CONFIRMED: Published Bogus Fact Regarding Obama’s Kenyan Citizenship.


[Ed. UPDATED 09.04.09 3:49 PM – admitted false fact was published, acknowledged that this blog post caught it.  See my follow up: FACTCHECK.ORG CAPITULATES.]

The relationship between President Obama and has been on my mind recently as I’ve been preparing an exhaustive (and exhausting) research report pertaining to the issue of whether the President of the United States is currently a citizen or national of any other country besides the US.

As far as I can tell, President Obama himself never publicly stated during or after the election that he isn’t a Kenyan citizen.

In a now famous report,, in response to a story originally published in The Rocky Mountain News, attempted to lay rest to allegations that Obama was currently a Kenyan citizen.  In that report, stated that Obama had been a Kenyan citizen up until August 4, 1982 when they allege Obama’s Kenyan citizenship expired.

Obama republished – at his web official site, – only that part of the analysis which stated that the President was  a British citizen at birth.  Obama republished this word for word thereby admitting the truth of the following assertion:

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

The question arises as to why Obama didn’t republish the full article by concerning his various foreign citizenship issues.  Perhaps by placing a link on his page – just above the quote above – back to, Obama intended to endorse all of the conclusions made by in the report.  But since the report has now been established to contain false and misleading data, I do not believe it’s fair to assume Obama endorsed that false data since he did not republish it.


Obama’s failure to endorse all of the report inspired me to investigate whether all of the information presented therein was accurate.

I can now report that it has been conclusively established – the report contains false information.

Two inaccuracies have been discovered. – Inaccuracy #1: President Obama’s Kenyan Citizenship did not expire on August 4, 1982.

Here’s what reported in rebuttal of a Rocky Mountain News Report:

…Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship after 1963. So The Rocky Mountain News was at least partially correct.

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

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

At Section 97, subsection (1), the Kenyan Constitution provides:

97. (1) A person who, upon the attainment of the age of twenty-one years, is a citizen of Kenya and also a citizen of some country other than Kenya shall, subject to subsection (7), cease to be a citizen of Kenya upon the specified date unless he has renounced his citizenship of that other country, taken the oath of allegiance and, in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya, made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament.

Please take note of the part above which states:

– “cease to be a citizen of Kenya upon the specified date”.

The “specified date” is defined at Section 97, subsection (6):

(6) In this section “the specified date” means –

(a) in relation to a person to whom subsection (1) refers, the date on which he attains the age of twenty-three years;

This law provides a two year window for a person to make the necessary declarations between the ages of 21 and 23.  At the age of 23, if the person has not made the declarations, they cease to be a Kenyan citizen.  (Unless they fall under various statutory exceptions which also failed to discuss.  I will examine the exceptions in a future report.)

So, according to the Kenyan Constitution, the earliest date Obama’s Kenyan citizenship could have expired is August 4, 1984. was absolutely wrong when they reported Obama’s Kenyan citizenship expired on August 4, 1982.

This is not just an issue of numerical semantics.  Whether Obama was a Kenyan citizen on January 1, 1983 has important relevance to  Obama’s status in the United Kingdom and to Commonwealth Citizenship in the Commonwealth of Nations (formerly known as the British Commonwealth).

On January 1, 1983, the British Nationality Act of 1981 went into effect.  Section 37 of the BNA 1981 makes all citizens of commonwealth nations, who had been British Subjects before commencement of the BNA 1981, to thereafter “have the status of a Commonwealth Citizen“.

Section 50 of the BNA 1981 also states that Commonwealth Citizens are not aliens of the United Kingdom.

So, since Obama was a citizen of Kenya on January 1, 1983, he was also a Commonwealth Citizen and he was not an alien in the United Kingdom from that date.  Had Obama’s citizenship expired on August 4, 1982 –  as was incorrectly stated by – then the British Nationality Act of 1981 (which didn’t go into effect until January 1, 1983) would not have governed Obama’s status.

The term “Commonwealth Citizen” – since the BNA 1981 – has  effectively replaced the former title of “British Subject”.  Up until the BNA 1981, both terms were synonymous and held synonymous rights and obligations.

It’s important to note that Section 35 of the BNA 1981 states:

s 35 Circumstances in which British subjects are to lose that status.

A person who under this Act is a British subject otherwise than by virtue of section 31 shall cease to be such a subject if, in whatever circumstances and whether under this Act or otherwise, he acquires any other citizenship or nationality whatever.

I’ve seen some very mistaken analysis of this section.  Let me set the record straight:  Even full British citizens ceased to be “British subjects” when the BNA 1981 went into effect.

The British government is doing away with the term, “British Subject”.  From January 1, 1983 and onwards, persons who were previously British subjects and citizens of the UK (or of any Commonwealth nation) are now “Commonwealth Citizens” of the Commonwealth of Nations.  “Commonwealth Citizen” has replaced “British Subject”.

If you were a British Subject before the BNA 1981, you are now (with very limited exceptions) a Commonwealth Citizen.  It’s important to note however, that prior to January 1, 1983, the term British Subject was still in effect and had effective legal implications.  We will return to this later.

Wiki says this about the Commonwealth leadership:

“Under the formula of the London Declaration, Queen Elizabeth II is the Head of the Commonwealth, a title that is currently annexed to that of British monarchy.

Commonwealth citizens have the following rights :

In the United Kingdom, as in many other Commonwealth countries, Commonwealth citizens… are in law considered not to be “foreign” or “aliens”…  Commonwealth and Irish citizens enjoy the same civic rights as British citizens, namely:

  • the right, unless otherwise disqualified, to vote in all elections (i.e., parliamentary, local and European [1] elections);
  • the right, unless otherwise disqualified, to stand for election to the British House of Commons;
  • the right, if a qualifying peer or bishop, to sit in the House of Lords; and
  • eligibility to hold public office (e.g., as a judge, magistrate, minister, police constable, member of the armed forces, etc.).

So, as you can see from all of the above, the date which Obama may have lost his Kenyan citizenship creates a whole set of complex international law issues which have yet to be resolved.

The facts are important and do need to be checked and reported accurately.  If you are going about the world doing business under the name “”, you should be held to a high standard of integrity and thoroughness, especially when reporting facts which intended to influence the national election of the United States.

The irony is that was allegedly correcting The Rocky Mountain News story which stated that Obama was currently a dual citizen of Kenya.  Suffice it to say, I am not impressed with Factcheck’s fact checking abilities.  We shall see if they have the humility to correct their mistake.

Because of various statutory exceptions regarding the declarations mentioned in Section 97 of the Kenyan Constitution, the original report by the Rocky Mountain News – stating that Obama was a dual citizen of Kenya and the US – might have been accurate.  Information not currently in the public domain is necessary to answer this question as well as the question of whether Obama is currently a British citizen.

This documented false reporting by coupled with the analysis below strips them of any previously assumed penchant for accuracy and objectivity. either dropped the ball on this one, or they reported the facts wrong on purpose as part of a propaganda package of deceit for the purpose of getting Obama elected.  It’s one thing to say that the public was aware of Obama’s foreign national issues – IF – the facts are reported accurately to the American people.

Since Obama quoted and provided a link back to the site, it is important now that every single assertion made be closely scrutinized.  I am in the process of doing a complete review of Kenyan and British nationality law. – Inaccuracy #2: While Obama’s status as a British citizen may have been short lived, failed to state that his status as a British subject was not short lived.

Obama remained a British subject from his birth and after the Kenya Independence Act went into effect in 1963, all the way up until that status changed to Commonwealth Citizen in the BNA 1981.

Here’s what reported:

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

Obama’s British citizenship was short-lived. On Dec. 12, 1963, Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom.

Obama only republished the first paragraph above, not the second which stated that his British citizenship was short-lived.

Please notice that mentions Obama’s British citizenship and his status as a British subject.  But when they conclude that Obama’s British citizenship was short-lived, they say nothing about his status as a British subject continuing, which it certainly did.

The report is not accurate as to Obama’s historical British Subject status in that the report implicates his British subject status was lost along with British citizenship back in 1963.  It was not.

The proof that Obama remained a British subject after 1963 exists in the Kenyan Independence Act of 1963 (KIA) which states in Section 2(1):

2.-(1) On and after the appointed day, the British NationalityActs 1948 and 1958 shall have effect as if-

(a) in section 1(3) of the said Act of 1948 (which provides for persons to be British subjects or Commonwealth citizens by virtue of citizenship of certain countries) there were added at the end the words ” and Kenya ” ;

Now we must look at the British Nationality Act of 1948, Section 1:

1.—(1) Every person who under this Act is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or who under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of this section is a citizen of that country shall by virtue of that citizenship have the status of a British subject.

(2) Any person having the status aforesaid may be known either as a British subject or as a Commonwealth citizen; and accordingly in this Act and in any other enactment or instrument whatever, whether passed or made before or after the commencement of this Act, the expression “British subject” and the expression “Commonwealth citizen” shall have the same meaning.

(3) The following are the countries hereinbefore referred to, that is to say, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Newfoundland, India, Pakistan, Southern Rhodesia and Ceylon.

According to the KIA, the words “and Kenya” are added to subsection (3) making all Kenyan citizens also British Subjects upon “the appointed day”, December 12, 1963.

It has now been conclusively established that President Obama could not have lost his Kenyan Citizenship on August 4, 1982.  This means his foreign nationality issues were not only governed by the Kenyan Constitution, but – as of  January 1, 1983 – he was also governed by the British Nationality Act of 1981.

My research has discovered multiple legal mechanisms which have the potential to establish that President Obama is now a full citizen of Kenya as well as the United Kingdom, the European Union, the Commonwealth of Nations and the Republic of Indonesia.  Unfortunately, information available in the public domain cannot answer these questions.

The American people, despite what they have been told by factions such as the unreliable, continue to remain in the dark as to whether their President holds any foreign citizenships or nationalities at this time.

Obama, as President of the United States, is also the Executive head of the State Department.  Please review the following current policy of the Obama administration as to dual nationality:

The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person’s allegiance. However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there. (Emphasis added.)

The Obama administration policy is that dual nationals owe allegiance to the foreign country as well as the US.  The law applies to the President.  If he is a dual national, he owes allegiance to “foreign powers“.


Whether President Obama currently holds the status of dual (or multi) national remains of paramount concern to the national security and the national sovereignty of the United States.  But unlike the issue of whether Obama is eligible to be President, the issue of whether he is currently a foreign national of any other nations can be resolved very easily.

All President Obama has to do is officially renounce citizenship in all foreign nations and supranational organizations.  This will remove any unwanted and possibly unknown lingering attachments to foreign nations which may exist at this time.

I have read many arguments alleging that foreign law should not effect US law.  While the issue is not that simple – as Obama’s own State department agrees –  the solution is.

President Obama, for the good of the nation, needs to officially renounce all foreign national ties.  Each nation to which he was attached has a legal mechanism by which he can permanently sever citizenship and/or nationality.

It’s time for the nation to call on the President to officially and legally renounce all foreign allegiance.  And it’s time for the President to respond.


134 Responses to “CONFIRMED: Published Bogus Fact Regarding Obama’s Kenyan Citizenship.”

  1. If he renounces all foreign citizenships, he may end up having no citizenship at all!

    These are known facts:

    1. The most recent available documentation for “him” shows his name as Barry Soetoro and his citizenship as Indonesian.

    2. There are no available documents that show a name change to Barack Obama nor a change of citizenship.

    The lack of available documents does not necessarily prove anything, but it is more than a passing curiosity. Even if the long-form BC or school records prove “personally embarrassing” in some way and warrant a level of secrecy – it should be a simple non-controversial matter to document one’s official name and citizenship.

  2. Would abandoning other allegiances change anything? Does not the “natural born status” of Article 2 of the Constitution refer to a condition at birth? How does renouncing citizenship after birth change anything?

    [Ed. It doesn’t change a thing as to nbc status. It does however destroy what his own State department insists would be a legal relationship where allegiance and loyalty are due to foreign nations. That’s the point of the article. ]

  3. Apocalyptic Says:

    Excellent research, Leo. This is state-of-the-art, and it is fresh, not a rehash of what has been written on during the past year.

    My concern is this: why would renouncing all foreign allegiance solve the problem? The problem appears that we have a president who has at least one and potentially many foreign allegiances. Isn’t this unconstitutional, being the equivalent of not being a natural-born citizen? It seems the only constitutional solution that he himself could do would be for him to resign.

