conflict of interest issues and has no right to be president.

    The truth should be evident that this is not what natural born meant to the framers of the constitution. Now how to we get at what we need to establish this truth? Can we?

  102. […] Wall Street Journal and James Taranto came under pressure after our article here yesterday revealed propaganda wherein they attempted to convince readers a statute exists […]

  103. FYI, here is my letter to my senator today

    Senator ____, I believe that the election of Barack Obama was a fraud because he swore falsely when he signed the Arizona “Candidate’s Nominating Paper,” which declared “I am a natural born citizen of the United States.” You will soon vote on a Supreme Court nominee, but before that vote is called I ask, urge and request that you move to delay the vote until the Senate first puts to rest the serious and legitimate questions about Obama’s eligibility by: 1) Inspecting an official copy of Obama’s original birth certificate, delivered under seal directly from the State of Hawaii, and 2) Asking the Supreme Court to clarify the definition of “natural born citizen” so that the senate can support and defend the Constitution (relevant sections include Article II Section 1, and the 12th, 14th, and 20th Amendments). VP Biden’s tenure depends on Obama’s legality, so it may also be null and void. Please don’t take this matter lightly. Our founders surely intended that no one who held divided allegiance at birth should be put in command of our army.

  104. Donofrio is the expert without doubt; but sometimes folks need further references to help understand nbc, so I suggest the following sites:
    http://federalistblog.us natural born, subject to the jurisdiction
    http://www.heritage.org Web Memo 2005 Birthright citizenship. Natural born, 14th amendment

  105. I would like to thank you for your blog posts – I find them very helpful in the fight for the issue of elegibility. I use many of the articles and e-mail them all over the place in an effort to educate those that I know and come in contact. YES….Your blogging make a difference!

  106. So Medved chimed in today after someone called about the whole kenyan BC thing. Out of no where he starts in on the Natural Born Citizen requirement for POTUS and how the 1986 code settles this whole matter and it and NBC is a non issue. He also said even if it were true BO would have to be impeached to get removed from office. Thy Big Lie gets even bigger……
    Of course I emailed him and asked where it said NBC in that code, no reply expected.
    Great Blog by the way.

  107. Michael R Says:

    Leo – Inspired by your tireless work, today I condensed into words my understanding of the eligibility issue, and plan to send it to my elected representatives and friends:

    Q: What do these sixteen people have in common?

    Sen. George Read, Delaware; Sen. Richard Basset, Delaware; Rep. Daniel Carroll, Maryland; Rep. James Madison, Virginia; Rep. Hugh Williamson, North Carolina; Sen. Abraham Baldwin, Georgia; Sen. Pierce Butler, South Carolina; Sen. William Few, Georgia; Sen. John Langdon, New Hampshire; Rep. Nicholas Gilman, New Hampshire; Rep. Roger Sherman, Connecticut; Sen. William Johnson, Connecticut; Sen. Rufus King, New York; Sen. William Patterson, New Jersey; Sen. Robert Morris, Pennsylvania; Rep. George Clymer, Pennsylvania.

    A: These sixteen people signed the US Constitution on 17 Sep 1787 and served in the First Congress at the time that the the Naturalization Act of 1790 was enacted.

    Q: Why is this interesting?
    A: The US Constitution includes the term natural born citizen, but does not define it in any way. The Naturalization Act of 1790 includes a definition of natural born citizen. The same people who signed the US Constitution allowed us a peek into their thoughts on natural born citizen. (In addition, the Naturalization Act of 1790 was signed into law by President George Washington, who was a signer of the US Constitution.)

    The Naturalization Act of 1790 says, “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.” This is the only attempt to elaborate on the term natural born citizen in the history of the United States. Notice that the Act was unconcerned about the place of birth, but was insists upon the citizenship of the parents. The conventional wisdom today, that natural born citizen requires only birth in the US without regard to the citizenship of the parents, is strikingly at odds with the Naturalization Act of 1790. Is the conventional wisdom at odds with the intent of the Constitution?

    Some may say that, under the Naturalization Act of 1790, that children born of an alien in the US were natural born citizens, too. However, the Naturalization Act of 1790 also says, regarding the children of someone naturalized under its terms, “And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.” Notice that the Act does not declare the children who were born before their parent’s naturalization to be natural born citizens. The Act simply states that the children born before the parent’s naturalization, whether they were born in the US or abroad, are citizens.

    Naturalization law in the US has changed many times since then, but no law since then has used the term natural born citizen. Those closest to the intent of the US Constitution defined natural born citizen as a person born anywhere in the world so long as they were the child of US citizens.

    From time to time the US Supreme Court has designated an individual as a natural born citizen, but it has never done so for a person whose parents were not US citizens.

    Barack Obama is not the child of “citizens of the United States.” He is the child of a citizen of the United States and a British subject. He himself was a citizen of Kenya until 1982.

    Q: On what basis do you believe that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen for the purpose of eligibility to the Presidency of the United States?

  108. Follow the Constitution Says:

    Why couldn’t a civil suit for damages be brought against some of the people that falsely certified Obama as being legally eligible to run for POTUS?

    I imagine Pelosi would be difficult to sue in a civil action, but what about the Secretary of the Democratic National Convention? Is she afforded the same immunity in civil suits?

    For example. Alica Germond, Secretary, Democratic Convention, and/or Brian Schatz, Chair, Democratic Party of Hawaii, and/or Lynne Matusow, Secretary, Democratic Party of Hawaii.

    These people gave testimony certifying candidate Obama for President of the United States is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the national Democratic Parties balloting at the Presidential Preference Poll and Caucus held on February 19th, 2008 in the State of Hawaii and by acclamation at the National Democratic Convention held August 7th, 2008 in Denver, Colorado.

    Alice Germond, Secretary, Democratic National Convention along with Nancy Pelosi signed certifying that at the National Convention of the Democratic Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 through 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.

    For President of the United States, Barack Obama

    For Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden

    These people signed certifying they are LEGALLY QUALIFIED under the provisions of the United States Constitution!

    Now is this not false testimony given since both Obama and Biden do NOT legally qualify since Obama is NOT a “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” and Biden is not qualified since he was chosen by Obama who is not legally qualified to be POTUS whereby he has no legal authority or standing to select a VP for the United States?

    I submit to you these people LIED in their testimony and as a result of their false swearing and perjury whereby Obama and Biden have been able to proceed in an election allowing them to win under false pretenses, and as a result of their actions after taking office, passing bills that have put me as an American Citizen deep into debt, I have been damaged!

    So why wouldn’t I be able to file civil suit against these people for damages as a result of their false testimony and through the course of such a lawsuit be able to subpoena all of Obama’s records or at the very least force them to have Obama’s records subpoena to prove in their defense that Obama is legally qualified?

    Do we as American Citizens still have no standing to sue these individuals for damages?

    [Ed. Good luck getting past the Praetorian Guard. I’ve lost all faith in the courts.]

  109. […] The statute does not use the words “natural born citizen.”(emphasis Leo’s) [xi] […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: