FACTCHECK.ORG CAPITULATES – Admits Error In Obama Kenyan Citizenship Analysis.

[ED – UPDATED 4:20 PM Factcheck.org endorsed analyst caught scrubbing false data after original publication of this report.  See update below with screenshots.  We have retained a copy of the original cached web page.]

Yesterday, Factcheck.org admitted they reported a false fact concerning the alleged expiration of President Obama’s Kenyan citizenship.  They gave credit to this blog for correcting them:

Our Aug. 29, 2008, Ask FactCheck item asking whether Obama has Kenyan citizenship… stated that Obama did have 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 item.

Initially, we said that Obama’s citizenship expired in 1982, on Obama’s 21st birthday. In fact, however, the Kenyan Constitution provides a two-year window during which one can decide which citizenship to keep. So, President Obama’s Kenyan citizenship expired on Aug. 4, 1984, not 1982, as we had initially reported.

We regret the error.

It’s not that they simply “got the year wrong”,  it’s that they misconstrued the statute which required a deeper analysis in order to comprehend how to arrive at the proper date.

Unfortunately, they made another factual error above;  I am not a former lawyer.  I am currently a lawyer with an active, pristine law license in the state of New Jersey.  I expect Factcheck.org to correct the defamatory statement.

Factcheck.org also incorrectly implied that I’m mixed up in the birth certificate issue.  I am not.  For those who don’t know the history of my blog, I’ve been asking a genuine legal question which stipulates Obama was born in Hawaii:

Since Obama admits he was a dual citizen governed by British law at birth, how can he be considered a natural born citizen of the US?

As to this question, Factcheck.org alleges a conspiracy theory.  But where is the conspiracy?  The US Supreme Court has never issued a ruling defining “natural born citizen”.  I have taken a position on this issue.  Others take the opposite position.  If taking a position thereto is a conspiracy theory, then their position must be the opposite conspiracy theory.

FACTCHECK.ORG or  FACTREFER.ORG?

Instead of addressing the legal question raised head on, Factcheck.org affirmatively adopted the viewpoint of another blogger whose credentials are unknown:

“We agree with his take on Donofrio’s argument.”

Factcheck.org was publicly humbled by the complexity of the statute they misconstrued, and so they should be referencing attorneys who will stake their public reputation upon interpretation of these laws.  If not, then how can Factcheck.org be a genuine “factchecking” resource?  Their proxy blogger has never provided evidence he is an attorney with professional qualifications to proffer accurate analysis of these difficult legal issues.

Bar exams exist for good reason – legal complexity.

MY CREDENTIALS

– My name is Leo C. Donofrio.  I am currently a lawyer fully licensed to practice in the State of New Jersey and the federal courts since 1991.

– I graduated from St. John’s University, School of Law with a J.D. in 1990.

– I passed the New York Bar Exam., the New Jersey Bar Exam. and received a high enough score on the Multistate Exam.  so that Washington D. C. has waived my need to take their Bar Exam.

BOGUS LEGAL REPORTING ENDORSED BY FACTCHECK.ORG

The legal analysis provided via proxy to their readers is juvenile, uneducated and wrong.  For example:

Because KIA 1963 removed citizenship of the UK and Colonies to the new Kenyan citizens, 1.—(1) above does not apply, and Barack Obama did not become a “British Subject” under this clause.

This is word hopscotch.  Read the codes for yourselves.  All UKC citizens who became Kenyan citizens under the Kenyan Independence Act of 1963 (KIA) simultaneously lost their UKC citizen status AND simultaneously gained the status of British subject under “2.-(1)(a)” of the KIA which states:

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 ” ;

That’s the KIA talking not Leo Donofrio.  The Factcheck.org endorsed analysis continues:

However, adding Kenya to the list in (3) may well have granted him “Commonwealth citizenship“. (One may argue the equivalence of the two, but I prefer to keep the terms separate.) I have reservations about this because the Kenyan Constitution does not permit dual citizenship for adults which would seem a contradiction for someone like Barack Obama Sr.

The above expresses “reservations” as to whether President Obama became a Commonwealth Citizen in 1963 when Kenyan citizenship was bestowed upon him by virtue of an implication that the Kenyan Constitution would not permit Obama from obtaining Commonwealth citizenship.

That is absurd.

All they needed to check was Section 95(1) of the Kenyan Constitution:

95. (1) Every person who, under this Constitution or an Act of Parliament, is a citizen of Kenya… shall, by virtue of that citizenship, have the status of a Commonwealth citizen.

“Reservations”… are not possible.

Factcheck.org has endorsed an opinion which argues the Kenyan constitution prevents Commonwealth citizenship while it specifically provides for it.

The entire report is filled with this sort of Dr.  Seussian hooplah as follows:

Donofrio perhaps will claim that the British Nationality Act…and he might argue then that…

These are bogus claims I will never make.  It also attributes errors made by other attorneys to me.  Nothing listed in the full paragraph from which the above are culled will be part of my forthcoming report.

This bogus jumble is purposely confusing, false, legally defamatory, contradicts itself and does not deserve the respect of my attention.  This will be my final response to anything written by their proxy, the Dr. Seuss of legal analysis.

[ED: Updated 09.04.09 4:20 PM – Since I published this report earlier today, the bogus analysis endorsed by Factcheck.org has now been scrubbed due to the thorough rebuttal above.  Here is the Google Cached version containing the original as quoted above.  (I’ll take it as a compliment.) Here are the before and after screenshots:

factcheckendorsementV1and2————————————————————————————————————-

THE US NEEDS TO HEAR DIRECTLY FROM THE PRESIDENT

There exist multiple legal mechanisms which have the potential to establish that President Obama is a citizen of Kenya, the United Kingdom, the European Union, the Commonwealth of Nations and the Republic of Indonesia.

I will explain these in separate and individually published parts of a forthcoming report. Unfortunately, information available in the public domain cannot answer these questions.  We need to hear from President Obama.

Since the President has admitted to being a British citizen at birth, and we know he became a citizen of Kenya in 1963, he needs to tell the American people whether he retains any foreign nationalities.  We have never heard from the President on these complex issues.

Hearing from bloggers who do not have any legal authority to speak for him settles nothing.  It simply causes confusion and that very confusion testifies to the desperate need for clarity and guidance by the President.  Is he going to be a transparent leader, or will he continue to make believe we have no right to know?

If the President is confused and unsure of his legal status, then he ought to say so.

If he is not confused, he ought to explain.  This is because the average citizen can’t comprehend legalese and the myriad of complex possibilities these foreign statutes generate.

President Obama is an experienced orator and legal scholar.  A graduate of Harvard Law School and former law professor can certainly speak for himself.  It’s about time he does.  He works for us.  He is our public servant.

[Ed. While I’m proud of my WSOP Circuit Championship ring photo currently making the rounds, it was taken in March 2008 and doesn’t represent the way I look today.  Below is a recent photo.]

LeoDonofrio

135 Responses to “FACTCHECK.ORG CAPITULATES – Admits Error In Obama Kenyan Citizenship Analysis.”

  1. [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.]

  2. As always Leo… an articulate, factual, and undeniable explanation of truth!!!

    Question:

    Judges, Senators and Congressman, etc., have all used FactCheck.org
    as grounds for their belief that “o” is eligible as POTUS. Some Judges have used this as part of their reasoning for dimisal! Even the media has stated “FactCheck.org” as their bible of facts!
    How will this admission, of misnomer of fact at FactCheck.org, affect these statements..many of which are recorded?

    [Ed. It’s a partisan blog for propaganda. Just call yourself Factconfirm.org, get a URL and a red white and blue logo. It’s a bunch of gnomies all patting each other’s you know what. C’mon, the veneer is off and so are the gloves. It’s lies v truth. I am the truth. They know that. And objective readers know it. I’m just sitting here speaking truth to power via my legal skills. They had to bow… no way around it for them. It won’t be the last time.]

  3. Leo,
    I really like the term “dualers”.
    However, I think that “dualies” might be a better name for your followers.

  4. […] Donofrio continues to pillory FactCheck in a new article: FactCheck capitulates.] […]

  5. Civis Naturaliter Natus Says:

    Kudos LEO!

    You brought the golly greeg giant FactCheck to its knees…now that they have admitted 1 error, they have admitted that they can err, and what else is false, infantile, wrong, or erroneous at their site….they have no legal credentials…even an amateur can read the KIA, they don’t even read…infact a conscientious fact checker would read, whereas they seem only interested in defending Obama, not in facts or checking facts…

    Kudos!

  6. Civis Naturaliter Natus Says:

    The Lucas Kenya BC has been filed as evidence in Keyes vs. Obama

    http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/09/04/dr-orly-taitz-files-the-lucas-kenyan-birth-certificate/

    Full images and affidavit of Lucas…

  7. Magna Carta Says:

    Right on Leo! You rock.I love to read the assertion of fact something forgotten of late in this country.
    I was called a xenophobe for protesting healthcare last night so I guess I’m a xenophobe now so hats off from a proud xenophobe.

  8. Factcheck.org gets the facts wrong, then wades into punditry and opinion. They then dismiss the fact error as unimportant and frivolous. Great standard for them to uphold, report what they want, then act blase if they are proven wrong.

    You cornered them Leo and forced them to concede. Then they acted like it was irrelevant. Keep going, Leo. You should be the man to take this to QW in DC.

    By the way, I laughed because in World Net Daily’s Whistleblower magazine they posted a picture of you but it was not you, it was a black man that may actually be Clarence Thomas. But I assume you are not Thomas and your picture helps clarify that!

  9. It looks like factcheck is saying that obama’s kenyan citizenship expired after that two year period. HOW DO THEY KNOW? How do they know obama didn’t proclaim his allegiance to kenya during that period. According to another blog, obama went to kenya during that two year period. If we have no statement from obama that he let his citizenship with kenya expire, then factcheck is once again making up facts.

  10. […] September 4, 2009 Update: Leo Donofrio posts that FactCheck.org made a [at least one] mistake: Yesterday, Factcheck.org admitted they reported a false factconcerning the alleged expiration of […]

  11. Leo,
    You are getting to them. That is why they need to discredit you.
    Your ability to wade through these citizenship laws amazes me. This is very complicated stuff.

    Is that your artwork in the background of your picture? Very cool. The small rectangular piece looks like an abstract of the river scene.

    [Ed. Nice spot. That’s why I put them together… but the abstract is not related to it. The river scene I picked up for $10 in a thrift shop. I adore it.]

  12. GratefulForLeo Says:

    Factcheck proves once again their sloppy standards of investigation and explanation. They come nowhere near the high quality of Leo’s extensive, precise, and fair account of fact and law. Where he theorizes, he indicates it as such. Nor does he paraphrase without specificity and backs up everything he says by providing appropriate links or quoting pertinent legal authority (not anonymous bloggers.) A website that calls itself Factcheck should do no less.

    Random thought:
    A story the media could not ignore…If only Senator McCain would exercise his oath to uphold the Constitution and publicly call for Obama to answer questions about his dual, multiple citizenships. McCain could state that even his own status is unclear based on (Leo’s) current legal research. Obama, as a former Constitutional law professor, would certainly be able to explain the complexities of law and teach us why he is a lawful citizen as well as natural born. Couldn’t he?

    [Ed. McCain was Obama’s main squeeze in this election. He aint gonna say or do squat. Did you see him in the debates? Please.]

    As Leo commented:
    President Obama is an experienced orator and legal scholar. A graduate of Harvard Law School and former law professor can certainly speak for himself. It’s about time he does. He works for us. He is our public servant.

  13. Leo,

    Did Factcheck ever respond to the fact that Obama didn’t lose his British citizenship in 1963 like they claimed originally?

    After all the Kenyan Constitution states that dual citizens are permitted, especially those under the age of 21.

  14. Great takedown of Obama’s public relations outfit deceptively calling itself FactCheck. They have been part of ObamAxelrod, Inc. all along but have been naively accepted as unbiased arbiters of truth by the uninformed.

    Good luck in getting Obama to come clean about who he is. Yes, he owes us an explanation of his citizenship status vis-a-vis Article II, and I believe he also owes us proof of his exact birthplace, as in name and location of hospital. And he should not be shielded in this by a third party like his ally FactCheck.

    But getting truth out of Obama ain’t easy. This morning I read that the White House managed to get a lawsuit or two dropped by agreeing to a partial, delayed revelation of its visitor log. And master bragger Obama, who refuses to explain who he is, had the audacity to proclaim, ” ‘We will achieve our goal of making this administration the most open and transparent administration in history,’ President Barack Obama said on Friday.” [“Friday” being 08-28-2009]

    Whoooeee, that’s a Big One, Barry!

  15. Silence Do Good Says:

    Congratulations Leo. You have them on defense.

    All you need is a dis-satisfied car dealership and you’ll be back in the game.

  16. Oops, correction on the date of that Obama quote re transparency: should be Friday today, Sept. 4.

  17. cat_killer Says:

    Yesterday, Factcheck.org admitted they reported a false fact concerning the alleged expiration of President Obama’s Kenyan citizenship.

    If a fact is false, then it is no longer a fact, is it?

    Signed,

    Curious

    (curiosity killed a cat, for those who miss the pun)

  18. Mitchell Staff Says:

    Leo,

    If I were a lawyer and had these people slandering me, I would sue. It seems to me that a good offense is the best defense. The MSM has been doing these knowingly slanted reports for a very long time. These ‘untruths’ are carefully planned and specifically worded to undermine the public opinion of individuals and groups who have opposing veiwpoints. Can you imagine what a credibility hit it would be to a site named ‘factcheck’ when they are forced to correct themselves multiple times on just one topic.

    I am proud to be a reader of naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com. A site founded on principles and facts. With the hardest working blogger on the web at it’s helm. Thank you Leo.

  19. cat_killer Says:

    FACTCHECK.ORG or FACTREFER.ORG?

    Leo,

    you mean FACTFREE.ORG?

    [Ed.🙂 ]

  20. Very interesting and informative. I have always been concerned with the dual citizenship issue because even tho’ countries may not currently recognize the dual citizen such as in the Kenyan Constitution, at any time, now, or in the future, this can change, and most probably will. The future is equally as important as the past. Here is a 10 year old article, in which some of these issues are discussed.

    I note that UK recognizes dual citizens according to the article.

    http://www.sudhirlaw.com/dual_citizenship.htm

  21. […] Go here to read the rest: FACTCHECK.ORG CAPITULATES – Admits Error In Obama Kenyan … […]

  22. curi0us0nefromthe60s Says:

    Leo,

    Yet again today President Obama announced the following:

    “We will achieve our goal of making this administration the most open and transparent administration in history,” President Barack Obama said on Friday.

    This statement was made into response to releasing White House visitor logs, and can be found here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32447886/ns/politics-white_house/

    I always find it ironic that the White House claims to be transparent when so many documents are missing from as Leo describes it “the public domain.” It makes one start to think that the White House claims transparency and keeps repeating the mantra so that at some point folks will just believe the lie that they are transparent because they have repeatedly said that they are rather than actually being transparent based on their actions actually supporting their words.

  23. billvanallen Says:

    Mr. Donofrio:

    So I now trust Mr. John David Hemenway will give judicial notice to the USCA for the DC Circuit regarding James Robertson, U.S. Sr District Judge order commanding we collectively base our understanding of POTUS/CINC eligibility and the US Constitution upon the expert internet witness FactCheck.org and other “twitter” media pundants.

  24. naturalborncitizen Says:

    The FACTCHECK.ORG endorsed propaganda site has been caught red handed scrubbing its busted analysis. See the update above.

    This is quote a compliment. I’m dealing with clowns now. This is the infamouse once respected Factcheck.org falling to the depths of despair.

    Here is the google cache of the original I wrote my analysis to rebut.

  25. curi0us0nefromthe60s Says:

    Leo,

    I’ve mentioned this before in my comments, but this is just so Orwellian. I just keep picturing Wilson there in the ministry of truth rapidly rewriting past articles to ensure their current truth. Oh how prophetic Orwell was in writing 1984.

    [Ed. They do have a playbook.]

  26. Leo:

    If by any chance you get the urge to sue FactCheck.org for defamation, will it be of any interest to the judge to receive arguments on both sides as to whether your published work relating to the meaning of the A2S1C5 clause “natural born citizen” truly constitutes conspiracy theory with no basis in fact or law (as FactCheck.org appears to be saying), or if it relates to a clean question of law which if put to SCOTUS would constitute a legitimate case of first impression (as you have been diligently trying to show).

    If so, wouldn’t it help support your efforts to obtain a favorable ruling from a federal judge that your efforts and those of the ‘birthers’ are separate and distinct, and to force FactCheck.org to clearly and distinctly publish a retraction to this effect?

    [Ed. The only thing I would sue them over is their stating to the world that I am a “former attorney”. I am a current attorney actively licensed in NJ. I have written them a letter and if they do not correct it, litigation will happen.]

  27. Ok, I read some of the comments on the Dr. Seuss blog. They are obviously communists. That Blog is probably run out of the Kremlin.

    Interesting take on the 14th amendment and Citizenship

    http://www.originalintent.org/edu/14thamend.php
    http://www.originalintent.org/edu/citizenship.php

  28. In a clarification of the earlier posting of:

    Civis Naturaliter Natus Says:
    September 4, 2009 at 11:32 am

    Please note that Dr. Orly Taitz has filed the Declaration of Lucas Daniel Smith (under penalty of perjury) accompanied by a copy of the alleged Kenyan Hospital Birth Certificate in :

    United States District Court, for the Central District of California, Santa Ana (Southern) Division in the matter of Captain Pamela Barnett, et. al Plaintiffs.

    I believe I am correct in my understanding that Captain Pamela Barnett is challenging her deployment until such time as Obama is determined to be the legitimate Commander-in-Chief.

    This is the case which is scheduled with Judge David O. Carter:

    Hearing: Motion for expedited DISCOVERY of records relative to eligibility of Obama/Soetoro for POTUS and CINC.

    on, Tuesday, September 8, 2009 at 8:00 AM

    I quote from Dr. Taitz’s site:

    “If motion is granted, a Court-order would be issued demanding some or all pertinent records (birth certificate, passports, school records, college records and papers, travel records, citizenship records, etc.) relative to establishing eligibility as a ‘Natural-Born’ U.S. Citizen to be a bona fide President and Commander in Chief.”

    As Dr. Taitz also has in her possession a photo copy of the alleged Certified Copy of the government issued
    Certificate of Birth for Barack Hussein Obama with many similar and confirming statistics shared by both documents, this will be the first time that tangible documents will be available for review by any sitting Judge.

    I hope such evidence, though not authenticated at this time, will suggest to a Judge that further investigation is warranted and that the discovery motion should be granted. Of course Obama’s lawyers will be there asking for a dismissal.

    It is also suggested that Fox News will have a representative at the hearing.

  29. bwahahahaha
    factless.org of feckless.org
    take your pick

  30. It’s called “check” Leo ….& they are scurrying. Maybe because they sense a “checkmate” nearing?
    Geeze how many times can “fact scrub” do housekeeping anyway …& people not notice? So much easier to tell the truth…backtracking on all the deception is a full time job for them now!

    All because we can’t get an earnest statement from the C-o-C…bizarre!

  31. OK, Leo, what do you say about “Certificate of Birth” #32018 from the Coast Province General Hospital (Kenya) in the name of our pseudo-president, complete with signature and footprint? We know the bc and nbc are separate issues, but they ARE related, and their relationship is significant.

    Where is the birth certificate? Looks a lot like Kenya to me.

  32. Mick the Dualer Says:

    FactChallenged.org

  33. Please know how many of us are out there. “Lurking” sounds dirty; yet I lurk. Those of us that don’t actively contribute (because we are amazed, ovwewhelmed and simply learning-and-lurking) hang on every word on this blog.

  34. Leo says… [This is because the average citizen can’t comprehend legalese and the myriad of complex possibilities these foreign statutes generate.]

    I’m one of those average citizens Leo and have been following your website for a couple of months now. Although I do not understand all of the “legalese” surrounding the issue, you are doing a fantastic job of explaining it all. Thank you for that.

    For me, the easiest thing to understand is no argument exists against someone being born in the us by two citizen parents leads to a natural born status. All other birth possibilities leads to questioning NBC status and eligibility for the POTUS under our constitution.

  35. “So, President Obama’s Kenyan citizenship expired on Aug. 4, 1984, not 1982, as we had initially reported.”

    As Yo stated above,

    Where is the evidence that this happend? Obama never said either way.

    http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html
    “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.”

    This is still up there unless you click on “Read Story” then it changes to the new version.
    They quoted & linked Factcheck.org, not BHO.
    So Fight the Smears.com quotes Factcheck.org who quotes anon. legal blogger named Dr. Seuss.
    What say you Factcheck.org & Dr. Seuss blogger?
    Or Maybe the Dr. is BHO hisself…

    [Ed. It’s not BHO. Trust me on this. BHO would not make the juvenile mistakes this cat in the hat has… ie failing to read the statute. ]

  36. Thinking4Myself Says:

    Leo, you are making history with your keen & fair legal mind. You have stirred something in this country- the size & depth of which has yet to be measured. I have been a “dualer” (not a “birther”) since I first read about your lawsuit against NJ’s Sec. of State, before the election. I have also created a “meme” for the Blind Believers of Obama: “Bliefers”

    [Ed. Ha! Awesome.]

    I wonder if you’ve seen the article (linked by Drudge) regarding Joe Biden behavior as unofficial Acting President in Obama’s absence. One could interpret his speech to the Brookings Institutie as a not-so-subtle “coded” message that he is capable of, or perhaps better-suited than Obama to be POTUS. For example he said, “Every week — with notable exceptions — I hold a Cabinet meeting. And most of the Cabinet secretaries attend.” He told the audience in Washington, “I made it clear that our focus had to be, in the first 100 days, accountability, transparency and responsiveness. I wanted each of those Cabinet secretaries to set up systems where they would have a high degree of confidence that as they implemented what they were in charge of, it would be done effectively and efficiently.”

    Here’s the link to the article: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/04/curl-biden-fills-vacationing-obamas-void/

    I’m hoping that between your devastating research of late & the subsequent black eye you landed on FactCheck.NOT, and Glenn Beck’s focus on Obama’s radical czar-fest this week, it is enough to push this clunker of an administration right off a cliff.

    It’s so heartening to hear that you are once again stoked / energized / loaded for bear. You mentioned that you drink tea when writing. As a lover of good tea myself, I wonder if you’ve ever tried “PG Tips” tea bags from Scotland? I know they sell them at the Scottish Festival (at the former Garden State Arts Center in NJ) and in several Irish stores. I’ve even seen them at upscale grocery stores. If you’ve ever had tea in the UK, PG Tips is the closest thing you can get to it without having their delicious water (and some homemade shortbread, of course).

    [Ed. Thanks for the tip. Yeah, I’m aware of it.]

    Leo, if you find nothing worthy of printing on your blog from my (too) lengthy comment- please read this: you are making us all proud to be Americans who are, once again, worthy of that title. As a man of strong faith, I know that you feel God’s presence even in those dark hours of despair you went through recently. Many of us who follow your blog were deeply touched by your emotional state and wished we could reach out & of exhaustion leads to feelings of fear or despair, you are never alone. You have many of God’s angels guarding & surrounding you to provide you with His love, protection, strength & wisdom. And you are always in our prayers. Thank you

  37. I’m still seeing “fact”check.org’s statement:

    “The KIA removed citizenship to the UK and Colonies to the New Kenyan Citizens…”

    Sorry, but that’s flat out WRONG based on the Kenyan Constitition. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that citizens under the age of 21 lose their citizenship automatically.

    TO WIT:

    CH 4, §82, P2:

    Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th
    December 1968 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a
    British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for
    his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1) of
    this section, become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December 1963.

    This certifies Obama to be a Citizen of Kenya on December 12, 1963. But what’s more important is the fact that every “dual citizen” had to have declared allegiance to Kenya on this date. Note the following…

    CH 4, §98, P4(b)

    is immediately after the day upon which he becomes a citizen of Kenya,
    also a citizen of some other country, 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
    made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning
    residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament.

    There’s a rub here because Obama Jr. wasn’t old enough to renounce any of his other citizenships.

    [Ed. Snip – You’ve got it wrong. Under the KIA statute the “specified date” is when the person turns 23 — not 21. At 21, the two year window opens and closes at 23. He would have been old enough to renounce other citizenships.]

  38. More discussions from the U.K. Parliament:

    “As regards inaction, if the thrust of his objection is a concern that the exclusion of those who have lost another nationality through inaction cover, for example, all British overseas citizens in Kenya, our view is no. Most of the British overseas citizens in Kenya are not and never have been citizens of Kenya. Accordingly, the possibility of the loss of Kenyan citizenship, whether through action or inaction, does not arise in their case.

    However, a British national who has acquired Kenyan citizenship, whether automatically or by registration or naturalisation, will be subject to the restrictions on dual nationality contained in the legislation of that country. Those include the provision that the person must, on attaining the age of 21, renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and make a declaration of intention regarding future residence and take an oath of allegiance.

    [Ed. You should not have cut the quote there. I am familiar with this testimony and it was part of my research for a future report, but since you raise it here I will address it. — The paragraph you cut out above – where you put – “…” – makes it clear that Obama is not a British Overseas Citizen as some have suggested. Here’s what was stated right after you cut into the Lord’s testimony where you put “…”. Lord Filkin continued:

    “Therefore, inaction will apply only to those born after Kenyan independence in 1963. All citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies born before then will now be either British overseas citizens or Kenyan. They cannot be both and they will have needed to exercise a positive choice.”

    All CUKCs born before independence in 1963 would have become BOC or Kenyan, they cannot be both. I will go into more detail on this later. OBama is NOT a BOC.

    Also readers, please don’t use caps in your posts – it rserved for my comments.]

    The people who come into the inaction category are those who at birth, post-independence, were citizens of the United Kingdom or colonies by descent from the parent and also Kenyan because a parent was born in Kenya. Those people must exercise a choice at the age of 23 because Kenya does not allow adults to hold dual nationality. If a minor who holds both BOC and Kenyan nationality does nothing to consolidate his Kenyan nationality by the age of 22, he then loses it. “Consolidating” is making a declaration of intent to reside in Kenya and reaffirming allegiance to Kenya.

    I hope that that is helpful, if not necessarily completely satisfactory, but I would affirm the point I made earlier that I will write to the noble Lord. That leaves open the possibility of discussions, without wishing to signal that we are necessarily moving on the issue. We would be pleased to go into further detail, if that would help. ”

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldhansrd/vo021009/text/21009-10.htm

  39. Didn’t factless.org have the same quote as Obama’s other site is “smearthefight.com”?

  40. WOW!! You are GOOD looking!!

    A good looking natural born teacher!!

    YESSSSS!!!!

    No wonder I come to class every day🙂

    [Ed. Oops, how did that slip by editorial control? No flirting with the teacher allowed.]

  41. For some of us starved rational souls out here, the truth expressed on these pages is literally as addictive as the strongest narcotic. Leo, all I can say is a heartfelt thank you for your work and passion. Just do us all a favor and guard your back man, we need you.

    “He said, Master! Master! Speed up. These dogs might bite us’ … ‘Be quiet, when the dogs bark it is because we are working.”

    Don Quixote

  42. Don’t trust Google Cache, get a full length screen shot of the original copy of that page.

  43. The response that person at FC gave about you was childish. Do they have high school kids running that site?

  44. As far as BHO “constitutional law professor” storyline, theobamafile.com says :

    “He also began teaching at the University of Chicago Law School, although he declined to pursue a tenure-track post, hoping to save time for politics.
    http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/conlaw3.obama.1996.fall.pdf
    Here is Obama’s Constitutional Law III, 1996 Final Examination. His examination review is here. http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/conlaw3.obama.1996.fall.memo.pdf All of the exam questions appear to deal with an issue connected with minority activism (race, gender preference), which I suppose one would expect to be the extent of Obama’s interest in “constitutional” law.

    During the presidential campaign, Obama would consistently and falsely claim that he was a law professor. The Sun-Times reported that, ‘Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama’s primary [Senate] campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter.’ In academia, there’s a significant difference: professors have tenure while lecturers do not.
    http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html

    The University of Chicago Law School has now recently posted a statement declaring his claims semantically sound: “The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as ‘Senior Lecturer.’

    From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a instructor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.”

    Michelle Obama lost her law license for disciplinary reasons
    http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/12/wtf-michelle-ob.html
    and Obama’s is also no longer able to practice law (don’t know why).

  45. No one mentioned that Fact Check is owned by the Annenberg Group – they are quite the opposite of Conservative and could be called extremely Liberal. It was the Annenberg group that Obama & Bill Ayers were “directly” involved with in Chicago.

    American Thinker
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/obamas_lost_annenberg_years_co.html
    The four plus years (1995-1999) Barack Obama spent as founding chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) represent his track record as reformer,

    Another extremely Liberal Internet Presence is Wikipedia.

  46. Sir..

    You are a Gentleman and a Scholar.

    Nixon and Congress gave me a slip of paper
    telling me than in 1973.

    [Ed. What did the paper say?]

    I am amazed at how the MSM and our politicians in
    Washington DC have fallen prey to this lack of legal
    standing by Obama.

    My concern has and is that by definition he is not a Natural Born Citizen… you see.. he is hiding behing the fact there is noting in the Legal books that determine… what a natural born citizen is.

    It is a FLAW in our legal system that he is taking advantage of.

    My concern as a former Officer in the US Army… is how does anyone justify him having any type of Security Clearance.

    Especially one required of a POTUS.

    His admitted drug use in high school and College along with his Socialist Activities, and his questionable associations with enemies of the state should limit his access to ANY security items. and with is multiple dual
    citizaenship questions..

    During my active duty years… he would not have had access to the KEYS to the Arms Room let alone access to nuclear codes and weapons…

    THAT IS ANOTHER QUESTION TO RAISE..

    [Ed. I recently covered this issue. See the follow up as well.]

  47. >>>>Leo says,
    It’s a partisan blog for propaganda. Just call yourself Factconfirm.org, get a URL and a red white and blue logo. It’s a bunch of gnomies all patting each other’s you know what. C’mon, the veneer is off and so are the gloves. It’s lies v truth. I am the truth. They know that. And objective readers know it. I’m just sitting here speaking truth to power via my legal skills. They had to bow… no way around it for them. It won’t be the last time.]<<<<

    Leo,
    The most important thing you wrote above is critical. Factcheck.org has just been utterly exposed here. Should factcheck ever been interested in checking facts they wouldn't have made the 'mistake' they did. Indeed, if they were honest and forthright they would have investigated all other potential 'unverified' facts like his COLB. I have yet to hear an adequate explanation for why they have verified a july 2007 COLB for Barack Obama when the DoH of Hawaii says it has no transaction for said document.

    [Ed. I am not familiar with this allegation. Please elaborate.]

    My point, Factcheck is a partisan hack website which used all of it's previous clout to cover up the true nature of a political candidate. Does that amount to fraud?

  48. Tina Teyhen Says:

    Dearest Leo,

    Thank God again for your talents. I was shocked to see that picture of you. The blonde hair. My brother says you look like Al Pacino.

    Anyway , I am worried about you. If you ever need a rest you could come stay with us. We will take care of you. Do not mind me. I am a nurse. Again, are you sure you are OK? Maybe you should take a break?

    [Ed. I had to do something about that poker pic. It was taken after 11 solid hours of cut throat tournament poker. Still had my thousand yard stare. I wanted to put something a little warmer and more recent up.]

  49. Amending the A2S1C5 requirement has been talked about on you blog before, here is the video.

    Presidential Requirement Amendment, 07/24/2000
    Committee members heard testimony on H.J.Res. 88, a proposed amendment to the Constitution that would allow a person who has been a United States citizen for 20 years to be eligible for the office of president of the United States. Currently, the Constitution limits the office to “natural born” citizens.
    http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=158377-1

    Two speakers were against the Amendment, Balint Vazsoni @ 16:40 and Forrest McDonald @ 29:30. McDonald had good historical information.

    Also, have you seen this site?
    BHO and the “Stubborn” Facts: Article II, Section I, Clause V of the Constitution
    http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/bho-the-stubborn-facts-article-ii-section-i-clause-v-of-the-constitution/

  50. Thomas Jefferson said: “If the people have all the facts and know the truth, the people will never make a mistake.”

    I would say there is no statute of limitation on truth, it takes an enormous amount of energy to lie and to create covering lies and history shows that the determined win when they seek the truth and know it is being hidden.

    Truth hidden reveals the truth about those doing the hiding.

    Word game -truth hiding seems to be all the rage among our formerly trusted guardians of truth.

    Love this part of your comment above, you sound inspired!

    “It’s lies v truth. I am the truth. They know that. And objective readers know it. I’m just sitting here speaking truth to power via my legal skills.”

  51. Leo says:
    [Ed. It’s not BHO. Trust me on this. BHO would not make the juvenile mistakes this cat in the hat has… ie failing to read the statute. ]

    I think you are incredible and have kept the pressure on the OBOTs. But I am puzzled by the amount of credit you give to BHO’s abilities. What has he done to earn this distinction? He is incredibly disciplined. But scholarly or diligent cannot be determined as his entire life experience is under lock and key.

  52. Leo .. I forgot I forgot about this … does it cause anyone any problems ?

    http://tinyurl.com/mzmy44

    [Ed. He didn’t sign it.]

    Just found this … apparrently all 50 states require this sort of document .. clearly signed that he is a “natural born citizen!” That takes me aback.

    http://tinyurl.com/mmvzkk

    This site has pursued the matter in detail:

    http://moniquemonicat.wordpress.com/2008/12/02/secretary-of-state-requests-for-documents-sample-letter-responses-say-obamas-qualifications-never-verified/

    Stunning, really, seeing FarceCheck have to bend to your expertise,
    and yet they did it in such an adolescent and snarky manner. Keep it up .. they’ll need Gold Bond powder soon.

    Also, remember that this horribly karmic promise has been arrogantly flung out into the universe:

    “Don’t think we’re not keeping score, brother.” That’s what President Barack Obama said to Rep. Peter DeFazio in a closed-door meeting of the House Democratic Caucus last week, according to the Associated Press.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123862834153780427.html

    God bless us and keep our blessed America, for which untold blood has been shed and precious lives lost.

  53. Leo,
    You are a PRINCE!!! Keep up the great work and know that every one of us is behind you and hoping you succeed in all that you are climbing towards. I so wish that you could know how proud you make all of us. You have a wonderful mind and heart and you use it to perform miracles, grabbing at the truth even when it is far away and obscure to most.

    I have understood that Obama is ineligible from the very first time I read his version of where he was from, and now because of your works on this subject, there are millions that know that same truth. Keep it up and know that we all want your success, and thus saving of our country, through your efforts.

  54. Leo .. I forgot I forgot about this … does it cause anyone any problems ?

    http://tinyurl.com/mzmy44

    [Ed. He didn’t sign it.]

    ~~~~

    There’s a signature there for BHO .. is it a fake document ?

    [Ed. Yes, I believe that one also could be a problem for him.]

  55. Maybe someday we’ll be looking back and say, “we were birther, when birther wasn’t coo-hool” (or dualer).

  56. Good work.Let’s be on guard and fight for our children.This isn’t a personal battle against Barry,but against the globalists and their puppet.

  57. Voco Indubium Says:

    Attn.: GratefulForLeo Says: September 4, 2009 at 12:04 pm

    RE: “A story the media could not ignore…If only Senator McCain would exercise his oath to uphold the Constitution and publicly call for Obama to answer questions about his dual, multiple citizenships. McCain could state that even his own status is unclear based on (Leo’s) current legal research. Obama, as a former Constitutional law professor, would…”

    Are you serious?

    McCain endorsed his opponent several times during his campaign. Even a couple of weeks ago at a town-hall meeting he defended him, saying something to the effect that the President means well, causing an obvious disapproval by the audience. (There is a link to that video somewhere on this website posted by one of Leo’s readers. )

    The President will probably hire McCain as his Campaign Manager at the next election – he will not find a more enthusiastic supporter.

  58. GratefulForLeo Says:

    With impending certainty, a gathering tsunami wave of truth is poised to engulf the strawman village and leave in its wake scattered remnants of blind hope and sightless change. They can run, hide, deny…but there is no escape.

    (P.S. Random thought at 12:04 pm was just fantasy snark.)

  59. Civis Naturaliter Natus Says:

    http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/09/04/omolo-says-lucas-document-a-master-forgery/

    Life Long Friend of Barrack Obama Sr discounts Lucas Document, whereas Internet Sources confirm some of its facts…

  60. Leo,
    Look again. The document http://tinyurl.com/mmvzkk sumitted by Melinda appears to be signed by Barack Obama.

    I agree that all states likely have a similar document on file. You’ve posted the Arizona submission.

    [Ed. That’s the Arizona one. We’ve been through this before… yes it’s important and potentially a cause for a criminal complaint. This is also what Clark Hamblin has been working on in Arizona with his litigation.]

  61. Just looking at the old archives and found a post from Dec 20th re: that the ratification process had a flaw when Hawaii became a stAte in 1958. Bill Climton addressed this problem. Did you ever see any reference to this?

  62. Sheikh yer Bu'Tay Says:

    Hi Leo,

    The Sheikh is not getting very much sleep right now, so my sleep deprived mind may have it’s facts just a llittle bit fuzzy.

    In a prior blog, didn’t you say you were a retired lawyer?

    [Ed. I came out of retirement to write the SCOTUS stay application for Cort Wrotnowski. Although it was filed in his name, I still had to have a current law license to help him. To activate my license, I simply informed the State authorities of my intention to practice law again and sent them a check for my fees. I’ve been licensed and active ever since.]

    It is in the same comment were you stated you had never sued anyone before your case that went to SCOTUS.

    [Ed. Lawyers aren’t required to initiate litigation. Many lawyers never issue one piece of litigation. That has nothing to do with their stature as a licensed attorney.]

    Just an FYI. Please don’t think I am in any way a FactChallenged.org sympathizer. Wednesday evening, I attended a MoveOn.org candle light vigil “counter-protest”. Great fun! We had them out numbered three to one!

  63. Master Nationality Rule

    The Master Nationality Rule is a consequence of Article 4 of The Hague Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws of 1930.

    This provides that;

    ” … a State may not afford diplomatic protection to one of its nationals against a state whose nationality such person also possesses.”

    The United Kingdom Home Office explains:
    “ Commonly known as the “Master Nationality Rule”, the practical effect of this Article is that where a person is a national of, for example, two States (A and B), and is in the territory of State A, then State B has no right to claim that person as its national or to intervene on that person’s behalf. Such a person who goes into the territory of a third state may be treated as a national of either A or B – it does not normally matter which one, except, for example, where the courts of the third state have to adjudicate upon matters relating to that person’s status and the relevant laws depend on the person’s nationality. In such cases, it is necessary to choose an effective nationality (i.e. one of the two nationalities is selected as effective for the purposes of the third state).[1] ”

    In terms of practical effect, it means that when a dual citizen is in the country of one of his two nationalities, that country has the right to treat that person as if he or she were solely a citizen or national of that country. This includes the right to impose military service obligations, or to require an exit permit to leave.

    The United Kingdom may still make informal diplomatic representations to the authorities of another country when a British citizen is held in another country, even if that person is also a citizen of that country. The other country has no obligation to accept such informal representations.

    During the Cold War era, the United States signed consular agreements with certain Warsaw Pact countries providing that a U.S. citizen who entered that country with a U.S. passport and the appropriate visa would not be subsequently treated as a citizen of that country (and hence prevented from leaving), for example see U.S.-Poland Bilateral Consular Convention. The Warsaw Pact countries involved (notably Poland) wished to encourage tourism from emigrants and their descendants settled in the U.S. Since the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1991, many of those countries have abolished visa requirements for U.S. citizens thus nullifying those provisions (for detailed discussion see under Dual citizenship of Poland).

    Australia and Canada have concluded similar consular agreements with the People’s Republic of China.

    [edit] Reference

    1. ^ Home Office (United Kingdom): dual nationality

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_Nationality_Rule

  64. “I have yet to hear an adequate explanation for why they have verified a july 2007 COLB for Barack Obama when the DoH of Hawaii says it has no transaction for said document.”
    [Ed. I am not familiar with this allegation. Please elaborate.]

    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=6644

    [Ed. Please quote what you are speaking of. I need an exact quote to understand what you are saying. Where does Hawaii say there was no transaction in 2007?]

    So I ask again, how do you have a valid Hawaii 2007 Certification of Live Birth (COLB) if the State of Hawaii says there was no transaction for it. The state of Hawaii DOES say there was a 2008 COLB transaction. However, you can look on Factcheck.org, the COLB CLEARLY has 2007 stamped upon it. Please see magnified views at:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2136816/posts

    In the world of state and federal US government, you don’t have a transaction reciept, it didn’t happen. No transaction for 2007 COLB, mean no 2007 COLB made/released by State of Hawaii. Simply put, Factcheck.org didn’t check the facts, since the document they claim they handled was NEVER made by the state of Hawaii.

    Hope that explains it, even if you don’t agree with it.

  65. bho boo: “During the presidential campaign, Obama would consistently and falsely claim that he was a law professor. The Sun-Times reported that, ‘Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama’s primary [Senate] campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter.’ In academia, there’s a significant difference: professors have tenure while lecturers do not.”

    In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. I would say that a lecturer is unable (sometimes due to professional qualifications) or unwilling to seek tenure, and generally signs semester to semester contracts to cover classes that professors are unable to teach due to other obligations. The responsibility of a lecturer is limited to teaching. A lecturer has no graduate students and is not expected to publish. A lecturer is understood to be a temporary employee.

    A person seeking tenure interviews extensively with the other professors in the department before signing a seven year contract, are titled as an associate (or similar adjective) professor, and would be expected to file for tenure at the end of the contract. A professor, tenured or not, is a longer term employee. Professors are involved in research, are expected to publish, and have graduate students to advise.

    [Ed. If U of Chicago law school has no problem with him being called a Prof, then it’s not an issue worth getting into.]

  66. Hi Leo, I have been following Donofrio’s “La Gazzetta” for eons now (it seems), but my TMJ really got stressed trying to chew on your last few blogs on the multi-nationality issue! I did manage to come away with a bingo! moment, however.

    You know, we all owe such a debt of gratitude to you, guy. I also appreciate all the other attorneys who are adding their own prong of attack on the usurper, but Leo Donofrio is the only one I am aware of who does not have a DONATE NOW button! However, that being said, if you do pursue another case, how could we expect you to pay all the expenses out of your own pocket, Leo? If you do go this route, perhaps you would allow us to help with the expenses–and the victory–somehow. This is too important an issue for us not to help out with. We’re talking about the destruction and dismantling of our Constitutional Republic! If that happens, being able to serve and worship God or raise our kids or pursue our dreams as we desire would be ripped away from us, perhaps violently and irreversibly.

    Anyway, keep up the GRREEAATT work, “Tony”. You have hit your stride young man, and you have a tsunami of support behind you!

  67. Civis Naturaliter Natus Says:

    Leo,

    So according to this Master Nationality Rule, when Obama is at Buckingham Palace greeting the Queen, he is considered a Brit and must curtsey…she could even given him a command, no? Or does the master nationality rule not apply to heads of state with dual citizenship?

  68. Dual Citizen Applicant denied Security Clearance based on dual citizenship and possession of Passport by DOD.

    http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/doha/industrial/02-21102.h1.html

    [Ed. Interesting case.]

  69. Don’t know Leo, if this has any interest to you, but will send it anyway. I think you have already covered this, but I have been working and not able to read everything. So, just in case.

    . “U.S. law’s intolerance for second-class citizenship leads, for example, to assertions that naturalized citizens generally enjoy the same rights as natural born citizens. See Knauer v. United States, 328 U.S. 654, 658 (1946) (“Citizenship obtained through naturalization is not a second-class citizenship. It has been said that citizenship carries with it all of the rights and prerogatives of citizenship obtained by birth in this country save that of eligibility to the Presidency.”); United States v. Klimavicius, 847 F.2d 28, 32 (1st Cir. 1988) (“Once naturalized, a person enjoys the same rights and opportunities as a native born citizen.”

    http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/dualcitizen.htm

  70. From McCain’s June 16, 2009, Motion to Dismiss: “…Hamblin’s alleged injury is not redressable by the Court because Hamblin’s proposed remedy – money damages – is barred by McCain’s First Amendment right to run for office, regardless of his alleged ineligibility to hold that office.”

    While I find the claim curious that McCain has an apparently unrestricted right under the First Amendment to run for POTUS, something struck me as even more curious.

    What is the difference between hegemony and racketeering? What mutuality of acts of these political parties would be consistent with the behavior of cartels and other acts of piracy?

    What is that question about? Debt. Unprecedented national debt with unprecedented revenue flowing from the taxpayer through the political parties via their de facto subordinates (publicly elected members of government) into the pockets of particular interests politically tied to the respective political parties.

    Perhaps they really are above the law and we are but feudal chattle, but I am not so sure.

    When the senior members and officials (elected and not) of both dominant political parties now controlling the federal government knowingly and jointly run candidates for President using FRCivP to protect their mutual choices for POTUS from Constitutional eligibility challenges, the net effect is not only a conspiracy to strike down the Constitution’s restrictions and render them moot, and but also perhaps to hijack the Electoral College process and the federal government in a manner consistent with acts of piracy and racketeering. The damages in this event include the unprecedented national debt orchestrated in mutualism by the colluding dominating political parties and their successful mutual effort to block the election of a Constitutionally eligible POTUS candidate, thus ensuring a certain superior fealty to the dominant political parties; a fealty that cannot correspondingly equally run to the Constitution or the American People who are left with the massive debt caused by the tragic looting of the treasury arising from what appears to be the product an effective net collusion of the two controlling political parties and not a good faith exercise in representative governance.

    Are we now looking into the abyss of the very malignancy our nation’s founders attempted to prevent in establishing the Electoral College institutional filter for POTUS election?

    It certainly appears we have the misconcentration of power and electoral malfeasance the framers endeavored so vigorously to prevent.

    [Ed. It is racketeering… one party, one cosa nostra… that’s our Government at the highest levels of power. Make no mistake about it.]

  71. Here’s the typo-less version of that…sorry please nix the prior one

    So, re: the Master Nationality Rule, full legal, personal and political jurisdiction is usually imposed when a naturalized or half-sanguinis citizen is in-country?
    Re: McCain’s eligibility, I’m reconsidering this…Panama makes no citizenship claim to McCain, nor vice versa, and he was an anchor-baby there (essentially). Anchor babies have no 14th citizenship by definition since they are full-sanguinis NON-Americans and under the full jurisdiction of their own countries (anyone is subject to legal jurisdiction, but only blood citizens are subject to personal and political jurisdiction).
    That’s bolstered by the Master Nationality Rule—–a person would have to have had some blood ties to get full (legal+personal+political) in-country jurisdiction imposed.
    Obama has blood citizenship to 4 countries (Indonesia included because he was adopted by an Indonesian) thus the potential to be subjected to the FULL jurisdiction of four nations.
    And then last Spring he got himself an honorary adoption by Crow Indians, but I don’t know if that has any legal impact.
    Blood is thicker than dirt.

  72. Leo,

    You are accomplishing two very significant things in this “tussle” with FactCheck.org:

    1) You have shown that FactCheck does not do an adequate job of checking facts.

    2) FactCheck has shown themselves to be biased.

    Both of those are very important because, as others have pointed out, Senators, Representatives, and Judges have all assumed that FactCheck.org is a competent, unbiased organization. That assumption is utterly false.

    Section 3 of the 20th Amendment says, in part:

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

    Members of Congress, who have sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, have a responsibility to support Section 3 of the 20th Amendment and ensure that Obama qualifies to hold the office of President. These members failed to act on the information you raised (and we repeated to them) that Obama’s admitted Kenyan citizenship disqualifies him. These members also “outsourced” the verification of Obama’s birth certificate to FactCheck.org.

    Members of Congress examined Certificates, sent to them under seal from the Secretary of State of each of the 50 (not 57!) states… the certificates of the Electoral College vote. But these Members of Congress chose not to request and examine a Certificate sent to them under seal from the State of Hawaii… Obama’s original birth certificate.

    They have sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution. That includes the 20th Amendment. They are all guilty of dereliction of duty.

  73. Leo,

    You probably realize this already, but FactCheck’s only hope is to discredit you. They can’t discredit your arguments, so they want to discredit you. They are using Alinsky tactics on you.

    That’s the reason they called you a “former” lawyer.

    That’s the reason they cropped the WSOP picture… the Bluff magazine picture shows you with your winnings, and shows you are a winner. Their goal is to make you look like a loser, so they cropped out your winnings and hope that people will just see you as a card-playing “former” lawyer.

    What is both ironic and highly amusing is that by linking to that blog, FactCheck didn’t damage your credibility, they damaged theirs! They have shown that they have a strong bias against both “birthers” and you, and they are anything but a trustworthy arbiter of the truth.

  74. Seizethecarp Says:

    How about Impeachedcheck.org as the new name of that impeached site?

  75. The timing of Obama’s latest school children indoctrination speech is no coincidence. September 8, 2009 is meaningful to Obama for an entirely different reason. (See below.)

    Something of Interest, posted elsewhere on the Net:

    “Discovery hearing” re: Obama’s Kenyan BC, request for depositions of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates scheduled for September 8th, 8am.

    08/21/2009 44 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER by Judge David O. Carter: ORDER SETTING SEPTEMBER 8, 2009 HEARING ON MOTIONS: (See document for details.) In summary, the Court sets for hearing at 8:00 a.m. on September 8, 2009, (1) the Discovery Motion, (2) the Service Notice, and (3) the Ex Parte Application. All parties are ordered to be present.

    The Clerk shall serve this minute order on all parties to the action. (rla) (Entered: 08/21/2009)

    CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CM/ECF Filer or PACER Login

    Notice:
    This is a Restricted Web Site for Official Court Business only. Unauthorized entry is prohibited and subject to prosecution under Title 18 of the U.S. Code. All activities and access attempts are logged

    This entry was posted on Saturday, August 22nd, 2009 at 6:05 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed”

  76. I have tried to find where I can ask Orly Taitz why she does not take good advice from you to strengthen her case.

    So, I ask you. why?

    Do you have any evidence that she and others read your blog?

  77. I have to say, although I am not down with the whole BC thing. It is entertaining to see Lucas Smith debunking Jerome Corsi and WND.

  78. As I lay asleep in Italy
    There came a voice from over the Sea,
    And with great power it forth led me
    To walk in the visions of Poesy.

    I met Murder on the way—
    He had a mask like Castlereagh—
    Very smooth he looked, yet grim ;
    Seven blood-hounds followed him :

    All were fat ; and well they might
    Be in admirable plight,
    For one by one, and two by two,
    He tossed them human hearts to chew
    Which from his wide cloak he drew.

    Next came Fraud, and he had on,
    Like Lord Eldon, an ermined gown ;
    His big tears, for he wept well,
    Turned to mill-stones as they fell.

    And the little children, who
    Round his feet played to and fro,
    Thinking every tear a gem,
    Had their brains knocked out by them.

    (verses from) The Mask of Anarchy
    Written on the occasion of the massacre at Manchester.

    by Percy Bysshe Shelley

    This has become my favorite piece of poetry, of late…

    Leo, thanks for continuing the fight for truth.

  79. BuckeyeTexan Says:

    Leo,

    What do you think about this “Lucas Daniel Smith” person making this declaration to a U.S. court knowing that the details of his trip (at least the travel arrangements and such) can be verified.

    http://www.antimullah.com/

    And the footprint on the birth certificate is interesting. Seems like it too could be verified, assuming a) toe prints don’t change (*grin*) and b) that Obama can be forced to provide toe prints.

    And what do you make of the supposed order that the documents not be returned to the filer? Normal? Unusual? Rare?

    Thanks for anything you care to share and I understand if you choose not to comment at all.

    It’s just so intriguing even if it is tin-foil hat conspiracy stuff.

  80. Leo, I heard you might be on Patriot’s Heart Network with Chalice. Will you let us know when??????

    [ed. i will be on, not sure of the date.]

  81. Joe The Blogger Says:

    The principle propaganda ploy perpetrated by Factcheck was to try to bury the full Constitutional ‘natural born Citizen’ issue under masses of interwoven articles about the narrow issue of the birthplace of Mr Obama, eg in their ‘Born In The USA’ article. Factcheck also routinely and deceitfully refers to the computer generated CERTIFICATION of live birth (COLB) as if it was the original birth CERTIFICATE – two very different documents, as Factcheck knows very well.

    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
    “Born in the U.S.A.
    August 21, 2008
    Updated: November 1, 2008
    The truth about Obama’s birth certificate.
    Summary
    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……………….
    ……………….FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship…………… Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.
    ==========
    Since we first wrote about Obama’s birth certificate on June 16, speculation on his citizenship has continued apace.” –

    “http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/has_obamas_birth_certificate_been_disclosed.htm
    June 16, 2008
    Q. – Has Obama’s birth certificate been disclosed?
    Is Barack Obama a “natural-born citizen”?”

    As usual, Factcheck chose to focus on the COLB and the Hawai’ian birth issue rather than discuss the real meaning and purpose of the Constitutional ‘natural born Citizen’ requirement in relation to Mr Obama. Factcheck also chose to further ‘muddy the waters’ by linking to their earlier article, dated February 25th, 2008, on Mr McCain’s eligibility issues – and Factcheck altered, deceitfully, the McCain article on the 16th June, in order to use it as part of their propaganda for Mr Obama:

    ‘Ask Factcheck – How Can Panamanian Born McCain Be Elected President’.
    In this article, Factcheck cited the following Washington Post article dated 9th July 1998 – http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/junkie/archive/junkie070998.htm – and apparently used it as the basis for their own article.
    Factcheck’s original webpage of their McCain natural born citizen article has been scrubbed from the internet – even from the archives (as is Factcheck’s normal practice now – which prevents proper investigations of their wrongdoings). However, after a great deal of searching, I have managed to track down this copy/paste done by Jason Pye at 7:29 pm on February 25th, 2008 – http://www.jasonpye.com/blog/2008/02/more_on_mccains_citizenship.html – Jason had a live link to the Factcheck webpage, so there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of his copy/paste.
    So, this is what Factcheck posted on their website on the 25th February 2008 (my emphasis in capital letters):

    “But McCain is a natural-born citizen, even though he was not born within this country’s borders, since his parents were citizens at the time of his birth. As a Congressional Act stated in 1790 AND ANOTHER REAFFIRMED IN 1795:

    Congress: “And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.”

    The State Department says that this law is again honored under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.”

    This is what Factcheck posted on their website on the 16th June 2008 – http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/how_can_panamanian-born_mccain_be_elected_president.html – (when they linked the McCain eligibility article into the ‘Ask Factcheck – Has Obama’s Birth Certificate Been Disclosed’ article posted on the 16th June 2008 (my emphasis in capital letters to highlight the added words and ****s to highlight the deleted words, as compared to Factcheck’s original February 25th, 2008 article on McCain):

    “But McCain is a natural-born citizen, even though he was not born within this country’s borders, since his parents were citizens at the time of his birth. As a congressional act stated in 1790***************************:

    Congress: “And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.”

    ANOTHER CONGRESSIONAL ACT IN 1795 ISSUED A SIMILAR ASSURANCE, THOUGH IT CHANGED THE LANGUAGE FROM “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” TO “CITIZEN”.

    BUT the State Department CLARIFIES THE ISSUE, saying that the 1790 LANGUAGE is ***** honored under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.”

    ================================

    ================================

    “-Justin Bank

    Update, June 16: This article originally didn’t note the distinction in language between the 1790 and 1795 congressional acts.”

    The State Department webpage, http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html, linked to by Factcheck, in reference to section 301(c) states:
    “Birth Abroad to Two U.S. Citizen Parents in Wedlock: A child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). One of the parents MUST have resided in the U.S. prior to the child’s birth. No specific period of time for such prior residence is required”.

    The actual wording of section 301(c) can be seen here – http://preview.tinyurl.com/nuwyju
    “Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth”………………..”(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;”

    Section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, DOES NOT ‘honor’ the 1790 language (as opposed to the 1795 language), because it does not even mention the term ‘natural born citizen’.

    In my opinion all of this Factcheck disinformation and propaganda was designed to try to ensure that Mr McCain would be nominated as the GOP candidate, partly because they preferred him to the others, but mainly to provide ‘cover’ for Mr Obama’s Article II, Section 1, clause 5, Constitutional ineligibility to be POTUS, due to Obama’s dual nationality. Factcheck deceivers were focussing on the place of birth issue and pushing the propaganda lie that the ‘natural born Citizen’ issue was no big deal – you could even qualify if you were born outside of The USA, as was Mr McCain. The fix was in on this and many people were involved. Once the Candidates were confirmed, Factcheck deceivers did everything that they could get away with in order to try to ensure that Mr Obama was elected and now they are doing everything they can to try to protect him from being evicted from The White House as a Usurper.

  82. Joe The Blogger Says:

    Leo,

    One of the links has failed in my previous post – possibly because I had a quotation mark next to it. Here is the whole paragraph again for context;

    Since we first wrote about Obama’s birth certificate on June 16, speculation on his citizenship has continued apace.” –

    http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/has_obamas_birth_certificate_been_disclosed.html

    also see

    http://www.jasonpye.com/blog/2008/02/more_on_mccains_citizenship.html

    June 16, 2008
    Q. – Has Obama’s birth certificate been disclosed?
    Is Barack Obama a “natural-born citizen”?”

  83. BuckeyeTexan Says:

    “From McCain’s June 16, 2009, Motion to Dismiss: “…Hamblin’s alleged injury is not redressable by the Court because Hamblin’s proposed remedy – money damages – is barred by McCain’s First Amendment right to run for office, regardless of his alleged ineligibility to hold that office.”

    Leo,

    Can we take the above statement to mean that someone who is (or may be) ineligible to hold an office has a right to run for it anyway?

    [Ed. You could run but you couldn’t use federal funds if you knew you were not eligible. That would be fraud. And there are election laws which cover that… some of these laws allow citizens to bring suit as well.

    But just running in itself would appear legal… but the state has responsibility for the ballot integrity and each state failed]

    Following that logic (incorrect as it may be), even if Obama *knew* he was ineligible to hold the office of POTUS, he still had a right to run for the office? What?! He has a right to waste state and federal resources to run for an office to which he is (or may be) ineligible? How can that be legal (or logical) by any stretch of the imagination?

    And if that is a valid legal assessment, could that have been a consideration of the SCOTUS in choosing not to hear eligibility cases regarding candidates? Could the SCOTUS be waiting for an eligibility case regarding an elected candidate (i.e. Obama)? Both Cort’s and your cases were ultimately concerning ineligible *candidates* admitted to the ballot by the respective Secretaries of State, correct?

    Just thinking about the implications of the above-referenced statement about McCain having a right to run for office irrespective of his eligibility status. Curious assertion if that’s what it really implies.

  84. Joe The Blogger Says:

    Leo,

    Failed again. The problem with this link is that if you click on it, it comes up, but you can’t navigate back to your blog. You have to exit completely and then come in again. However, if you copy the link and then paste it into your address bar and then click ‘go’, there is no problem navigating back to your webpage.

    http://www.jasonpye.com/blog/2008/02/more_on_mccains_citizenship.html

    Perhaps you can fix it. The page concerned proves Factcheck’s bad practice and it took me ages to find it.


  85. BuckeyeTexan Says:
    September 5, 2009 at 9:26 pm

    Thanks for anything you care to share and I understand if you choose not to comment at all.

    Since Texan’s tend to be a little slow, I’ll let you in on the secret.

    No comment is a comment. 🙂

  86. Leo,

    and all the intrested people working together to expose the fraud.
    this is from someones earlier reply. An examanation of certificates of birth
    showing how they we altered.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2136816/posts

  87. from above… [Ed. Interesting case.]

    The conclusion of dual citizen Burt Smith’s case mentioned above by song states…

    “In the defense industry, the security of classified information is entrusted to civilian workers who must be counted upon to safeguard it 24 hours a day. The Government is therefore appropriately concerned where reliable information indicates an Applicant for clearance may be subject to manipulation, duress, or divided allegiances due to his or her foreign preference. On a commonsense basis, these circumstances might easily contribute to a compromise of defense secrets through coercion, conflicting loyalties, or foreign sympathies.”

    http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/doha/industrial/02-21102.h1.html

    The government in this case concludes that on a “commonsense basis” Smith should not have access to classified information. I could not agree more. Where is this same common sense as it also applies to BHO’s background (or lack thereof)?

    [Ed. thank you for this link. good stuff.]

  88. [Ed. ATTENTION MISS TICKLY – see my comments in bold below]

    [Ed. Please quote what you are speaking of. I need an exact quote to understand what you are saying. Where does Hawaii say there was no transaction in 2007?]

    Leo,
    I have attempted to trace this for you. On Polarik on Tuesday, July 14, 2009 7:02:25 PM, see claim by DoH that NO 2007 COLB was issued to Barack Obama, when he contacted them. Next, see claim by Robert Farley, with the St. Petersberg Times (Pro-Obama), that , Okubo told Hollyfield that “a copy of the birth certificate was requested in June 2008,”. Then see Phil comment from right side of life, he asked if he could see the transaction for the 2007 COLB, the response was “not public information”.
    What we have here is a documented 2008 COLB release by the State of Hawaii, see Okubo comments. We also have a DENIAL of a 2007 COLB release, then a claim that it isn’t public information.

    [Ed. OK, they aren’t saying they don’t have the 2007 transaction. They are saying it isn’t “public information”. Parhaps they are parsing for a purpose, but this doesn’t establish that it doesn’t exist. You have to be accurate. Your statement that no 2007 transaction exists is not accurate. Perhaps it will prove to be accurate but you haven’t proved it based on this exchange.

    Perhaps Miss Tickly can help you discover this information.]

    I just wonder. Do you think Factcheck.org ever asked the DoH of Hawaii if they ever produced a 2007 COLB for Obama, that they photographed and placed on the internet? They claim to be non-partisan fact checking organization, they should be very clear on this, with records.
    In short, this combined with your recent debunking of Factcheck.org this is beyond damaging. In short, unless the State of Hawaii can confirm a release of a 2007 COLB, yes that means paid in full transaction, it never existed. People have been debating over a document, that simply doesn’t exist. I am not saying that Obama doesn’t have a COLB from Hawaii, I am just saying that what people have seen is NOT IT. This doesn’t make Obama ineligible either, but it clearly demonstrates a Conspiracy to hide the facts from the voters. Obama may actually be eligible, he may have two citizen parents, without the original information and corresponding records from colleges and passports, it is impossible to tell.
    I have no ‘theory’ per se about his eligibility, but I can think of many permutations. The United States of America needs discovery, the truth will free everyone…well except a few who have subverted it. I have no legal training, so forgive my poor use of language and research. I hope you have the ability to pursue this issue.

    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=6644
    Therefore, I decided to correspond with the folks in Hawaii to see if such a transaction was public information and could be known to have occurred. I sent an email to vr-info@doh.hawaii.gov, asking the following on July 2, 2009:
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I am writing to you today to find out information regarding the transaction that occurred on or about June 6, 2007 to procure Mr. Obama’s certification of live birth. Through much of the Internet-based discussion on his alleged ineligibility for the office of the presidency, I was not able to locate any information on the official transaction that produced the COLB.
    Is this information publicly available? If yes, what is the process by which I would need to go about obtaining this information? Is there a form that I would need to submit to retrieve this information?
    I am only interested in the details of the transaction concerning whomever requested Mr. Obama’s certification of live birth.
    Thank you ahead of time for any information that you can provide.
    Sincerely,
    -Phil
    Concerned Citizen from the great State of Georgia
    To which I received the following response later the same day:
    This is not public information.
    Aloha,
    kd
    Vital Statistics
    Office of Health Status Monitoring
    Hawai’i Department of Health
    1250 Punchbowl Street
    Honolulu, HI 96813

    Robert Farley, a staff writer from the St. Petersberg Times, wrote an essay entitled, “Obama’s birth certificate: Final chapter. This time we mean it!

    ……We all know Janice Okubo, don’t we? She’s that helpful Public Relations Officer (Communications Officer) at Hawaii’s DOH, who’s not exactly Hawaii’s answer to Google when it comes to all things COLB.

    When asked about Obama’s birth certificate, Okubo told Hollyfield that “a copy of the birth certificate was requested in June 2008,” but she wouldn’t specify by whom…..
    http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/
    Note link down from another website
    http://aconservativeedge.com/2009/07/15/
    Posted by Polarik on Tuesday, July 14, 2009 7:02:25 PM
    Today is July 14, and in the space of less than two months, Obama’s Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, has acknowledged, for a second time, that Obama had posted a copy of his Certification of Live Birth (COLB) on the Internet and one that Gibbs alleges is a real certificate sent by Hawaii.
    The big problem for Gibbs here, and for Obama, is that what was posted on the Internet and on Obama’s website, (which has now been scrubbed) is a fabricated and forged “scan image.” Furthermore, the document object shown in photos taken by Factcheck staffer, Jess Henig, and alleged to be the same document shown in the “scan image,” is also a fabricated forgery. I documented it all in my final report, Obama’s Born Conspiracy, and in my recent post, “Why Obama will never show his birth certificate.”
    But, the real killer of this birth certificate scam is that Hawaii never made a 2007 Certification of Live Birth for Obama, never issued a 2007 COLB for Obama, and never confirmed anything about this bogus 2007 COLB that Obama, his staff, and Factcheck have insisted is a real document.
    Then, I slipped in the the following question. I asked him if Janice Okubo had confirmed that his office produced a 2007 Certification of Live Birth, date-stamped June 6, 2007, with Obama’s birth information on it, and he quickly replied:
    “Absolutely not. No one in our office confirmed it.“
    That promptly ended the conversation as Dr. Onaka was not going to respond to any more questions from me. Since then, Hawaii has not answered anymore questions about Obama’s birth record from anyone.

  89. Sheikh yer Bu'Tay Says:

    “The only dumb question is the one you thought of but were too embarassed to ask.” I have found embracing my dumbness quite liberating.

    Leo, have you ever thought of running for office? We still elect judges in my state.

  90. Here’s the thing. It’s obvious that Obama isn’t afraid of the fact that his father was a Brit. He published it on his website. That particular issue, Barack had obviously been assured, will not come back to bite him in the @$$, probably because the courts had been bought off. So that isn’t the sine qua non of legal arguments against him, in my opinion.

    A bona fide birth certificate/registration of birth, on the other hand, could take Obama down, if the court would agree to look at it, or even if such a case could make it to the discovery phase, theoretically.

    So, shouldn’t certain people with brilliant legal minds be helping those who have what appears to be a pretty compelling document, or at least support their cause? The other route seems like a waste of time and effort, though it might draw much attention from the internets.

    As some might know, Lucas Smith has joined with Dr. Orly Taitz, and sworn that he has the Kenyan birth certificate of Barack Obama. Here are links to copies of the court documents, including the BC:

    Page 1 of suit: http://i871.photobucket.com/albums/ab273/xx44/court%20docs/lucas-smith-declaration2-621×1024.png

    Page 2 of suit: http://i871.photobucket.com/albums/ab273/xx44/court%20docs/lucas-smith-declaration-21-621×1024.png

    Kenyan birth certificate: http://i871.photobucket.com/albums/ab273/xx44/court%20docs/kenya-hospital-bc1-744×1024.jpg

  91. funny who would have guessed “Donofrio” had Scandanavian blood flowing in them there Latin blood veins!?

    Here is more proof in now a long gorwing list of compromised issues
    that are result of your exposure to this eligibility issue:

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=109041

    Others include:

    -Burress in his affavadit petition to Senate claiming “at least he (Burress) is a natural borne citizen” in his application process. Let’s not forget this one.
    -and the two military cases were orders were revoked to personnel to deploy to Afganistan.

    These need to be included as part of any suits ammended over time as more suspect cases arise.

  92. Since it is unlikely that President Obama will respond and speak to the people on this matter; and since it appears that the Supreme Court of the U.S. might only respond to citizens with “standing” on the Constitution that belongs to the people of the U.S. (perhaps only Senator John McCain, former Governor Sarah Palin and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton are the only ones with “standing” that can attest to being injured), maybe another approach is needed.

    Perhaps a series of debates among scholars at two or three key universities on the meaning of “natural born citizen” as referenced in Article 2 of the Constitution could be convened. Then at the conclusion, a campaign could be mounted by citizens to demand that Congress spell out the meaning of the term “natural born citizen” as used in Article 2 of the Constitution. At this time, Congress could also be asked whether or not the ruling in April 08 (Resolution 511), regarding the eligibility of Senator McCain, which found that since he was born to two parents who were both American citizens rendered him to be eligible to serve as President was a correct one.

    I believe a statement from Congress would settle the issue once and for all, and it would not have to involve President Obama until after the decision of Congress is secured. Certainly the Congress of the U.S. would have standing with the Supreme Court, and it could return to Congress the oversight that is being circumvented at present re the appointment of Czars and other personnel at the White House.

  93. Wanna know the diff between Leo and FactCheck? He’s professional.

  94. Ace said, “Do they have high school kids running that site?”

    imho!

  95. Thinking4Myself Says:

    Leo, I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the Internet. You are, however, Lawyer-in-Chief, so I ask you, is it possible that the following clause:

    U.S. Constitution Article 2, Section 1, Claus 6: In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, UNTIL THE DISABILITY BE REMOVED, OR A PRESIDENT SHALL BE ELECTED.

    could result in the office of POTUS “devolving” to a Republican president or a new election? I’ve seen so many trolls trying to scare people into thinking we’d have a Biden/Pelosi team in the White House. And that would put 92 yr old Sen. Robert Byrd in as backup, under the current rules of succession. Therefore, by implication, the trolls are saying we are better off with Obama, so we should sit down & shut up. But I’ve maintained that there is another/better possibility because of the clause above.