    [Ed. It doesn’t change a thing as to nbc status. It does however destroy what his own State department insists would be a legal relationship where allegiance and loyalty are due to foreign nations. That’s the point of the article. Whereas, the nbc issue must be litigated in the courts, this is an issue most people can understand. If the Pres has foreign nationality, then he ought to renounce it. We can apply pressure here and try to force a recognition of the danger dual nationality brings to the office of POTUS or any Government position for that matter. I’m hoping we force a response and let the conversation go viral from there. ]

  4. More propaganda. Very shrewdly written:

    [Ed. It’s racism baiting propaganda. Also, it’s very good evidence that we are getting somewhere on this. If their final argument is that the founders were racist and therefore the Constitution is invalid – we should recognize how desperate a tactic that is and be encouraged.]

  5. beyond baffled Says:

    I now wait anxiously for the next posting on your blog. I am wondering which front is the best one? Why would BHO respond to this request when he hasn’t to any other? I feel the real issue is related to the US as a corporation. From what I can tell it governs everything that BHO has to abide by. Tell me if I am wrong.

  6. Jerry Christenson Says:

    Everyone, Leo is great and continues to find FACTS about our illegal pres.

    Leo has given us some hope that he may jump back into the legal ring, ie usurper obama.

    Now, does anyone know how to contact Gerald Walpin, the fired IG? Mr. Walpin has ‘Standing’ with the DC court.

    We need Mr. Walpin to contact Mr. Donofrio so Leo can represent him in a Quo Warranto Suit in DC courts. With Leo’s knowledge and presentation skills, I don’t know how the court cannot fullfil its duties and require obama to Prove he is a Natural Born Citizen. He can’t so he’s shown for the fraud that he is. Help Leo save America.

    This is my personal request and I Pray for success.

  7. Leo,

    This is unbelievable stuff here and exactly the kind of uncovering that will precipitate a governmental crackdown on the free flow of information. It is close at hand the day we will lose our freedoms to a communistic administration and all of it under the watchful hand of the watchful media. Obama will never cede power not ever. He has an agreement with SCOTUS. He met with them right? Privately.

    Be safe. You are closer than you know. I pray you stay safe.

  8. This is off topic, but I just learned that Ed Hale said this, and is it true?

    “I just got off the phone with Steve Pidgeon. Steve tells me that there is a possiblity that he and Leo Donfrio will be working together with a lawsuit file against the goverment for the Car Dealer that has lost thier dealership. Steve will be on the Lion’s Den one week from today, Tuesday, at 8:00 pm. I am also going to try and contact Leo and get him on also. Steve said it would be a great pleasure to work with one of the smartest attorney in this country and he felt that the 2 of them can stop Obama cold in his tracts. Standby folks, the fun is about to begin with the 2 best attorney in America teaming up to get rid of Obama.”

    [Ed. I am interested in the car dealers issue and would be happy to discuss it with Steve Pidgeon.]

  9. Wow.

    What coffee do you drink?

    Thanks for the outstanding research. Really freakin’ outstanding.

    I wonder who reads your blog? Other than Big Brother? It is really time for someone with stones to say “wait a minute, I’m not sure you’re suppose to be there” to the current administration.


    [Ed. For poker, chess and legal writing I drink tea. For going to films, screenwriting and legal research (both of which I do almost every day) I drink coffee, any kind, don’t matter.]

  10. I would add section 98 clause 7 of the KC to this list:

    “Provision may be made by or under an Act of Parliament for extending beyond the specified date the period in which a person may make a renunciation of citizenship. take an oath or make or register a declaration for the purposes of this section. and, if provision is so made. that person shall not cease to be a citizen of Kenya upon the specified date but shall cease to be a citizen upon the expiration of the extended period if he has not then made the renunciation. taken the oath or made or registered the declaration. as the case may be.”

    Since Obama’s Kenyan files are also sealed we have no idea if he was given such ans extension.

    [Ed. That’s part of my next report.]

  11. Tony Stark Says:

    He can’t renounce all foreign allegiance, for doing so would be a suicidal admission that he isn’t a natural born citizen of the US and therefore is ineligible to be POTUS under Article II of the Constitution while giving tons of ammunition to those seeking his removal from office.

  12. BuckeyeTexan Says:


    What a patriot you are. There aren’t words …

    Thank you is woefully insufficient.


  13. HOLY COW!….what a tangled web! This just keeps getting more and more complicated. No wonder he doesn’t want to release his birth certificate, that is, if he even has one. It would have been easier not to run for President than explain this “alleged” mess…., and there’s even more evidence he’s not an NBC!

  14. Hennie Bogan Says:

    Enough diddling! The bottom line is that the judicial system with the USSC at its head has clearly indicated it wants no part of the POTUS eligibility issue as it relates to the definition of “Natural Born Citizen” in the USC.
    But the Constitution governs the entire US government including the USSC.
    So, could the best Constitutional scholar please stand up and explain what the Constitution suggests We The People do in this case where we suffer from a totally rogue government? Perhaps it is suggested that the “several states” in a independent fashion take action to nullify the actions of the “rogue”.

    Mr. Donofrio, please transition now from legal beagle to lead blood hound.
    BTW it looks like Phil Berg finally showed his true colors. He has rejected the definition of NBC having to do with both parents being citizens at the time of birth. I don’t know what ORLY’s motivations have been. But her attempts to persuade the courts to address her cases have not had any positive effect, other than to raise some consciousness on the issues (wrongly centered around the BC).

    Why has Edwin Viera not been more vocal on the NBC definition?
    Why has Ron Paul not touched this with a ten foot pole?
    Alan Keyes seemed to be all over this with provocative language.
    Very odd, but he might be a great co-author.

    [Ed. Keyes rejects the nbc definition of born on the soil to citizen parents. It doesn’t matter who the parents are to him as far as I am aware.]

    I think it is time for a book to be started on this matter.
    Leo, you must be the one to write it. You have about three years to use media (books, movies, internet, advertising etc) to get the real issues out to the vast number of Americans who can comprehend the issues and their importance. I wish to submit a title for your book which I am hoping you will write; “The President-alleged”.

    If we don’t find a way to turn back political time to the period when the Constitution was revered as the boss, then we may have to retreat back to our states, force secession and start all over again. It is all our fault for believing our system of government was on auto-pilot with the Constitution embedded in the firmware.

    Please make the wake-up call, write the book!

    [Ed. It would have to be self published as no publishing house would touch me.]

  15. […] Obama was currently a African citizen . In that report, Read the example here:  CONFIRMED: Published Bogus Fact Regarding Obama's … Posted in Uncategorized | Tags: a-now-famous, a-story-originally, factcheck-org-, kenyan, […]

  16. In order to renounce each foreign loyalty must he also show how and when he gained those foreign ties? Could such information obtained then be used to disqualify him for the Presidency?

    [Ed. No. He just has to renounced the ties not prove them. It’s fullproof. If the ties weren’t binding it won’t matter. If the ties were, they will be severed and he will owe no allegiance thereto.]

  17. Bravo Leo! Well done.
    I guess as a Citizen of the Commonwealth, BHO would be under the jurisdiction of this court.
    Maybe he should take your advice.

  18. Great work Leo!

    Interesting thing about Obama was in charge of the Chicago Anneberg Challenge, working with William Ayers.
    Anneberg funds The fix was in years ago.

    Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism On Schools
    Wall Street Journal
    “Despite having authored two autobiographies, Barack Obama has never written about his most important executive experience. From 1995 to 1999, he led an education foundation called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC),….”
    “The CAC was the brainchild of Bill Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground in the 1960s. Among other feats, Mr. Ayers and his cohorts bombed the Pentagon, and he has never expressed regret for his actions. Barack Obama’s first run for the Illinois State Senate was launched at a 1995 gathering at Mr. Ayers’s home.”

    Chicago Annenberg Challenge
    “The Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) was a Chicago public school reform project from 1995 to 2001 that worked with half of Chicago’s public schools and was funded by a $49.2 million, 2-to-1 matching challenge grant over five years from the Annenberg Foundation”

    Annenberg Foundation
    “…. The Foundation oversaw the funding of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and contributed significantly to the USC and University of Pennsylvania Annenberg Schools for Communication, Annenberg Public Policy Center, FACTCHECK, and Eisenhower Medical Center.”

    Annenberg Public Policy Center

  19. What a weak solution. He’s either an NBC or he’s not. It’s obvious that he has non-American allegiances, but his allegiance is not to Britain, nor to Kenya.

    [Ed. The eligibility issue is not the only issue. Obama’s State department says that dual nationals owe allegiance to the foreign nation. That’s not cool if Obama is a foreign national. The solution is perfect for breaking the legal allegiance owed if he’s a dual national. This is just another front.

    It doesn’t change a thing as to nbc status. It does however destroy what his own State department insists would be a legal relationship where allegiance and loyalty are due to foreign nations. That’s the point of the article. Whereas, the nbc issue must be litigated in the courts, this is an issue most people can understand. If the Pres has foreign nationality, then he ought to renounce it. We can apply pressure here and try to force a recognition of the danger dual nationality brings to the office of POTUS or any Government position for that matter. I’m hoping we force a response and let the conversation go viral from there. ]

  20. If someone asks if you are a ‘Birther’ say ‘No but I am a “Dualer”‘. And then let them figure it out.

    [Ed. I love that, man. 🙂 Cool. I’m a dualer all the way. I’m using that.]

  21. Besides those facts, who the F##* are they? They are the sole arbitter of Obama’s citizenship and BC? An Unsworn witness? There is no possibility that anything they aver is admissable in a court of law. Whose hands are in those BC pics?

  22. Thanks for the explanation. I am passing the link along to social network.

  23. Apparantly one of BO’s African relatives ( probably Sarah his step grandmother) stated that BO was in Kenya in 1983claing it was when that photo of him in African garb came out.
    It is also claws that photo was taken in a later visit.

    If he was in Kenya in /983 then it could have been f

  24. Sorry for typos

    If BO was in Kenya in 1983 ( prior to his 23rd birthday) then it is more than likely it was for the purpose of renewing his Kenyan citizenship.
    Eventually the passport records should surface.

  25. Father Time Says:

    I found this Video from Indy TV report.

    The Obama file has Obama first trip to Kenya under Family “Obama traveled to Kenya to meet the family, for the first time, in 1986.”

    This video state Obama was 25 years old. OK that matches up with TOF but it is hard to remember ages but it is easier to remember when things happen in a person life. In the video “Mama Sarah Obama: Exclusive interview from WTHR-TV”

    Mama Sarah says “Obama came to Kenya the first time to bury his father”

    It would not be hard to remember that “yes we saw Obama the first time when he came home to bury his dad”.

    Obama father die as to The Obama File in 1982. Well Obama would be 20-21 years old in 1982.

    So if Obama was in Kenya at the age of 20-21 did Obama become a Kenyan Citizen when he was in Kenya to bury his father?

    [ed. Obama has never denied that he is a Kenyan citizen… only denied it. And we have proved that they are not reliable today. So, Obama needs to state what the situation is. It’s a matter of national security and national sovereignty.]

  26. NewEnglandPatriot Says:

    I know Gerald Walpin’s former office was in New York City. Months ago, I had thought of the same thing: that he should file a Quo Warranto case right after having been irrationally fired. However, others have filed QW, and the U.S. District Court and Eric Holder simply ignore the filings.

    [Ed. I don’t know of anyone who has filed a QW in DC District Court.]

  27. Obama should sing Britney’s song, “You wanna piece of me?”…all these countries own chunks of his allegiance!
    Truly I wish we could just give him 100% to any one of these countries.
    Also, follow the money…
    Is this why he campaigned for genocidal marxist sharia-imposing al qaeda backed Odinga?
    I always believed the Eni Faleomavagua (sp)/murdered Lt. Quarles Harris murder/CEO of passport breach co. now working for Obama was a big deal, or otherwise why spend all that money, do so many crimes, and kill someone if it weren’t to cover the Indonesian citizenship?
    That could mean four allegiances!

    I have a question:
    Why does the naturalization oath require one to give up all other allegiances, yet the State Dept. “allows” but “does not encourage” dual citizenships?
    How can those two states of being “citizen” be consistent? How can you be a citizen if naturalized you have to owe no other allegiances, but still be a citizen (dual) and share allegiances? Seems NBC is consistent with the naturalized state.
    Which means Obama’s state of shared citizenship doesn’t approach even naturalized citizenship insofar as allegiance.

    The Civil Rights Act of 1866 which required citizens not be a subject to ANY foreign power…and the 14th which requires being subject to the jurisdiction of the USA (which is not possible if you’re also subject to a conflicting jurisdiction ofanother country)…those two prerequisites are consistent…
    So then HOW can ANY citizen have ANY split allegiances and be consistent with the CRA1866 and the 14th part 1?

  28. Whistleblower Says:

    Excellent research and reporting.

    Let me make sure I’ve got this straight: We’re pretty sure the acting-President has dual (maybe even multi)-allegiance, and his Oath of Office only requires did to “do his best” to support and defend our Constitution.

    [Ed. We don’t know if he does or does not. We know he did. And as far as I can tell, he hasn’t said he doesn’t have dual nationality right now. First off, most Americans aren’t lawyers and don’t understand the complexity of the BNA 1948 or the KIA 1963. The President admits he was a citizen of two other countries – can we at least here him say in public that he has renounced those nationalities. Surely, that can’t be too much to ask.]

    Oh yeah..That gives me a warm fuzzy feeling.

    Now I guess we should take another look at Politifact’s facts.

    How anyone can question the authenticity of the Hawaiian COLB – after The Daily Kos,, and Politifact vouched for it, is beyond me. -NOT

    –I’m diggin’ what you’re diggin’ up.

  29. As much as I’m right there with all of you on this and Leo is a genius as well as a Patriot, the powers that be have already been paid off or they’re too scared to step up to the plate. It will eventually be up to the American people to resolve this debacle in some shape or form.

  30. Oh, and Leo… you de man!!!

  31. Four allegiances?! One Oriential, One African, One European, One American.

    Definitely a Citizen of the World!

  32. Doesn’t this put usa in jeopardy of falling under the world court in hague? by virtue that the people elected him? OMg what a disaster!

    or the very least if obama pissed them off he atleast could fall under them.

  33. Yeah, Leo, U da man! 🙂

    You and Pidgeon should make a formidable legal team. His last concoction, the “petition” filed in D.C. is splendid legal work.

    Just remember to duck when those black helicopters fly over.

  34. Great! Great! Great! Leo

    The public is too far gone to react to this.

    The courts are too politically polarized and meek to react to this.

    But I believe our military could soon have some big problems with a “Commander in Chief” with these entanglements.

    Kind of a terrifying thought…

  35. […] Born Citizen his web site, has now taken issue with  with a brand new article: CONFIRMED: Published Bogus Fact Regarding Obama’s Kenyan Citizenship. We covered much of the same ground on this blog in my article: Is President Obama a British […]

  36. Civis Naturaliter Natus Says:


    You have sufficiently explained why Obama curtsied to the Queen…he recognized his allegience and subjection….we aslo now know why he was so eager to go monger above the crowds of Europeans at Berlin, during the US election, and why they want him as president of the EU!

    Great work!

  37. Joe The Blogger Says:

    [Ed. The passport and right of abode are important issue as to Obama’s current status. As stated, we need more information – or, the POTUS could just tell us about himself. Honestly, this is the kind of issue the American people could understand. The BC thing has been spun out of control – Birthers etc. We are now DUALERS…]


    The following article (abridged by me) will help to provide the historical and political context to the enormous changes to British Nationality during the 38 year period following the end of WWII, as the centuries-old British Empire was rapidly dismantled. In my humble opinion, the article, by Professor John Warwick, makes far too much of accusations of racial motives in these changes. The simple fact of the matter is that this process, was, inevitably, tumultuous. Hundreds of millions of British Subjects suddenly found themselves in new independent Nations – and yes, guess what, the vast majority of these people were of color. That is because the nations concerned, just happened to be India/Pakistan, Uganda and Kenya etc., etc.. The upheavals that followed could have led to hundreds of millions of people demanding the right of abode within the UK. The discrimination that resulted in restricting the right of abode in the UK was primarily based on the limited ability of The UK to assimilate vast numbers of immigrants – so, of course, criteria such as educational achievements and financial independence were taken into account – and, The UK, being The UK, CONNECTIONS were also taken into account.

    If you had a good educational background, or money or the right connections, then a British Subject, in say Kenya, would have no problem at all in securing his or her right of abode in the UK. Mr Barack Obama I had, possibly all three, although I do not know of his financial circumstances in 1960, when he was issued with a UK passport to travel to Hawai’i to study. Once issued with a UK passport, Mr Barack Obama I, could have entered The UK at any time before his Naturalization as a Kenyan took effect. I wonder if he had to surrender his UK passport at this time? Barack Obama II was entitled to have a UK passport also. As you rightly say, we should all have the right to know if he was actually issued a UK passport and if so, when, and for what purpose was it issued.

    By the way, all of us who question Mr Obama’s Constitutional eligibility to be President of The USA have been accused of having racist motivations. I regard this accusation as a vicious and vile slur.

    I have selected the parts of the article most relevant to the Obama ineligibility issue;

    Professor John Warwick – Monday, 24 September 2007

    Race and the development of Immigration policy during the 20th century

    “A citizen of a state is defined as a person owing loyalty to that state and entitled to protection and privileges within it. One such privilege being a right of abode within that state’s territory, which is in essence having the freedom from immigration control and the ability to enter at any time. All British citizens are ‘British nationals’, however not all British nationals are British citizens, the latter being distinguishable from mere nationals from their having such a right of abode.
    Prior to, and in the immediate aftermath of the second world war, the term ‘British Subject’ was used to described any person who owed allegiance to the British Crown, and was applied indiscriminately to anyone born where the monarch reigned, be it within the United Kingdom, in one of its colonies or in a self-governing dominion. Those who fell outside of this distinction were termed ‘aliens’ and their entry within the empire was subject to immigration controls. The philosophy of ‘Civis Britannicus Sum’, meant that it had long been assumed all subjects of the British empire had the equal right of abode in the UK. The passing of the British Nationality Act 1948 (henceforth referred to as the BNA 1948), had merely reaffirmed this pre-existing equality and did ‘in no active sense…contribute to the flow of British subjects into the United Kingdom, nor was it seen at the time as likely to do so’ (1).
    The BNA 1948 reaffirmed the status of ‘British Subject’ on all those born within the empire and Commonwealth territories, but allowed for the creation of two sub-divisions within this term. The first was Citizenship of the UK and colonies (henceforth referred to as CUKC) which was created for Britain and those imperial territories yet to gain independence. The other being that of Commonwealth citizenship enacted by the self-governing Dominions, such as Canada, who began to create their own form of national citizenship and control over who entered their territories. Such dominions had however wished to retain a common empire-wide status. On gaining independence from the empire, inhabitants of the former colonial territory usually lost their CUKC status, but if that territory on independence joined the British commonwealth, they had gained commonwealth citizenship and thus retained their status as a British subject.
    The notion of an equal right of abode had however been based more on theory than in practice. There had long been an informal policy of restricting the settlement of Asian and Black British subjects in the United Kingdom (often aided by the governments and colonial authorities of such territories) that had continued until the supposed ending of the ‘open door’ policy with the passing of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act of 1962 (henceforth referred to as the CIA 1962). There had not been discrimination towards such subjects at the point of entry to Britain, but on leaving they were required to possess a valid passport properly endorsed by the UK or colonial authorities, which in many cases was limited to those who were of European origin, or who possessed money and/or educational qualifications”.
    “The declining influence of the Commonwealth to Britain’s world standing by the late 1960s had meant that the British government lacked its earlier inhibitions toward a seemingly overt racial narrowing of citizenship and rights of abode”.
    “from this period onwards that the defining of British citizenship had began to transform from one based around the place of one’s birth to a quasi-biological definition. This is highlighted by the ‘Kenyan Asian crisis’ that had developed in the late 1960s. British subjects of non-African origin who had settled in Kenya, were given the option of retaining their CUKC status, rather than attaining the local citizenship when Kenya gained independence in 1963. Under the British Nationality Act 1964, anyone with a UK born father or grandfather (who were almost certain to be white) could regain their CUKC status, if they previously had needed to conditionally renounce it to obtain citizenship of another commonwealth country.
    Those Asians who had retained CUKC status were not subject to the CIA 1962 as their passports, issued by the British High Commission, were considered as issued by the UK government. Their CUKC status had given them a right of abode in the United Kingdom, and ‘it had been understood at the time of independence negotiations that this citizenship was to be their protection’ (12) from any possible discrimination by Kenyan government policies. Many had exercised this right in February 1968, which thus provoked the passing of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968 (henceforth referred to as CIA 1968) within three days.
    This act had subjected all holders of UK-issued passports to immigration control unless they, a parent or grandparent had been born, adopted or naturalised in the UK”.
    “The Immigration Act 1971 developed further the biological distinction within citizenship by ‘inventing a quasi-nationality, for immigration purposes only’ (13), with the requirement of ‘patriality’ for rights of abode in the United Kingdom. Those who were deemed ‘patrial’ included CUKCs who were born or naturalised in the UK, or who have a parent or grandparent who is so; as well as Commonwealth citizens with a parent born in the UK, or commonwealth citizens who have settled in UK for five years and applied to register for UK citizenship. On the other hand non-‘patrials’ who were either a CUKC or commonwealth citizens were restricted by immigration control, on exactly the same basis as aliens from any other part of the world.
    The Immigration Act 1971 had scrapped employment vouchers, which conferred rights of permanent residency and to bring family members, and had simultaneously become part of UK law as Britain entered the EEC on 1st January 1973”.
    “From the enactment of the CIA 1968, the common citizenship of CUKC had been decoupled from that of the right of abode in the UK, the purpose of the British Nationality Act 1981 (henceforth referred to as BNA 1981), was an attempt to re-integrate the two, but also a continuation of the process of narrowing the scope of citizenship shared by most of the UK’s inhabitants. The BNA 1981 discontinued the recognition of commonwealth citizens as British subjects, and the status of CUKC was replaced by that of British Citizen.
    The BNA 1981 completed the removal of the central notion of ‘jus soli’ (based around place of birth) and increased the element of ‘jus sanguinis’ (based around familial connection) within British citizenship. Any person born in the UK after 1st January 1983 could only to be regarded as a British citizen if at the time of their birth at least one of their parents is a British citizen or ordinarily resident in the UK for more than five years without restriction. In contrast commonwealth citizens, who were not born in the UK, but had ‘patriality’ under the Immigration Act 1971 were now considered to be British citizens. Two other categories of British nationals were created from those eliminated from CUKC status under the BNA 1981, that of British Dependent Territory Citizenship (henceforth referred to as BDTC) and British Overseas Citizenship (henceforth referred to as BOC). Being mere British nationals as opposed to British citizens, neither BDTCs or BOCs had rights of abode in the UK.
    BOCs were those who held CUKC and did not acquire citizenship of a former colonial territory on independence, an example being East African Asians. Those among the BDTC category were inhabitants of the few remaining territories under British rule, the vast majority of which comprised of non-white populations”.
    “One reason cited as motivating the creation of the BDTC category was the impending handover of Hong Kong to communist China and ‘fears that many Hong Kong CUKCs would want to enter the UK rather than live under Chinese control’ (17), and thus the BNA 1981 had legislated to prevent these CUKCs from attaining a right of abode in the UK. It is a striking observation from these new categories which the BNA 1981 created, that ‘virtually all the existing British nationals who were non-European and who were outside the United Kingdom were to receive a practically valueless form of nationality’ (18)”.
    “Both Enoch Powell’s ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech in 1968, and Margaret Thatcher’s ‘swamping’ remarks in 1978 have been seen by many to be ‘new racist’ stances because of a ‘racialization’ of cultural aspects of Britain’s non-white populations. Powell’s statements were cited as influencing much of the content of the Immigration Act 1971 and it was under Thatcher’s premiership that the BNA 1981 had been introduced”.
    (1) Ian R. G. Spencer, British Immigration Policy Since 1939: The Making Of Multi-Racial Britain (1997), p.53
    (12) Ann Dummett and Andrew Nicol, Subjects, Citizens, Aliens and Others: Nationality and Immigration Law (1990), p.199
    (13) Ann Dummett and Andrew Nicol, Subjects, Citizens, Aliens and Others: Nationality and Immigration Law (1990), p.217
    (17) Gina Clayton, Textbook On Immigration and Asylum (1st edn), (2004) p.43
    (18) Ann Dummett and Andrew Nicol, Subjects, Citizens, Aliens and Others: Nationality and Immigration Law (1990), p.245

  38. curi0us0nefromthe60s Says:

    In response to Hennie Bogan,

    I have attempted to write a book on this subject. Now I readily admit that I do not possess the legal acumen of Leo Donofrio as a legal expert on this subject, and I will also readily admit that the chapters in the book that discuss the 14th Amendment and the court cases of Happersett and Ark are a bit lacking. I admit in the Prologue of the book that I am not a lawyer nor a legal or constitutional scholar. However, I have done my absolute best in this book to tell the story of the natural born citizen issue. I have paid fidelity to the facts of the two candidates births (McCain and Obama), and I begin the story with the non-binding Senate Resolution. My book purposefully stays away from the birth certificate controversy and is no way focused on it. The book is an attempt to get folks whom have not heard about this issue engaged in the topic. Whether I have succeeded or failed, will succeed or fail, I do not know, but I have at least made an attempt. The book tells the story of two men who placed their own personal ambition above their country, an inept Congress, a sycophantic media, and I haven’t figured out my description for the courts yet as I am writing that chapter right now. I only have a couple of chapters left to write, and then I plan to go back and refine the arguments especially in those chapters on the law. I have published the first 12 chapters of the book on my blog site. You can find the book here: In the final analysis, I don’t know if my book helps or hurts the cause. I’ll let anyone who reads it be the judge.