    I’m wondering if by “inability” & “disabilty” it could be interpreted to mean Obama’s ineligibilty &/or fraud and the Democratic Congress’ dereliction of their ultimate duty to vet their own candidate, then one by one, as the office “devolved” each of the Democrats would be eliminated because the “disabilty” cannot be “removed” from any of them. Therefore the office would “devolve… until the disabilty be removed” to the highest ranking Republican. In this case, would that be the House Minority Leader, John Boehner of Ohio? He’s not exactly a shabby choice for POTUS, imho. In the alternative, would a new election mean we’d have to operate with an interim government until that election could be (hurridly) held for POTUS?

    Of course, none of this matters if no one prevails in court or other pressure or possibly blackmail forces Obama’s “outing”. But I’m in a very hopeful mood today, due in large part to the resignation of one of Obama’s 34 Czars, Van Jones. The fact that the story of his radical communist & black nationalist ties was advanced solely through the tenacity of people like Glenn Beck, conservative blogs & brave citizens speaking up at townhall meetings, without a word by the “state-run-” media, and resulted in Jones being forced out is a powerful message to those in power. It is a real victory for “we the people”. Curiously, Jones’ resignation, which will be the only thing reported by msm, doesn’t mention any of his outrageous statements or affiliations, but blames a right-wing smear machine.

    We should now brace ourselves for a stepped-up counter response, by the administration. It will be cleverly disguised as new FCC “guidelines” and/or a push for local radio & tv stations to conform to new & impossible-to- meet “standards of diversity”. They will be accompanied by hefty fines which will serve to eliminate many of the programs relied upon for those who depend on their fair & balanced reporting. In other words, Obama’s version of “The Fairness Doctrine”, which was rightly removed when Ronald Reagan became President, will target Glenn Beck, Rush, websites like yours, Drudge, Gateway Pundit etc. But, the tide has turned, and if Obama’s government chooses to continue it’s current course, unchanged, it will do so at it’s peril.

    Thanks, in advance for your opinion on this & all the great work you’re doing, Leo. May the winds of righteousness continue to be at your back and may the tea always flow freely into your cup. Lol.

    [Ed. Analysis of the succession to POTUS will have to wait for another time. I am totally absorbed in the eligibility issue. We’ll have to cross that bridge another time.]

  96. […] Natural Born Citizen caught FactCheck! FACTCHECK.ORG CAPITULATES – Admits Error In Obama Kenyan Citizenship Analysis. […]

  97. Leo,

    I am trying to get my head around the opinion expressed by the three Appellate review judges in Craig v. United States which was issued on August 5, 2009:

    “We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.

    While the rights of citizenship of the native born derive from § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the rights of the naturalized citizen derive from satisfying, free of fraud, the requirements set by Congress, the latter, apart from the exception noted, “becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native.”

    for the purpose of using the finding to write my Senators and Representative a letter defining the legal significance of the opinion.

    The finding notes that there is a difference between the native born citizen derived from § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the natural born citizen in that only the natural born citizen is eligible to be President.

    What difference can possibly exist between a native born citizen, deriving their rights of citizenship from § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment as stated, and a natural born citizen that would make one a citizen and the other a natural born citizen eligible to be President?

    In the case of Obama’s birth there is no question, if he was born in Hawaii, that he was “native born” (note that all native born persons are not necessarily citizens), having been born on the soil of the United States to an American citizen mother. What would have made Obama a native born citizen at birth, the difference drawn by the Constitution and specifically identified in this opinion?

    I can find no answer but that Obama’s father would have had to be a citizen of the United States at the time of his birth which is undisputed that he was not!

    I spent over an hour with the campaign chairman of my State Representative in an effort to determine why my Representative did not stand up and object to Obama’s eligibility to serve as President. The campaign chairman stated that he had spent some time with the Representative discussing Obama’s eligibility and the Representative was reluctant to bring up the issue until there was a court case to that effect.

    I believe that is the position of other members of Congress which has kept them mute on the subject.

    As you stated, this opinion destroys any attempts by Obama supporters to utilize the Fourteenth Amendment to declare Obama a natural born citizen and eligible to serve as President.

    I continue to believe that the Fourteenth Amendment, based on the original intent of the word jurisdiction, results in a natural born citizen for any person born on US soil under the jurisdiction of the United States. No person born on US soil with any allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty is a citizen of the United States at birth but may become a naturalized citizen at the age of majority upon application and taking the required naturalization oath.

    What words can be constructed in a one page letter to Senators and Representatives that would provide them with the sound legal position, based on this case, that Obama is Constitutionally ineligible to serve as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the American Army as he is not a natural born citizen, the requirement of Art II of the Constitution.

    [Ed. Yes, Rusk provides that enlightening quote. There is a distinction between native born and natural born – they noted it.]

  98. Since Factcheck is part of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania shouldn’t the University of Pennsylvania and the state of Pennsylvania be held accountable for material incorrect and potentially damaging content published by Factcheck.org?

  99. Oversight Hearing on
    “Dual Citizenship, Birthright Citizenship, and the Meaning of Sovereignty”
    U.S. House of Representatives
    Committee on the Judiciary
    Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims
    September 29, 2005
    2141 Rayburn House Office Building
    Washington, D.

    http://www.thedustininmansociety.org/docs/born_in_the_usa_congressional_testimony_by_eastman.pdf

    [Ed. How interesting.]

  100. I have a legal question for Leo or anyone else….

    If an eligibility case manages to achieve standing, what will stop AG Holder from quashing any attempts at discovery by referencing Obama’s first presedential executive order (I forget the #) which i believe gives Holder the power to block any of Obama’s Personal records. i would appreciate any legal insights regarding this issue….

  101. Breaking

    Our employees at the DOJ have been busy working for the Userper in the White House…

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    SOUTHERN DIVISION
    CAPTAIN PAMELA BARNETT, et al., )
    )
    Plaintiffs, )
    )
    v. )
    )
    BARACK H. OBAMA, et al. )
    )
    Defendants. )
    )
    No. SACV 09-00082 DOC (ANx)
    DATE: October 5, 2009
    TIME: 8:30 a.m.
    CTRM: 9D
    Hon. David O. Carter
    (1) NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; AND
    (2) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

    Here’s the link to the just released filling for hearing in CA tomorow

    http://www.politico.com/static/PPM124_birthersdismissbrf.html

  102. BuckeyeTexan Says:

    Leo,

    The following is from a DOJ filing in the Taitz suit currently before Judge Carter. I’ve not seen the DOJ take this position before, have you?

    “It is clear, from the text of the Constitution, and the relevant statutory law implementing the Constitution’s textual commitments, that challenges to the qualifications of a candidate for President can, in the first instance, be presented to the voting public before the election, and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in the Congress,” Assistant United States Attorneys Roger West and David DeJute wrote. “Therefore, challenges such as those purportedly raised in this case are committed, under the Constitution, to the electors, and to the Legislative branch.”

    If this legal opinion is valid, then could that also be the reason why the SCOTUS has denied cert in the eligibility cases thus far? Maybe the SCOTUS believes that an eligibility case must be heard concerning a President-Elect rather than a candidate. (i.e. If a President-Elect shall have failed to qualify …)

    Very curious.

    [Ed. My case was brought before the election – before he was elected and before the electoral college met – thereofe the issue was a State law issue and the SCOTUS was not dealing with a “Constitutional” POTUS elect.]

  103. emcrouchon Says:

    Leo – your name is mentioned in the following section of The Obama File. thought you might find this interesting.

    Obama is having the DOJ get involved in this legal issue of the President’s eligibility. (Running out of money, maybe?).

    *******

    “The Justice Department is urging a federal court to toss out a lawsuit in which prominent attorney Orly Taitz, who is representing Ambassador Alan Keyes and 200 military members, is challenging Obama’s Constitutional qualifications to be president.”

    http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaLatest.htm

  104. How can an order from an unconstitutional usurper, be constitutional?

  105. Hi Leo,

    What are your thoughts on the involvement of DOJ attorneys in Ms. Taitz’s case before Judge David Carter? The DOJ attorneys are representing Obama, asking that the case be dismissed. Grazie

    [Ed. More on this to come…]

  106. What citizenship do the children of Ruth (she is American) and Obama Sr have? They divorced prior to his death, I understand.

  107. M. John Nevettie Says:

    Leo, I have been on unemployment since February 18th. I have told The Missouri Department of Labor and Industrial Relations Division of Employment Security I did not want the extra weekly $25.00 stimulus payment from the federal government. I stated this was an illegal stimulus plan put forth by Obama, an illegal president. I was told I was to get the money whether I wanted it or not. So, Leo will you represent me in that I’m being forced to take illegal money?

    [Ed. There’s no harm for standing purposes.]

  108. Very interesting Pelosi-certified docs at http://www.oilforimmigration.org Never read anywhere before that she had signed two of them–one with the reference of Obama and Biden being eligible to serve under the Constitution, and the other without it. The latter was stamped received by the SC Election Comm, the former was not. If you look at the signatures (especially the notary’s and how she signed the date), you’ll realize that they are two separate and distinct documents and not one pulled from the other. I am skeptical at times about the OFI website, but they have some items of real interest on there now.

  109. Leo:

    Going by Atty. M. Puzo’s lead article this morning (Tuesday, September 8, 2009 from http://www.puzo1.blogspot.com), I found myself wondering whether there is a Split in the Circuits regarding McCain’s eligibility to POTUS. I myself side with your analysis 100%–Panama John may be a full-fledged patriot and war hero, but having been born outside the U.S. (in a Colon, Panama hospital), he is no NBC.

    I’m also troubled by Mr. Puzo’s apparent belief (see below) that federal laws enacted after the ratification of the U.S. constitution can somehow add to or subtract from that category of citizens known as Natural Born Citizens, from which POTUS candidates are drawn. Absolute foolishness–he as well as anyone should know this is impossible. Ask Scalia: the original meaning of “natural born citizen” governs the question. The only way to change this is to pass a Constitutional Amendment or to hold a second CON-CON and change the constitution that way. The passage of ordinary US Code statutory law has no effect on the meaning of Constitutional terminology.

    Is it just me, or is this another example of someone we thought we could have faith in going ‘wobbly’, possibly at just the wrong time?

    ________________________

    Mr. Puzo analyzes McCain’s purported POTUS eligibility:

    “In this connection and as an aside which applies to the question of whether Senator McCain is an Article II “natural born Citizen,” it should be noted that according to Vattel, being physically born out of the country did not necessarily mean that one was not born “in the country.” Vattel explained that if a child was born “in the armies of the state,” that child was “reputed born in the country; for a citizen, who is absent with his family on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.” Vattel, Sec. 217. Since this child would have been born in the foreign “armies of the state,” he would normally not be granted citizenship in the country in which he was physically born. Additionally, the country on whose soil the child might be born might adhere to a jus sanguinis system of conferring citizenship (meaning that born on its soil alone would not confer citizenship and therefore allegiance and loyalty on the child). Being born under those conditions, this child would therefore be born with sole allegiance to the country of his parents and would qualify as a “natural born citizen” of that country.”