  39. B.O. cannot defy the Law of Decomposition
    Broken down / reconstituted =
    No escape for B.O.

    To wit:

    The British Law was the custom that controlled Barack Obama II ’s citizenship status. It is the precedent established for exercising continuous sovereign authority over its state. This deciding principle upon which one relies for guidance directs us to reason that the legal prerogative inhering in the British Crown determines the extent of jurisdiction or “say so” in the matter.

  40. […] CONFIRMED: Published Bogus Fact Regarding Obama's … […]

  41. Tony Stark Says:

    “Please make the wake-up call, write the book!

    [Ed. It would have to be self published as no publishing house would touch me.]”

    Publishing houses are motivated by profit and have no problem publishing controvesial works if it brings them oodles and oodles of dollars. A book documenting Obama’s non-nbc status and tangled citizenship status from Donofrio and all the legal arguments in this blog site would serve as the standard reference and bible for all those appalled by the fraud perpetuated on the American people by the Powers That Be and be an instant bestseller, especially when it is vociferously denounced by Obama’s supporters.

    [Ed, I just have a feeling profits would be superceded by “national security” on this one.]

  42. This question was censored off Yahoo Answers:;_ylt=Ao9wTpdAlda0xJDvW2RBUD_sy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20090902015018AAV9YVR

    Why won’t Obama revoke all his other citizenship allegiances which conflict with his American one?
    In the Naturalization Oath, future citizens must revoke all other allegiances; Obama by law is still British, Kenyan, possibly Indonesian and American. He legally owes allegiance to ALL countries simultaneously.

    He would not even qualify for a low level State Department job which excludes dual citizen because of conflicts of allegiance.

    Why won’t Obama revoke his other citizenships? How can he perform in his “job” with allegiances to other countries still intact?

    Don’t believe it? Here’s a legal review of Kenyan Independence, British Nationality Act of 1948 and 1981. Plus he was listed as an Indonesian citizen and never revoked that either.

    [Ed. The question appears at the link provided.]

  43. If he renewed Kenyan citizenship in 1982-1983 when he went to bury his father then at that time he was required to renounce his American citizenship as part of the process (and British citizenship as required by Kenyan law)

    Is there any definite date on the picture of him wih tribal garb?

    This would explain alot…… His attitude towards the British and his actions in Kenya when Odinga was running for office. Apparently he spoke with Odinga daily giving him “advice” which may give us a window into the future here if things go against him.

  44. By the way, BO will be speaking to our school children on Sept 8th…. Right in line with his duties for CAC and Ayers
    What was that famous line. ” give me your children…..”

  45. Leo,
    Fantastic work! I believe this is the way to get “the foot in the door.” By that, I mean discovery is not needed to show Obama is dual citizen. Once this solid evidence shows Obama’s citizenship is problematic for his own State Department, they must address the issue. And, once they do, the house of cards falls.

    [Ed. Unfortunately, discovery is needed. The answers are not in the public domain. That’s why ne must address this issue himself. He needs to tell the American people – not through a third party either – whether he’s a dual national. Somebody needs to ask him this question. If the POTUS admits having been a citizen of Kenya and UKC then why can’t any reporter in the press ask him if he’s still a citizen of any foreign nation?]

  46. My local paper in Syracuse ran a full editorial about the secrecy that the ACLU has apparently uncovered about US mistreatment of terror suspects. I won’t comment on that issue. However, I wanted you to see that at every opportunity I attempt to get our issue of presidential eligibility into the collective consciousness. I will continue to resist!

    Post Standard letter‏
    From: Bruce
    Sent: Wed 9/02/09 9:23 AM
    After reading your editorial titled “Full Disclosure” in the Wed. 9/2 edition I couldn’t agree more. One particular sentence really caught my eye, it said; “As a rule, secrecy should be resisted by a free society”. Accepting your advice,this letter is my effort at resistance.
    Now please explain to me why Mr. O’Bama our out in the open President has directed his advisors to spend close to 1 million dollars on legal fees to keep hidden in a lockbox any personal information about O’Bama that would help answer the questions about his natural born status and eligibility for the presidency? Quoting you again, “If people do not know what is being done in their name, they are ill equipped to respond”. I would change that quote to,” If people do not know the qualifications of the candidates they choose to run their governments,they are ill equipped to choose correctly”.
    It is not just bureaucrats who are all to prone to resist disclosure, the very elected officials we put our trust appear to be just as guilty. To bad the ACLU students appear to only be interested in politically expiedient agendas. Freedom of Information requests that would help the citizenry get to the truth about Mr.O’bama’s personal history would certainly be welcome;but I won’t hold my breath.

    [Ed. Nice letter. Well done.]

  47. Clarification: The above letter was my response to the Post Standard editorial. I have submitted it for publication. I also won’t hold my breath that the actually will.

  48. Leo
    You amaze me in your research and ability to break it down for the rest of us. You are right BO has not personally publically stated that: 1. he’s a nbc 2. that he was born in HI 3. that he is not a citizen of anywhere else, just the USA. He has said that he is a citizen of the world, which you have proved. Thank you.
    Question – If he has dual and possible multi citizenships and is governed by the laws of them all, can suits be brought to him from their courts?

    [Ed. With the caveat that the fix will be in there as well, the answer to your question should be yes.]

  49. Art II Sec 1 Says:

    Sorry, I missed the part where “they” explained how “You’re a racist” constitutes a legal defense!

    From my perspective it’s very simple. According to his own testimony, Obama’s father was a nondeclarant alien. Regardless of whether he allowed his Kenyan citizenship to lapse or he formally renounced it, Obama is a United States citizen by operation of law.

    He’s not a natural-born citizen.

    He’s not eligible to hold the office of President.

    It gives me no pleasure to “pretend” that Obama isn’t President, because I’m not pretending. I’m morally certain that Obama is not now President.

  50. Just a heads up really and kudos to you…. My husband and I were out to dinner last night, and while waiting for a table we heard the couple next to us talking about you and your blog.. They where lawyers apparently because I did not understand a damn word… LOL. They were in deep discussion about the research you have done. Leo, they were into it, and it sounded as if they might be doing a class assignment. I found that VERY interesting.. Michigan State law school tee shirts on. They not once mentioned the presidents name, I knew what they were talking about because I visit here.

    Perhaps your work is being used in college prep? LOL

    [Ed. I’m starting to hear stories like this form all corners. Yesterday my father was at a deli and the man behind the counter knew him from being a customer for many years. The worker berated my father stating that “Your son should leave the President alone” etc. My father told him to please finish slicing the boloney. He told him also that I was a lawyer, but I would probably not know how to work a meat slicer. The guy did get the joke and it made him mad. My father said two other customers heard the exchange, followed him out of the store and informed him that they were aware of my work. One was a retired military man who expressed gratitude and support. The feedback is encouraging.]

  51. Gator's Mom Says:

    A-1 Says:
    September 2, 2009 at 7:59 am

    By the way, BO will be speaking to our school children on Sept 8th…. Right in line with his duties for CAC and Ayers
    What was that famous line. ” give me your children…”


    Yes! I’m very glad to see someone else picked up on this. I posted about it on the last thread. Its very important for people with school age children to be aware of this so here is the link to announcement again:

    Take a look at the “Classroom Activities” available for download for PreK-6 and 7-12 age levels. It is all about Obama and his vision and what we can do for him.

    I’ve contacted our Superintendent and I’m waiting to hear back as to the level of participation in our schools. I don’t mind the kids watching the President talk about the importance of education, but all these Government provided before, during and after speech “activities” are what worry me.

  52. You are causing the communists over on Dr. Conspiracy’s blog to do nip-ups in attacking you and other posters of this blog. They clearly believe they can “prove” you wrong – with them, that means outshouting you and citing dubious references.

    (BTW, it never has been too clear just what their “conspiracy” was aside from banding together to attack and denigrate “birthers” (whoever they think they are) and to defend Obama to the death, facts notwithstanding. It’s actually quite funny it is so uninformed and many of the posters just LOVE Wong Kim Ark and the 14th Amendment to “prove” the Big O (or zero) is legally holdong the office he now occupies.

    [Ed. I love Wong Kim Ark for its analysis of the NBC issue (it’s analysis of the citizen issue is bad). Irony defined: Wong Kim Ark is the case which is going to win this for us if it ever gets litigated.


    Mark them now. Mark them right here. Justice Horace Gray provided the best ammunition we have. He indicated that the native born son of an alien is not natural born. It’s hard for them to swallow. Why bother with a site you is pushing propaganda?
    I wouldn’t click a link to that site. What’s the point? But they have to read what I write here. That’s the difference. My readers challenge me all the time. And I respond and I correct myself when I’m wrong. People know this is no pundit site. I have defended Obama on various issues and I’ve attacked McCain for being ineligible the whole time.

    It’s not easy for them to deal with me since I have proved to the public that I conveying the law straight and true. I don’t spin or obfuscate. Case in point my last response regarding Stanley Ann’s divorce to Shiek Yur Bootay. If the law doesn’t support my position, I will present the best defense for the other side.

    I’ve been criticized strongly by those who are against obama as well – they say I give too much away, but that’s the ethical responsibility of a lawyer – to reveal the truth of the law, not conceal it.]

  53. Is the following too simplistic?:

    Obama cannot [Ed. strike “cannot” replace with “will not”] renounce any other citizenship loyalties because to do so would validate the ‘dualities’ of his citizenship status and further, unequivocally quantify his ineligibility to sit in the White House?

  54. I wrote a brief post suggesting other bloggers link to yours and start asking that question. Obama will not willing give us any response; we are nothing in his eyes, but enablers. We will have to act quickly to show him that it is not so. Thank you for this shift in strategy.

  55. Leo,

    I am elated to read of the growing public awareness of your work, per the post by Sharon and what your Dad experienced. This is Very Good News indeed, and I now realize I have not expressed, even been withdrawn, regarding my long & strong support of your work.

    I hereby proclaim I will speak of your work to others every single day, and I invited/challenge your many readers to do likewise. We all must come out of our closets and Speak the Truth or cower as cowards.


  56. “I’ve been criticized strongly by those who are against obama as well – they say I give too much away, but that’s the ethical responsibility of a lawyer – to reveal the truth of the law, not conceal it.”


    The above is exactly why I admire you and the work you’ve done above anyone else. You seek out the truth no matter what face it might wear and you’re not afraid of it.

    I don’t think words can express how invaluable your research and hard work has been. keep up the good fight and please don’t hesitate to ask for any help you might need.

  57. Mr. Donofrio: It took a delay (ticktock) of a few hours, but that question was deleted…;_ylt=Ao9wTpdAlda0xJDvW2RBUD_sy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20090902015018AAV9YVR
    When I say Yahoo “censors” questions, it’s because that’s what they actually DO! It’s BOT CENTRAL! Totally infested–I have seen this scores of times, so have other Yahoo Answer users. If they like a question–during the campaign a pro-Obama one, it gets posted in the open forum. If they don’t, usually anything SUBSTANTIVELY CRITICAL of Obama such as his eligibility, it’s hidden (as this one was until this…;_ylt=Ao9wTpdAlda0xJDvW2RBUD_sy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20090902033158AAYGi96
    because it was embedded it could be found for a while, only by posting another external link to it, but not like an original question (you can compare them to the others that have lots of answers), but trust me, this question, by many, many historic examples will be deleted shortly. And there’s an entire ARMY of bots on Yahoo Answers to take an honest question and Alinsky#5 the asker, well beyond normal standards of online abuse and torture! The other trick is they will disallow answers to a posted question, for certain users.
    So that one was definitely deleted, violation reported, points deducted, then banning will ensue, etc.
    I even asked a repeat of that just now…
    It’s not being posted, same rigmarole.
    I just didn’t want you to think that was a false statement..
    It’s EGREGIOUS CENSORING at Yahoo, which should not come as a surprise, but the benefit is that any questions that DO make it through are preferentially searchable on the web.