    Mr. Puzo’s analysis regarding the purported effect of after-the-fact (of Constitution ratification) federal laws:

    “In 1795 the Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 which removed the words “natural born” from the term “natural born citizen” and thereby just left “citizens” as the status to be given to children born out of the United States. The fact that the 1790 Act as written was short lived and was only retrospective shows that Congress just wanted to make certain persons born abroad during the early years of the Republic “natural born Citizen” so that they could be eligible to be President. This sort of special allowance was comparable to the grandfather clause of Article II which allowed a “citizen” to be President provided that he was such at the time of the adoption of the Constitution which the Framers in 1790 knew occurred in 1789. It seems that the Third Congress passed this amendment to the 1790 Act to clarify for those living at that time who was and who was not a “natural born Citizen” per the Framers intent at that time, since the 1790 Act had introduced confusion into that subject regarding the use of those special words as found in Article II. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 714 (1898) (Fuller, C.J., dissenting) (statute “passed out of abundant caution to obviate misunderstandings” about the citizenship status of foreign-born children of Americans). It is again important to note that George Washington was also President in 1795, making him aware of this change by the Third Congress. If he disagreed with the clarification and change in the wording in the new 1795 Act, he would have vetoed it. The 1790 and 1795 Acts are contemporaneous evidence of who the Framers meant to include as “natural born Citizens.” Pryor, The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty, 97 Yale L.J. 881 (1988).”
    ____________________

    Leo, do you agree with me that the foregoing are examples of very weak legal resoning?

    The reasoning is so weak, it seems to me, as to cause one to wonder whether someone has ‘gotten’ to Mr. Puzo…

    I further am unimpressed with Mr. Puzo’s decision to cite (completely uncritically) Ms. Pryor’s 1988 Yale Law Review article. As I’m sure you are aware, Ms. Pryor made exactly **zero** mention of Vattell or the Supreme Court case law that cited his 1757 The Law of Nations definition of indigines/naturels, despite the ease with which she could have come upon the important cases, cited, and then discussed them.

    Perhaps some consider Ms. Pryor’s article attractive because it was written and published well before Barack Obama’s meteoric rise in U.S. politics. I’m not in love with this idea, but I can at least understand why someone might latch onto it. To me, though, Ms. Pryor’s article fits into the longstanding (>100 years) tradition of trying to talk the U.S. out of it’s strong tradition of denying the office of POTUS to individuals with actual or potential split loyalty. Also, and FWIW, I took a look at Ms. Pryor’s political contribution history. I was not suprised to learn that she was a relatively early supporter of Obama’s presidential campaign (not that there’s anything wrong with that!).

    Publius

  110. Cat I Says:
    September 7, 2009 at 6:34 pm

    Hi Leo,

    What are your thoughts on the involvement of DOJ attorneys in Ms. Taitz’s case before Judge David Carter? The DOJ attorneys are representing Obama, asking that the case be dismissed. Grazie

    [Ed. More on this to come…]

    federal employees, including an illegal president, once employed, are defended by the DOJ

  111. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14

    14th ammendment debate in congress, image 2893

    See Sen. Johnsons comments, middle, last paragraph.

    Heck the whole thing is great reading, pages before and after this one.

  112. Thinking4Myself Says:

    As for obtaining Obama’s long form bc, available to family members only, I suggest that Dick Cheney or George W. Bush seek a copy of it.

    From Hawaii’s own health dept website:
    http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/elig_vrcc.html

    “Who is Eligible to Apply for Certified Copies of Vital Records?

    A certified copy of a vital record (birth, death, marriage, or divorce certificate) is issued only to an applicant who has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons are considered to have such an interest:

    …a person having a common ancestor with the registrant (e.g., a sibling, grandparent, aunt/uncle, or cousin)…”

    They are, afterall, a member of Obama’s family- very very distant cousins, as reported by Lynn Cheney during the election: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/regional/dissing_cousins_obama_cheney_bush_KJXdKMwZqBgHPdXXdGWnEP

    Dick Cheney’s been quite vocal, of late, about his dislike of Obama’s policies & he’s pretty ticked off about the DOJ investigating the CIA for “torturing” al Qaeda terrorists. In fact Cheney has come right out & said Obama is making this country less safe. Maybe he’s ready to do something that might rescue us by cutting short Mr. Obama’s I-HOPE-to-CHANGE-America-into-Honduras 4 year term. Unless, as you have said, Leo: there all on the same team…

    I’m don’t want to see like I’m focusing on the birth certificate to the exclusion of Obama’s own admission of dual citizenship at birth, but something has always jumped out at me about it. Since Obama has put his COLB forth as “proof” of his eligibilty (as a major distraction from the real issue) there is another “in-your-face” lie that debunks it: Obama’s half-sister, Maya Kassandra Soetoro, was born on August 15, 1970, in Jakarta, Indonesia. Their mother, Anna, registered her birth as “born in Honolulu” shortly after her birth, as well. Maya also has a Hawaiian COLB, and freely admits she was born in Indonesia so doesn’t that prove the COLB is useless as evidence of place of birth?

    Hawaiian statutes did not change between Obama’s birth in 1961 & Maya’s birth in 1970. You can see for yourself: http://mijgreb.blogtownhall.com/2009/02/05/exactly_what_kinds_of_birth_records_does_hawaii_provide.thtml

    So, Dick, if you come here to Leo’s cafe for some good tea and light reading (heh heh), do America a favor & get Obama’s bc. Afterward, come back & choose a cup of “Grand Legacy”. It’s on the house.

  113. Civis Naturaliter Natus Says:

    The Motion to Dismiss filed on Friday is in my opinion a Manifesto of Tyranny…

    http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/a-manifesto-of-tyranny/

  114. Leo:

    Going by Atty. M. Puzo’s lead article this morning (Tuesday, September 8, 2009 from http://www.puzo1.blogspot.com), I found myself wondering whether there is a Split in the Circuits regarding McCain’s eligibility to POTUS. I myself side with your analysis 100%–Panama John may be a full-fledged patriot and war hero, but having been born outside the U.S. (in a Colon, Panama hospital), he is no NBC.

    I’m also troubled by Mr. Puzo’s apparent belief (see below) that federal laws enacted after the ratification of the U.S. constitution can somehow add to or subtract from that category of citizens known as Natural Born Citizens, from which POTUS candidates are drawn. Absolute foolishness–he as well as anyone should know this is impossible. Ask Scalia: the original meaning of “natural born citizen” governs the question. The only way to change this is to pass a Constitutional Amendment or to hold a second CON-CON and change the constitution that way. The passage of ordinary US Code statutory law has no effect on the meaning of Constitutional terminology.

    Is it just me, or is this another example of someone we thought we could have faith in going ‘wobbly’, possibly at just the wrong time?

    ________________________

    Mr. Puzo analyzes McCain’s purported POTUS eligibility:

    “In this connection and as an aside which applies to the question of whether Senator McCain is an Article II “natural born Citizen,” it should be noted that according to Vattel, being physically born out of the country did not necessarily mean that one was not born “in the country.” Vattel explained that if a child was born “in the armies of the state,” that child was “reputed born in the country; for a citizen, who is absent with his family on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.” Vattel, Sec. 217. Since this child would have been born in the foreign “armies of the state,” he would normally not be granted citizenship in the country in which he was physically born. Additionally, the country on whose soil the child might be born might adhere to a jus sanguinis system of conferring citizenship (meaning that born on its soil alone would not confer citizenship and therefore allegiance and loyalty on the child). Being born under those conditions, this child would therefore be born with sole allegiance to the country of his parents and would qualify as a “natural born citizen” of that country.”

    Mr. Puzo’s analysis regarding the purported effect of after-the-fact (of Constitution ratification) federal laws:

    “In 1795 the Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 which removed the words “natural born” from the term “natural born citizen” and thereby just left “citizens” as the status to be given to children born out of the United States. The fact that the 1790 Act as written was short lived and was only retrospective shows that Congress just wanted to make certain persons born abroad during the early years of the Republic “natural born Citizen” so that they could be eligible to be President. This sort of special allowance was comparable to the grandfather clause of Article II which allowed a “citizen” to be President provided that he was such at the time of the adoption of the Constitution which the Framers in 1790 knew occurred in 1789. It seems that the Third Congress passed this amendment to the 1790 Act to clarify for those living at that time who was and who was not a “natural born Citizen” per the Framers intent at that time, since the 1790 Act had introduced confusion into that subject regarding the use of those special words as found in Article II. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 714 (1898) (Fuller, C.J., dissenting) (statute “passed out of abundant caution to obviate misunderstandings” about the citizenship status of foreign-born children of Americans). It is again important to note that George Washington was also President in 1795, making him aware of this change by the Third Congress. If he disagreed with the clarification and change in the wording in the new 1795 Act, he would have vetoed it. The 1790 and 1795 Acts are contemporaneous evidence of who the Framers meant to include as “natural born Citizens.” Pryor, The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty, 97 Yale L.J. 881 (1988).”
    ____________________

    Leo, do you agree with me that the foregoing are examples of very weak legal reasoning?

    The reasoning is so weak, it seems to me, as to cause one to wonder whether someone has ‘gotten’ to Mr. Puzo…

    I further am unimpressed with Mr. Puzo’s decision to cite (completely uncritically) Ms. Pryor’s 1988 Yale Law Review article. As I’m sure you are aware, Ms. Pryor made exactly **zero** mention of Vattell or the Supreme Court case law that cited his 1757 The Law of Nations definition of indigines/naturels, despite the ease with which she could have come upon the important cases, cited, and then discussed them.

    Perhaps some consider Ms. Pryor’s article attractive because it was written and published well before Barack Obama’s meteoric rise in U.S. politics. I’m not in love with this idea, but I can at least understand why someone might latch onto it. To me, though, Ms. Pryor’s article fits into the longstanding (>100 years) tradition of trying to talk the U.S. out of it’s strong tradition of denying the office of POTUS to individuals with actual or potential split loyalty. Also, and FWIW, I took a look at Ms. Pryor’s political contribution history. I was not suprised to learn that she was a relatively early supporter of Obama’s presidential campaign (not that there’s anything wrong with that!).

    Publius

  115. Amazing thing – 83% of Americans (Rassmussen Reports) think that “proof of citizenship” should be required to receive health care. Yet they don’t even know the status of the current President’s citizenship.

    Leo – thanks for keeping us focused and educateing us the importance of being an A2S1C5. You have equiped us to be “well armed” by being “well informed”. Thank You!

  116. “BuckeyeTexan Says:
    September 6, 2009 at 12:13 am

    “From McCain’s June 16, 2009, Motion to Dismiss: “…Hamblin’s alleged injury is not redressable by the Court because Hamblin’s proposed remedy – money damages – is barred by McCain’s First Amendment right to run for office, regardless of his alleged ineligibility to hold that office.”

    Leo,

    Can we take the above statement to mean that someone who is (or may be) ineligible to hold an office has a right to run for it anyway?

    [Ed. You could run but you couldn’t use federal funds if you knew you were not eligible. That would be fraud. And there are election laws which cover that… some of these laws allow citizens to bring suit as well.

    But just running in itself would appear legal… but the state has responsibility for the ballot integrity and each state failed]”

    Remember that Obama stated that he would take federal funds for his campaign and then surprised everyone by NOT taking them!

  117. In the minds of the framers of the Constitution an immutable requirement of natural born citizen is birth to US citizens (John Jay’s letter to Washington; Naturalization Act of 1790). There is no authoritative discussion of natural born citizen that does not include the parental nationality requirement (Minor v Happerset). Some argue that birth abroad is not disqualifying. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

  118. David aka monkeytrots Says:

    Leo – small grammar update:

    There exists multiple legal mechanisms

    should be

    There exist multiple legal mechanisms

    Non Carborundum Illegitimae, Leo. *w*

    [Ed. Nice one… will fix it.]

  119. Great job Leo! I’m still with you on this 100%.

  120. Leo,
    The Master Nationality Rule that you posted today in the comments to this article deserves to be a Page 1 posting. Please expand it if needed and post it to the Front Page of your blog. Many people probably do not read the comments, or perhaps not all of them.

    Assume that Obama is still a British Citizen (or Subject). What I read the Master Nationality Rule to mean is that while Obama is in the US, then the Brits could not lay a claim on him. However, I also read that while Obama is in Great Britain, the US cannot offer him protection from British