    [Ed. Wow. Propaganda is alive and well.]

  58. Off topic –

    Is there anyone lurking around this site from Texas? If so, I’d like to speak to you. Go to, click on my picture, and then email me with “Obama Eligibility” in the subject line.

    Thanks, and good work Leo. I always look forward to seeing what you’re up to.

  59. The only place I could really ask such a hot potato question like “Why does Obama refuse to revoke his other citizenships?” would be on and craigslist wopo. I find the answerers to be a mix of tow-the-line toe-the-line drones and some who “get it”, and craigslist is commie central where if you really are feeling abuse-deprived you should see the creative psychodestructors at work. I once vowed to, and did, “turn in” certain idiots on Democratic Underground to the FBI who were boasting how they were going to openly forge so many birth certificates to make “con’s heads explode”, they wrote of where to get blanks, etc.–not that that did any good since the FBI is corrupt too I guess. But, it’s an internet guerrilla war out there folks…

  60. Leo,
    Once again . . . fantastic work. I sure wish I was quite a bit younger and could round up 3 or 4 of some of my very sharp college buddies to hit the college library stacks and law school law library like your friends at UConn are doing. The internet is a fantastic place to search for things – but with all of the “scrubbing” going on, it would be even better to have loads of extra free time and free access to sites like Westlaw, Lexis-Nexus, and even the good ol’ microfiche copies of papers and magazine articles. I don’t mind using the information on the internet for basic research, but unless I really trust the site (like the very trustworthy site! seriously, they should be forced to change their name after your report) I prefer to find it on the internet and then go to the actual hard copy of the text to confirm what I am reading on the internet is indeed accurate and not unintentionally (or intentionally) misquoted.

    As I was driving yesterday, I began thinking that about all of the information, facts, case law, hypotheticals, and obviously relevant, but surprisingly missing, data that you and many of your readers to this site have discovered and revealed over these past months. I then began thinking about “those in power” at the highest levels of our government. I think of our military, our CIA, our FBI, our State Departement, some of the more conservative Republicans and even many of us blue-dog Democrats. I think of these people (and, probably even more importantly, those individuals in positions just below these top officials) and think that we cannot be alone in our opinions surrounding the Eligibility issue. Some of these folks must know what we know and see what is happening to our once great republic.

    I know that you are of the opinion that, at the end of the day, all of those in power are working together and this is an intentional cover-up at the highest levels covering all 3 branches of the government along with the media – all with a larger, global agenda.

    But what if, instead, there are actually some out there in positions of significant power who ARE aware of the same information that you have been writing about on this site who, in a sense, have discovered this secret code to the Enigma machine and are just trying to determine when to use it. For example, as many of your readers are aware, there were many times in WWII when we knew what the Germans or the Japanese were going to do because we had broken their codes. But the big question always was “When do we use this information?” I’m sure it was difficult not to act on information when someone knew of the enemies’ plans and acting on that information could have saved hundreds, perhaps even thousands of lives, but could have also tipped off the Germans or Japanese that their secret communications had been compromised. Use it too soon, or for an operation that might win a battle, but not the war, could put you back in the dark about the enemy’s plans and movements and leave you worse off than having that information, but electing not to act on it. Like you, I wish this issue/question had been addressed by the courts BEFORE the election, but since that didn’t happen (or, more likely, wasn’t allowed to happen), now those who could force the removal of the President must decide when to act (and they may even have to enlist the help of conservatives in the media and ask them to ignore the “bither” pleas in order to keep their intentions covered up so as not reveal the issue before it is time to use it).

    So – if we really do have such patriots in positions of power (and I agree that this is still a big IF – but I have to believe there are some out there both on the right and left who see what is coming and have decided to defend their Constitution from all enemies both foreign and domestic), when do they speak out? Do they use it to stop the appointment of a second Supreme Court nominee? Do they use it to stop Cap & Trade? Healthcare Reform? The next Marxist appointed as a White House Czar? While these might seem like good times to break the silence, will it really teach Americans a lesson about the risks of the extreme left progressives? Do you “save” Americans before they realized that they actually needed to be saved? Do you bail out the person 2 hours after they are thrown in jail, or do you let them sit there for 3 or 4 days so that they really get a sense for what their future holds for them if they continue down the same path that they are currently on? Think about it another way . . . if you are an undercover cop on a drug sting, do you bust in the house to arrest everyone when you see a drug deal going down, or do you wait and see if you can uncover who else is in on the action (perhaps high level city officials, bad cops, maybe even the Mayor) – and try to take them all down at once – even knowing that, in the interim, you will be allowing illegal drug sales to continue?

    Perhaps one waits until a) members of Congress are forced to show their true colors by how they vote on things like Cap & Trade and Healthcare so that they are officially on record either supporting leftist radicals or the will of their constituents; b) after additional liberals on the US Supreme Court step down and are replaced with Obama appointees; c) and after the 2010 election when the Democrats lose the super-majority in the Senate. Perhaps these patriots fear that removing Mr. Obama right now while the Democrats still control the White House and both chambers of Congress will not accomplish much because Biden and Pelosi will just pick up where Obama left off and any judicial appointments and legislation revoked by Obama’s removal will be reaffirmed by his Democrat replacement (I trust Joe more that Barry, but I’m not sure if Joe will have the ability to act against the interests of the radical left media and power elite). Maybe saving the people before they realize they are in a world of hurt won’t fundamentally change their thinking. Maybe you have to give those on the radical-left enough rope (and time) to expose themselves so that, when the time comes, they can be clearly identified and forced back into seclusion for another 50 years after they are taken down.

    Just a random counter-thought to the idea that nobody in power is doing anything because the game is rigged. Maybe, by God’s good graces, this delay is intentional just want this country needs to right the ship and save our Constitution.

  61. Whistleblower Says:

    This was published on YouTube in November of 2008. Listen to the whole thing. –Obama tells one government one thing; and the people of the U.S. another.


    “citizenship, personal respnsibility, civic duty.” He’s kidding right.

    “After the Speech:
    • Teachers could ask students to share the ideas they recorded, exchange sticky notes or stick
    notes on a butcher paper poster in the classroom to discuss main ideas from the speech, i.e.
    citizenship, personal responsibility, civic duty.”

  63. Leo – we know BHO is a lying SOB. Would a public statement on his part that he renounces all other citizenships and allegiances be sufficient? Or is there something more formal he needs to do?

    [Ed. He would need to renounce according the law of each nation is a citizen or national of.]

  64. Keep going Leo, people are starting to have a lot of doubts about him now.

    Me? I don’t like him because he told lies about my country. Turns out its his country too even if he does believe The british Empire existed for the sole purpose of persecuting Obama’s African and Irish (and Arab apparently) ancestors.

  65. Glad to see the focus going to multiple citizenships. Keep up the struggle!

    Support – Save The Children From BS Day

    ( —Barry Soetoro Day)

    Make a National Statement, Keep the kids home, Tuesday September the 8th 2009. Protect their young minds from the BS! If enough kids are missing from school, the MSM will have to pick it up.

    If you ave not heard, that is the day the Usurper will address the school children of America at noon, Eastern Time.

  66. I’m thinking this is, yet more, illegal action by the alleged administration:

    “Obama White House Has Secret Plan To Harvest Personal Data From Social Networking Websites”

  67. …the President-elect, Mr. Obama, is a son of the soil of this country…

    …the people of the United States of America have just had a historic election where the son of this soil, Barrack Hussein Obama, has been elected the 44th President of the United States of America…

    …we are the home of the President-elect of the USA…

    Who said that?

    Was that in the Statement by Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Hawaii’s Department Of Health Director?


    It was in the Official Report of the Kenyan National Assembly Wednesday, 5th November, 2008.

    “Son of This Soil”

  68. The importance of debunking Annenberg Political Fact Check cannot be understated, because members of Congress accepted Fact Check’s verdict.

    Here is the actual text of a letter I received from one of my Senators:

    Thank you for contacting me about President-Elect Barack Obama’s citizenship. I appreciate knowing your concerns.

    The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that “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.” Hawaii became a territory of the United States in 1898 and was officially admitted as a State in 1959.

    It is my understanding that President-Elect Obama has released an official copy of his birth certificate. Since he was born in 1961 in Hawaii, he is eligible under the Constitution to run for and hold the office of President of the United States. In addition, President-Elect Obama’s birth records have been certified and validated by the Hawaii Department of Health as well as by experts from the University of Pennsylvania. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case and agreed with the lower courts’ rulings that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the legal challenges questioning President-Elect Obama’s citizenship.

    Again, thank you for contacting me. Should you have any additional questions or comments, please do not hesitate to let me know or visit my website at …

    The trusted “experts from the University of Pennsylvania” were Annenberg Political Fact Check!

  69. There are other factual errors that “Fact Check” made…
    Fact Checking Annenberg Political Fact Check

  70. Leo, please listen to this, starting at the 5:06 mark .. there
    in plain English, for all to hear.

    Thank you so much for all you’re doing … don’t give up.
    We fight on!

  71. BuckeyeTexan Says:

    This guy says he found some interesting facts about Chester Arthur. No mention whatsoevery of your groundbreaking discovery. What a crock.

    [Ed. They ignore the fact that Hinman’s activities helped to provide cover for the fact that Arthur’s father William didn’t become a naturalized citizen until 1843 so old Chester was a British subject at birth and even during his Presidency. But nobody knew until we broke the story here at this blog.]

  72. Jim from Naples Says:

    Hello Leo!

    I don’t know if anyone has sent this to You – this guy, LUCAS SMITH, I believe, is telling the TRUTH and does, indeed, have a copy of the REAL BC from Kenya – it appears he broadcast his latest videos from Kenya- I would imagine the Obama Chicago Thugs are on their way there to wipe-him-out!

    Watch and Listen to this guy, he explains that the Kenyans kept Jerome Corsi away from the Birth Certificate, he is now risking his life by showing his face and revealing the REAL Birth Certificate.

    Lucas Smith claims The Birth Certificate he found in Kenya IS REAL!
    Obama WAS BORN in Mombasa, Kenya!
    He explains why Jerome Corsi at WND was WRONG in his analysis!
    Watch and listen as Lucas Smith PROVES it! —
    LIVE BROADCAST VIDEO from Kenya August 28, 2009:

    I have a GOOD Feeling he IS telling the TRUTH!

    This GUY just might be GOD’s messenger!
    He even states that he is NOT getting paid for this —
    JUST trying to expose the TRUTH – so Each of Us can make up our own minds!

    Here’s the Link to the Original Birth Certificate Find in Kenya:

    (PS- I talked with a friend of his, he purposely shakes the video camera around a lot so OBOTs don’t get a clear image of a REAL BC so they can make forgeries and blanket the internet with them)




    Jim from Naples

  73. grant's bottle Says: – check out this thread on Volokh, even the legal academics are tied up with the stupid BC issue and have no response to the dual citizenship issue.

  74. Regardless of whether Obama lost his Kenyan citizenship in 1982 or 1984, the loss of his Kenyan citizenship also caused the loss of his status as a British subject/Commonwealth citizen.

    [Ed. We have no idea if he has actually lost his Kenyan citizenship. Obama never made a comment on this issue. Show me where he said he lost his Kenyan citizenship. As to Commonwealth Citizen status, I can’t find anything definitive on whether he lost that if he lost his Kenyan citizenship. Furthermore, he might be a full British citizen even now depending on whether he ever held a passport. There are so many legal possibilities. I will address them all in a future report. But the public domain does not have the answers. So Obama needs to speak. has been impeached. They failed to check facts… we proved that here so now we need to hear from Obama.

    I could call myself – – would that make me an authority? It’s ridiculous.]

  75. Leo, great job on the quality of all your posts. I enjoy reading all of them and learn a great deal from!

    All of these Annenberg Political Fact Check (APFC) articles are misleading and never directly address the ‘natural-born citizen’ requirement as to any type of definition, case history, historical references, etc. and tend to skate around the ‘natural-born citizen’ issue. All of these articles, except one, were written prior to the election when America needed to know. Here is a quick analysis.

    – June 16, 2008, APFC article,
    “Has Obama’s birth certificate been disclosed?”,
    “Q: Is Barack Obama a “natural-born citizen”?” “It is hard to believe he could get this far in the electoral process and not have a sufficient answer to this question, I admit, but has his birth certificate been disclosed?”…..
    “A: Yes. His campaign made a copy public after speculation by conservative bloggers that he might not be a “natural-born citizen.”…..

    “We asked for and received a copy from the Obama campaign.” …..
    “The “secrecy” ended when Tommy Vietor at the Obama campaign sent a message to us and other reporters saying, “I know there have been some rumors spreading about Obama’s citizenship, so I wanted to make sure you all had a copy of his birth certificate.” A digital image was attached.”

    Note, Tommy Vietor message stated “citizenship”. So what happened to directly answering the ‘natural-born citizen’ question?

    – August 21, 2008, APFC article, “Born in the U.S.A.”
    “In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen. But the image prompted more blog-based skepticism about the document’s authenticity.”…..

    “Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A.”

    What happened to explaining the “speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen’?
    – August 29, 2008, APFC article,
    “Q: Does Barack Obama have Kenyan citizenship?…..
    “A: No. He held both U.S. and Kenyan citizenship as a child, but lost his Kenyan citizenship automatically on his 21st birthday.

    In this article, what happened to his British (United Kingdom and Colonies) ‘at birth’ citizenship through his father’s citizenship as the ‘at birth’ condition is an important aspect of not only all “citizenship” requirements but certainly to the determination of what a ‘natural-born citizen’ requirement is as well?
    – June 5, 2009, 2008, APFC article,
    “More “Birther” Nonsense: Obama’s 1981 Pakistan Trip”

    “We continue to receive queries about claims and theories advanced by “birthers,” who wish to believe that Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the USA or that he somehow gave up his citizenship and thus is not qualified to hold the office he occupies.” …..

    “For those who missed it earlier, high-resolution images of Obama’s birth certificate are displayed as supporting documents to our article “Born in the U.S.A.” The document meets the U.S. State Department’s requirements for proving U.S. citizenship. That, along with a 1961 newspaper announcement of his birth and statements last year by state officials in Hawaii, remove for us any doubt that Obama is indeed a natural-born citizen.”

    How does this explain, “indeed” he is a natural-born citizen? How does a birth certificate and a newspaper announcement of his birth prove he is a natural-born citizen?.
    Here is a first entry quote from a blog of one of APFC writers prior to being hired by APFC.

    “Truth Tables
    We’re Not Negative, We’re Contrapositive”

    What are we doing here?

    “Here’s what we figure: Anyone can call “ad hominem” or “straw man.” ….. But who has the guts and the keen logical know-how to apply the tenets of formal logic to mass-media rhetoric? Not us, but we’re doing it anyway.”
    -Laura with co-blogger Jess Henig

    Does this sound like a bit of philosophy?

    Jess Henig, with Joe Miller wrote, “Born in the U.S.A” (APFC article).

  76. […] UPDATE Sept 2, 2009: CONFIRMED: Published Bogus Fact Regarding Obama’s Kenyan Citizenship. […]

  77. Civis Naturaliter Natus Says:


    The consistent policy of the Whitehouse to answer questions regarding NBC with answers which regard citizenship, as documented in your post, is evident proof, admissable in court, that they know there is a problem and are concealing it…

  78. A-1, Our local school district in Texas is having a special meeting about next week’s Obama clip due to all the angry parents that have called. The parents I’ve talked to were told by the school that if their child is absent the day of the video, it will be considered unexcused. Their plan now is to schedule a doctor/dentist appointment and keep their child out of school for just the period of time the video will be shown. The local news had a story on this as well since there seems to be a surge of angry parents that don’t want their child watching Obama. This situation will get interesting in the coming days.

    [Ed. Those parents have a right to keep their children home from school for a day. They shouldn’t have to explain to the school why. As long as the child has permission form the parents – via a signed note, then the school generally can’t do anything penal against the child, not unless there’s a habitual pattern. As far as I’m aware, that’s standard. Each parent should request the current written rules from the school and examine the policies in effect. The school can’t change the rules for this purpose. Parents need to know their rights concerning their children as those rights will be challenged during this administration like they’ve never been challenged before.]

  79. Well here’s the answer to whether Obama would revoke his other citizenships and pledge allegiance to America only:
    Watch the Kenyan/Indonesian/Brit trail off and mumble at 1:43 where he’s supposed to LEAD the pledge, he pretends to participate up to the before the point of “pledge” then his voice disappears.

    [Ed. That’s crazy, bho. I believe I hear his voice. Look, let’s try to keep it real and on point. This is stretching it.

    Here he is giving the pledge

    and the now infamous…

    [Ed. I just want to point out that the link above with the National Anthem has Whitney Houston singing and that’s the very best version of the national anthem I’ve ever heard… every hair on my arms stands at attention. That note she bends “…of the free-eee” my tonsils would bleed if I tried that. AMAZING. But in the actual video clip this photo was taken from, it’s a very different version of the national anthem.]

  80. beyond baffled Says:

    Leo, this is not directly related to dual citizenship but is related to the larger issue. There are two audio clips that are quite lengthy but full of great stuff. It’s located at the following link:
    Archive of AIB Radio show, Aug. 28, 2009

    It’s another one of those things that you have to listen to a few times. Rod Class has a radio show and he has filed a case with the Superior Court.

    Thanks for all your hard work.

  81. Mr. Donofrio states that (a) On December 31, 1982, Barrack Obama was a British subject and a Kenyan citizen. (b) On January 1, 1983, all British subjects became Commonwealth citizens, by virtue of the British Nationality Act of 1981, Section 37. (c) Commonwealth citizens are not “aliens” to the UK (BNA Section 50). (d) Commonwealth citizens have all the rights of British citizens, including the right to vote in the UK and stand for election to the House of Commons (e) Thus Mr. Obama may be “a full citizen of . . . the United Kingdom.”

    [Ed. NO. That’s not what I said — Emphatically not what I said. You need to drop “Thus” from (e) above. You may attack me or what I write all you like, but we have a policy at this blog —


    I take great care and go over everything I write to make sure it’s accurate.

    I said Mr. Obama may be (not “is”) a full British citizen in that article, but I never said this was because he was a Commonwealth Citizen on January 1, 1983. I clearly stated that the answer to the question of whether he is currently a dual citizen or national of any other country depends on information not in the public domain. And I said I would be issuing a forthcoming report thereto. Below are the two relevant paragraphs:

    Because of various statutory exceptions regarding the declarations mentioned in Section 97 of the Kenyan Constitution, the original report by the Rocky Mountain News – stating that Obama was a dual citizen of Kenya and the US – might have been accurate. Information not currently in the public domain is necessary to answer this question as well as the question of whether Obama is currently a British citizen…

    My research has discovered multiple legal mechanisms which have the potential to establish that President Obama is now a full citizen of Kenya as well as the United Kingdom, the European Union, the Commonwealth of Nations and the Republic of Indonesia. Unfortunately, information available in the public domain cannot answer these questions.

    If one checks the UK Home Office website, one finds that there are six different forms of “British Nationality,” none of which are designated “Commonwealth Citizen.” The six forms of nationality are: British citizenship, British overseas citizenship, British overseas territories citizenship, British national (overseas), British protected person, and British subject. Only British citizens, and certain British subjects with right of abode through qualifying connections under the Immigration Act 1971, have the right to live and work in the United Kingdom. People holding one of the other forms of nationality may live and work in the United Kingdom if their immigration status allows it.

    Another Home Office page, states that a Commonwealth citizen like Mr. Obama on January 1, 1983, has the right of abode in the UK only if he or a parent of his was born in the UK. This clearly does not apply, since neither Mr. Obama nor his father was born in the UK.

    While it is true that in general British subjects became “Commonwealth citizens” in 1983, the latter had no automatic right to reside in, work in or vote in the UK. The category of “Commonwealth Citizen” is not accepted by immigration officials. The passport of a person born in the UK, for example, designates his nationality as “British Citizen.”

    The BNA of 1981 defines a Commonwealth Citizen as a citizen of one of the countries listed in Schedule 3 of the BNA. Not being considered an “alien” may bring a benefit if a Commonwealth citizen were to apply for emigration to the UK, but it certainly does not imply any automatic right to reside and work in the UK.

    Based upon the above analysis, it does not appear likely that Mr. Obama is a citizen of the UK by virtue of the BNA of 1981.

    [Ed. Your last paragraph is misleading. The fact remains that Obama may be a full British citizen of the UK depending on factors which are not in the public domain. For example, if he ever held a UK passport, he might not have lost his UKC citizenship when the KIA 1963 went into effect. There is more to this analysis and it will be published in my forthcoming report.]

  82. Jim Lavelle Says:

    Obama’s stepfather enrolled him in an Indonesian school as Barry Soetero. However, there is no indication that Obama ever used that name himself, and no proof that his stepfather had the right to enroll him under that name because there is NO PROOF that he was ever adopted. NONE. Let’s see someone here SHOW his adoption papers. Good luck.

    [Ed. Are you saying his mother lied to the courts? The complaint for divorce which states that the marriage concerns two children was signed by Stanley Ann. Either she lied and was guilty of perjury – which raises a whole other load of issues – or he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro.]

  83. JP-research Says:

    Has anyone seen the definition of nbc in Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed).?

    “Natural born citizen: Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e., in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.”

    Wow – Isn’t this the same definition that Phil Berg is claiming? So, is Black’s now the official authority? And, how did they get it so wrong? (I know: it’s a conspiracy, because they knew O was on the president-track)

    [Ed. I have no idea what they are thinking. When I say that nbc is born on the soil of citizen parents, I back that up with historical and legal references. But I don’t pretend that because I say it, that makes it law. I’m saying there are competing views, and I believe that in a court of law, my view will prevail. Other sources are saying they are the law. Black’s is not the law. Vattel is not the law. This is an issue of first impression that needs to be settled under the Constitution. Any source which says “I am the law” or “the law is settled” is not being forthright.]

  84. We have no idea if he has actually lost his Kenyan citizenship.

    The Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship past the age of 23 (at the latest). Obama is an American citizen over the age of 23. Ergo, he automatically lost his Kenyan citizenship by operation of the terms of the Kenyan Constitution.

    [Ed. No, as I stated in my article, there are exceptions to that rule in the Kenyan Constitution and statutes. I will be analyzing those exceptions, but as I stated in the article, the information necessary to a complete analysis is not in the public domain. However, Obama could simply tell us whether he is or isn’t a Kenyan citizen or other foreign national at this time.

    This is absurd. The President can simply say, ” I am not a Kenyan citizen…etc”. After all, he admits to having been a British citizen at birth, but I’ve never heard him say that he was a Kenyan citizen at any time. Have you? It’s not like we’re asking if he was a Martian.]

    As to Commonwealth Citizen status, I can’t find anything definitive on whether he lost that if he lost his Kenyan citizenship.

    Section 37 of the BNA of 1981 makes it fairly clear that Commonwealth citizenship (which another commenter cited an article that called it “practically valueless”) is dependent upon concurrent citizenship in a Commonwealth country.

    Furthermore, he might be a full British citizen even now depending on whether he ever held a passport.

    Nothing in the BNA of 1981 would support that proposition.

    [Ed. Yes it would if you know where to look. I’ll be telling you where to look in a forthcoming report.]

    So Obama needs to speak.

    [Ed. Yes he does.]

    Should Obama renounce his Martian citizenship as well?

  85. It’s relatively easy to confuse Birthers with Dualers. The latter take Obama at his word in both instances; that he was born in Hawaii, and that he was born under the jurisdiction of the British government.

    [Ed. Not exactly. I would say the correct way to put this is that DUALERS are willing to stipulate – for the limited purpose of discussing the British birth issue – that Obama was born in Hawaii.]

    Dualers ask two basic questions: 1) on what date did Obama renounce his British citizenship; and, 2) how can a person born a British citizen owing allegiance to Britain and the British Crown be a natural born citizen of the United States and eligible for the office of POTUS under the restrictions as set forth in the Constitution under Article II?

    [Ed. We ask more questions than that. Did he ever renounce his Kenyan citizenship? Did he ever lose his Kenyan citizenship without having renounced it? Did he ever have a UK passport? Did he ever become an Indonesian citizen under any laws in effect in Indonesia? That’s just off the top of my head. There’s more.]

  86. Civis Naturaliter Natus Says:


    The reason was very simple: he succeeded because the rank and file citizenry was passive and only reacted; they had no proactive organization.

    We too are in that boat, we react to every news item, but beyond simply rallies and mailings, we are doing nothing.

    We need to forge a united resistence coalition among all Americans and all patriotic groups and churches, which will state categorically and work for this end, that they wish to uphold the constitution, preserve law and order, and opposed Obama’s march toward totalitarianism, and that they are willing to risk life and fortune and honor for the sake of the nation and the future generations.

    We have to stop merely chatting or investigating, and include organizing too.

    Too much is at risk to do nothing, and thus risk loosing everything.

    We cannot ignore the bigger picture…

  87. chris kinsley Says:

    The timing is right to press Obama on the issue- not just the Birth Certificate, but college records, adoptopn papers, etc. People see through his fake vaneer and his poll numbers ae plunging. Please everyone tell everyone you know about this blog and keep the pressure on this Kenyan

  88. obama won’t and can’t renounce what the author asks him to do, doing so would implicate him in the massive fraud he undertook by his own hand in certifying in several states, and by accompanying nominating checks of $1000 and more, during the election process last year.

    He won’t implicate himself.

    [Ed. You should say “will not”. “Can not” implies he has no choice. We all have a choice to confess – if we have something to confess.]

  89. Joe The Blogger Says:


    I have just looked up the original broadcast of Whitney Houston singing ‘The Star Spangled Banner’ at the XXV Superbowl in 1991. This is a totally awesome performance. We should all take a few minutes out of our research and campaigning to recharge our batteries with this. I’ve put the link on my desktop to start every internet session. If you are like me, you will want to play it over and over again.

    [Ed. Thanks for the link.]

    Then take a deep breath and get back to ‘THE DUAL’.

    If anyone wants to put up any signs, may I suggest – ‘Mr Obama, I challenge you to a DUAL’. When the media pick up on the spelling ‘mistake’ (DUAL instead of DUEL), as an excuse to ridicule us, we can come back at them with the whole Obama DUAL-NATIONAL, Article II Constitutional ineligibility issue.

  90. David Sanford Says:

    It seems that on understanding of why a ‘naturalized’ citizen is not eligible to be POTUS would highlight the condition that BHO can not overcome even by any subsequent declaration to be a ‘NBC’. His parentage eliminated that possibility at birth.

    [Ed. Yes, that goes hand in hand with the issue of why the Senate Resolution 511 crew were all concerned with McCain having two citizen parents. We need to ask them what was so important about two citizen parents.]

  91. My little girl and I watch this together. She doesn’t understand all of it yet, but she knows it’s more important than just saying the words.

    Red Skelton’s Pledge of Allegiance

  92. Joe the Blogger: Great version! Thank you! Wonderful harmonic variations. Just amazing.

  93. That is why it is imperative under the U.S. Constitution that no USURPER take the office of POTUS. This is messy and is becoming an intangled web of lies and deceit for a fascist takeover.

  94. Leo,

    Excellent analysis. I will add one more item to the mix and that’s the obvious issue with him being a British citizen.

    Since Soetoro still appears to be a British citizen, he is bound to the authority of Great Britain.

    [Ed. We don’t know that. It’s an open question. We need to find out if that’s true. We can’t assume it’s true. Just be patient my next report will do its best to sort this out.]

    As such he is a leader of one nation while being a minion of another, the U.S.. That alone causes an international conflict of sovereign claim on both nations as it opens the door of opportunity for Britain to lay de-facto quo warranto on the position of POTUS.

    By whose authority did the U.S. allow a citizen of Britain to lead the nation without the approval of the British Crown??? If Britain did not grant permission for a citizen of their country to run another in a position of top authority, how does this affect treaty law and sovereignty of both nations?

    Just wondering what your thoughts are on this.

    [Ed. That’s a good question right there. Got your thinking cap on with that one. I never even thought of that angle. I don’t know if there’s anything to it legally, ie a treaty etc, but it’s an excellent question to add to the growing sludge of WTF is going on USA? I’ll have to look into that.]

  95. Dualer in Calif Says:

    Leo, great work as usual! I’ve been following this discussion for some time.

    Given all that we know, or more appropriately, what we don’t know, it seems to me that a constitutional lawyer might have the audacity to challenge not only the Constitution people, but the American people as well. This constitutional lawyer, of whom we all know, would know that this question has not been challenged in over two-hundred years. He would also know that there is a great deal of support, both of the scholarly and populist sorts, for someone to challenge the status quo, i.e. The Constitution.

    From a purely strategic and tactical point of view, much like Chester A. Arthur before him, BHO has been brilliant in avoiding and/or evading the issues surrounding his parentage and citizenship. But I believe that he is empowered by those he represents who have no love of our Constitution and who do what they can to thwart it. I also believe that just being on the right side of the issue isn’t enough. It is fully possible that by the time this is sorted out, it will be too late to secure any type of justice for what has been done, and for what is being done as this issue is discussed here.

    I for one can only hope that people like you, who have the ability and fortitude to continue the good fight. For my part I will stay tuned in and pass along to family and associates the information that you impart to us.

    Warm Regards from Calif

  96. This became my favorite version of our Anthem.

    Turn up your speakers.

    Good work Leo.


  97. […] dual citizenship as a child but that it expired as an adult. But Leo Donofrio, a former lawyer, argues that we got the year wrong. He’s right about that, and we have corrected the […]

    [Ed. see latest blog]

  98. This announcement is the result of the school meeting about the Obama video:

    “Our nation’s schools have been asked by the President of the United States to broadcast a direct address by him to our students on Sept. 8. According to Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, the President will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning.

    As with a Presidential inauguration or other national broadcast event that contributes to the development of respect for our country, Katy ISD will make the President’s address part of each school’s instructional plan. Parents who do not want their child to either view or participate in lessons surrounding the President’s address should send a note to school with their child indicating their desire for their child to be excluded from the activities. Students who do not participate in the lesson will be provided other learning opportunities during this time.

    Principals and teachers will employ their instructional autonomy and use their professional judgment to determine when and how to use the address as appropriate for the level of their students during the week of September 8-11, 2009. Technology tools will allow the use of the address at times conducive to each school’s schedule rather than only at the announced broadcast time, thus allowing flexibility in viewing. Additionally, if any follow-up materials are to be used by students, they will be created by _________ ISD social studies curriculum coordinators rather than those suggested by U.S. Department of Education. The district will post its curriculum documents on the Web today by 4 p.m.

    Each school year our students are provided opportunities to interact with elected officials in various formats including awards ceremonies, assemblies, broadcasts, and as guest speakers. These opportunities allow students to meet and hear from individuals who are directly involved in carrying out the functions of our democracy. Allowing parents to opt their children out of listening to our president or any other elected official will be honored as we honor requests of those who desire to opt out of saluting our nation’s flag and reciting the pledge of Allegiance.”

    IMO, they made the proper decision. Some other school districts in the area will be making it mandatory.

  99. Joe The Blogger Says:


    Any nation that has ‘got the goods’ on Mr Obama is not going to openly complain about his Usurpation of the Presidency of The USA. The leverage that that knowledge gives them to control Mr Obama is too valuable. No, The UK, Kenya, Indonesia will just continue to quietly pull his strings out of sight of the public. Now, let’s think, does Mahmoud Ahmadinejad know about all of this? Kim Il Sung?………….

  100. I am a “Donofrio Dualer” too!

    [Ed. No. He just has to renounced the ties not prove them. It’s fullproof. If the ties weren’t binding it won’t matter. If the ties were, they will be severed and he will owe no allegiance thereto.]

    Now what are the chances that Mr. Obama would actually throw his “world citizenship” under the bus.

    Come on Leo- you know odds!

    Here is your reward for the day Leo-thanks for all you are doing-

    Not an nbc
    America, can’t you see?

    More than one master
    is a real disaster

    The consummate fooler
    has spawned the term “”Dualer

    We want First Impression
    but it’s under suppression

    But Leo keeps blogging for thee!

  101. Leo,

    I am sure you are also checking Indonesian law. If BHO’s adoption voided his US citizenship because they did not recognize dual citizenship, would it not have also impacted his British/Kenyan citizenship?

    Then the whole issue of whether he renewed his Kenyan citizenship before 1983, or whether he became a Commonwealth citizen might be a moot point.

  102. Leo – did you see this awesome post over at Mario Apuzzo’s?

    Teo Bear said…

    I would invite all readers of this blog to research the story of Betty and Mahtob Mahmoody, Betty is the American mother of Mahtob. Mahtob was born in the United States of an Iranian father and American mother.

    On what was supposed to be a short family trip in 1984 to Iran, Betty’s Iranian husband decided to divorce her and keep Mahtob in Iran.

    The Iranian courts took juristiction over Mahtob and gave custody to her father based on Mahtob’s Jus sanguinis Iranian citizenship.

    I would like on Obot troll who lurks on this site to explain to me how what they term a “natural born citizen” can be claimed by Iran or any other country.

    We know the answer and we know why nothing could be done to help her. Because under US law she is a 14th Amendment citizen, but not a natural born citizen. If she was a true natural born citizenship no country could place a claim on having jurisdiction over her but the country of her birth.

    [Ed. I don’t know this story. But I will be looking into it. It sounds like a very strong point.]

  103. I believe you have reached the Hessian camp, General Washington. Well done!

  104. Man you really ticked off that Obot bunch. Cool…

    If the NBC is settled, and nonthing but Conspiracy Theory.
    Then why did the Senate attempt to define NBC in this 2004 bill.

    “The definition of this term is an issue that has been debated in legal circles for years and has never been ruled on by the courts. Clarification is needed before this becomes a real issue. Congress should be the institution that defines this term, not the courts.”

    Maybe should drop the snarky attitude and start checking some facts and quit lying.

    [Ed. I was surprised they fell that low to pull the snark. I thought Factcheck would at least try to preserve their alleged image as an objective fact checker. It’s not really the case is it. If the facts are correct, they speak for themselves as they will soon see.]

  105. […] Donofrio added the following: So, according to the Kenyan Constitution, the earliest date Obama’s Kenyan citizenship could […]

  106. [ But Leo Donofrio, a former lawyer, ]

    Former lawyer? (If true, One helluva a “former lawyer”)

    Nice work Leo!!!
    [Ed. I reactivated my law license last November (2008) when I was writing Cort’s SCOTUS application. My bar license is pristine. ]

  107. Leo,

    Off topic but hope you will educate me.

    I think of the US Constitution as a legal contract.

    Am I right or wrong in your opinion?

    If I am right then who are the parties to that contract?


  108. Credit goes to Teo on Apuzzo’s site for this:

    Obama’s citizenship is just like Mahtob Mahmoody: do you see the problem?
    I would invite all readers of this blog to research the story of Betty and Mahtob Mahmoody, Betty is the American mother of Mahtob. Mahtob was born in the United States of an Iranian father and American mother.

    On what was supposed to be a short family trip in 1984 to Iran, Betty’s Iranian husband decided to divorce her and keep Mahtob in Iran.

    The Iranian courts took jurisdiction over Mahtob and gave custody to her father based on Mahtob’s Jus sanguinis Iranian citizenship.

    In short, Mahtob’s birth was identical in parameters to Obama’s. Neither were “natural born citizens” of the United States, which is why Iran exercised its jus sanguinis rights of citizenship over Mahtob.
    A “natural born citizen” is has double allegiance, by birth and blood. A regular citizen does not. Everyone knows that a natural born citizen is the status required for POTUS.

    We know why nothing could be done diplomatically to help her. Because under US law she is a 14th Amendment citizen, but not a natural born citizen. If she was a true natural born citizenship no country could place a claim on having jurisdiction over her but the country of her birth.

    Obama is still a citizen of Britain and Kenya and Indonesia.

    [Ed. That’s not been established. It can’t be established form information in the public domain. It’s an open question.]

    What’s to stop those countries from exercising their jus sanguinis jurisdiction over Obama?
    More importantly, why doesn’t Obama revoke his other three citizenships?

  109. Bruce Town Says:


    I wonder why Obama has VP Biden with him in public? Does the VP have to hold his hand? Or has the Cabnet and VP already DQed him through the 25th Ammendment?

    Thank you for your time and keep up the good work. Obama is a Usurper!


  110. This will be a great chance to explain Natural Born Citizenship
    in Southern California!

    Counter demonstration

    Date : Saturday September 5th,2009
    Place Huntington Beach, California
    PCH(Pacific Coast Highway) and Main Street

    Bring homemade signs, and American Flags

  111. French Montrealer Says:

    This is insanity. So what if he renouces all is other citizenships? That doesn’t mean he won’t still be loyal to them. This Usurper has thrown so many people under the bus to win the election, doesn’t mean he is not still friends with them. This is the most ridiculous suggestion I have heard of in my lifetime.

    [Ed. There’s nothing ridiculous about it. He needs to speak to the American people and go on record. Renouncing other nationalities – if he has them – is paramount. There are national security implications not to mention other countries he might be a national of will have jurisdiction over him if he sets foot there. The myriad of possible nightmare scenarios…]

    Besides, it still doesn’t make him a NBC. He still will be a Usurper according to the requirements of the Constitution. So what is your point? Are you trying to find ways for him to stay in the Oval Office or what? I don’t see where you are going with this at all.

    [Ed. Then take the blinders off. This is not JUST about the BC. But it will educate the American people as why the NBC requirement is so important to national security.]

    YES, Keyes believe that NBC means: born on U.S. soil and to two U.S Citizens. What is wrong with you? Keyes said it so many times that I have a hard time believing that you don’t know it.

    [Ed. Please refer me to a link where Keyes said that. I know of no such statement. Please, do show me where he said it. I would love to be wrong about this – would love it. Seriously. The issue could really use his support.]

  112. Donofrio’s new blog:

    Joe Friday’s: “just the fact’s ma’am” @

  113. Fact Check on the run!

    Love the way they point readers to a kook site rather than yours and ignore the NBC issue.

  114. Please, Leo, please; you are doing wonderful work, but please don’t rely on Wikipedia any more. There is no way that a Commonwealth citizen has the right to stand for Parliament in the UK just because he is a Commonwealth citizen. The whole trend from the 1960s onwards was to restrict the immigration rights of the members of the former British Empire. The British Nationality Act of 1981 most certainly did not give anyone, including Barrack Obama, the same rights as a British citizen. Otherwise, keep up the great work.

    [Ed. Wiki linked to this in footnote 1 regarding voting rights…and that linked to the full opinion…there will be a quiz.]

  115. While perusing that ‘other’ site I found a list of “Natural Born citizen” references. One of them is as follows (was misquoted in their article):

    “It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649. But, while it is conceded that he is certainly the same person who, upon full investigation, was found, in March, 1915, by the then Commissioner of Immigration, to be a natural born American citizen, the claim is that that Commissioner was deceived, and that petitioner is really Lew Suey Chong, who was admitted to this country in 1909 as a son of a Chinese merchant, Lew Wing Tong, of Oakland, California.”

    Kwock Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454 (1920)

    What is your take on this?

    [Ed. It’s not that relevant compared to Wong Kim Ark and Minor. Please be more specific.]

  116. Leo,
    One of your readers posted a link to the Natural Born Citizen Act of 2004 submitted by Nickles, Landrieu and Inhofe. It interested me because all these congressmen act like they do not know what you are talking about when you mention natural born citizen, but obviously you can tell from this that they are very aware of the issue. I did some more searching on this and I found that back in 2004 Hatch held a hearing in the judiciary committee about the nbc clause and Barney Frank, Conyers and Issa also had written a bill concerning nbc. The general goal at the time it seems was to define nbc to include naturalized citizens. So the Senate and the House are very aware of the nbc requirement for presidential eligibility. It seems though that these people are approaching this issue from a civil rights standpoint – its not fair that naturalized citizens cannot be president.
    I have posted two links to a website of a professor from Syracuse University who testified at Hatch’s hearing. His written statement is one of the links and the other link is the professor’s overview of the hearing. I think it is worth reading because it gives you an understanding of where all these people are coming from on the natural born citizen issue. After you read this, it is clear none of these people would want to address Obama’s eligiblity. It was interesting because someone from the Heritage Foundation also testified at the hearing. You probably know that the Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank. So resistance to a strict interpretation of nbc is on both sides of the aisle.
    Anyway, I think the professor’s statement is worth reading because if this ever goes to court, you can see what the other side’s arguments may be.

  117. Carlyle wrote: “On what was supposed to be a short family trip in 1984 to Iran, Betty’s Iranian husband decided to divorce her and keep Mahtob in Iran.” A movie and a book was made about the mother’s experience “Not Without My Daughter” -it is excellent!
    On Sept. 8th Obama will be speaking to the children and one of the questions that the teachers are to ask the children before his speech is “what do you think it takes to be President?” I’m thinking of telling my child to quote Article II, section 1 of the Constitution.

  118. I think it is funny when you read the Natural Born Citizen Act of 2004, it says that nbc has never been defined and that it is important that it is defined before it becomes a “real issue”. Well it is a real issue now and all these congressmen are mum!

  119. beyond baffled Says:

    Joe the Blogger says:


    Any nation that has ‘got the goods’ on Mr Obama is not going to openly complain about his Usurpation of the Presidency of The USA. The leverage that that knowledge gives them to control Mr Obama is too valuable. No, The UK, Kenya, Indonesia will just continue to quietly pull his strings out of sight of the public. Now, let’s think, does Mahmoud Ahmadinejad know about all of this? Kim Il Sung?………….

    Wow, this is so true. Who knows what could happen if this continues. This should be forwarded to everyone who is laughing at this issue. It is very serious. Besides a constitutional issue it is a national security issue. The dual citizenship issue is related to where someone’s loyalty lies and people against the dualer issue state that anyone, even a NBC, may not be loyal to the US. Maybe true, but they cannot be bribed.

  120. This crap has got to stop!!!….Grrrrrr

    [Ed. I will be watching this every day for motivation. This motivates me. I’d rather be surfing, playing poker, chess strolling on a beach with a lovely girl listening to Joa Gilberto or Sonic Youth on the headphones… but this video motivates me more than romance or fun.]

  121. Dualer in Calif Says:


    Do you know if the court document reported on at TheObamaFile and Orly Taitz’s website is legit? I can’t imagine anyone, with what’s a stake here, would perjure themselves in a court of law. Or would they?


    Just follow the links to Orly’s site. I recognize that Orly’s credibility is tainted in the eyes of many, but if this is the real deal, what then?

  122. We attempted to obtain information as to Stanley Ann Dunham, (Obama, Soetero) from the State Department. We wanted to know if they had ever issued a passport to her under any of these names, and the dates(s) issued. According to them “no records were found.” Yet, this woman lived and worked in Indonesia, and traveled to the US.

    [Ed. Did you do an FOIA? If so, please – let’s see it. What is this all about. A phone call to a helpline? Please do elaborate and provide JPEGS if you received a written response.]

    My questions are: Could she become a British subject, by virtue of her marriage to BO Sr? And
    could she still retain her US citizenship?

    If yes, to the first, that may explain the mystery of how she was able to travel back and forth from Indonesia without a US passport. And our inquiry should have been made to the UK.

    As to the latest Kenyan bc, I have serious doubts.
    1. Incorrect date format. They are written in American date format, not international date format.
    It doesn’t make sense that they would do this in a British Colony.

    2. BO Srs’ date of birth is incomplete. The mothers dob is complete. Could be an oversight of the person registering the birth, Or…??

  123. Joseph Maine Says:

    Leo, I really enjoy the commentary and the follow up. Allow me to ask a few questions. While I appreciate your strict argument and interpretation (which I believe is definitely in accord to the founding fathers) it is true that a component of NBC is in fact (or CAN be) the jus soli part, that of being born in the country. If it is ever defined, it will be ultimately more important for the parents to be citizens than being born here by happenstance. Here’s the thing:

    However stupid and uninformed the populace is about the NBC clause, they do (I’d say 95%) think that you have to be born here. Now, your argument is genius in that you compare the founding fathers as being not natural born yet including a descriptive clause to “count them in” and thus signify a difference between citizen and natural-born citizen. So, an absolute benefit of your argument makes the presentation of a birth certificate immaterial. Of course, this is great because then one doesn’t have to consider fake birth certificates (such as the COLB) or ones that could possibly be legit but have to be proven as such (re Lucas Smith current one). What I’ve been wondering though, is about your certainty that he’d produce that REAL birth certifcate. If you were right, he would have produced it (the Hawaiian record) already and even more people would have left the scene (most of the birthers). But he hasn’t. So you have to think there is a reason: that reason most likely being that his vital records indicate that he can’t even really prove he was born in Hawaii, whatever his documents reveal (ie it is a sworn affidavit of a home birth or no hospital is there even though he said he was born at Kapioloani, etc.) This would indicate that this method does in fact have merit, as PART of the whole story. Surely, your ideas are just as important, but on a different level. Any comments?

    What I CANNOT understand (perhaps you can explain as another attorney’s interpretation) is HOW a birth certificate would be “private”. Ok, that is a hospital document (although it’s not private at all, I guess you could be very legalistic and say it is a medical record) … but what about a PASSPORT. What in God’s name is private about a PASSPORT, especially for the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA???

    How could places of travel be private, at all? The State Department’s investigation of him being eligible for a passport along with how and why they did or didn’t clear him should be available for anyone to see. What is the argument against opening that up, even if he weren’t the President (which should definitely compel him or someone to show it)???

    This whole thing reeks of knowledgeable withholding of the power brokers, these spineless and unprincipled congressmen — The same ones that declared McCain a NBC by legislation??? Now we have the congress interpreting the Constitution? What twilight zone are we living in? Sorry about the long note, this is just really really frustrating for anyone who believes in the Constitution and following it.

    Thanks. I’d love to hear [read] your thoughts.

  124. Re the upcoming case, I’m afraid that the Lucas Smith Kenyan bc could be distracting. So he signed a court affidavit? Big deal. Someone at the hospital made up a fake one and he bought it assuming it was the real thing. I’m not a lawyer but I think you could beat any accusation of lying when he honestly thought the bc was real, especially since money was involved. Small time scammer gets hoodwinked. Every likes that story. Just like the Hawaiin govt officials who confirm that the bc is in the file but don’t confirm the contents. They’re not lying either.

    However, the tone of the DOJ lawyers as presented by The Obama File certainly is suspicious. O has a history of lawyering his way into office. It would not be beyond the realm for him to have lawyered his way to the POTUS. Once he was approved by Congress, the NBC issue should have gone away, in his lawyer mind, as just another hurdle that he over came.

  125. John McCain was born in the Canal Zone, at that time a United States territory, not part of the United States.

    [Ed. His BC and COLB say he was born in Colon Hospital, Colon Panama.]

  126. he is speaking to the school children on 8th asking them to trust him, how can he be so dumb, he was not investigated at all and nobody even the supreme court did anything to find out who this nice appearing person is, i tell you, he hates americans, any color, he wants to get all the assets from americans, let us rot in the filth of his leaving and all the debt he is made, i tell you stomp the head snake and all this wil unravel and some events will go back to how they were. i wouldnt trust this person with anything. i just wonder why the people dont wake up and see just what he is doing to the country. the bilderbergers must be very happy that the puppet they made and funded is doing so well.

  127. I believe with all that is going on right now on conspiracy hill, president Obama and his czars is important … but most importantly right now is identifying the corruption going on amongst some of our politicians within their parties and in their position as entrusted by the people. The sooner we can find and prosecute the corruption players … and hopefully before 2010 … the quicker we can begin restoring our constitution and Republic for which it stands country of ours. This has to take first before we can ever succeed in over coming the existing tyranny and power players.
    Obama and his czars definitely should be prosecuted for whatever corruption is found and proven .. I also believe we as Americans, regardless of parties, affiliations, race, or differences are realizing where most of our problems have been coming from .. our politicians, the very ones who have been pitting Americans against one another all this time, way before Obama even came about .. about time Americans are waking up to see the real villains here.

  128. We got to really appreciate you for the work done, very informative! keep it up.

  129. Was Barack Obama constitutionally eligible to hold office as a US Senator?

    Was Barack Obama constitutionally eligible to campaign for the office of POTUS?

    Was Barack Obama constitutionally eligible to accept the nomination of the DNC and participate in election for the office of POTUS?

    Was Barack Obama constitutionally eligible to reach the point of the Electoral College vote for the office of POTUS?

    Was Barack Obama constitutionally eligible to take the oath of office of POTUS?

    At the point of taking the oath of off for POTUSA, and signing the oath, would his foreign allegiances have ended?

  130. With the news of the Thai president. This article should be re-introduced. The Thai situation will bring to light the issue with our own holder of the office of President.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: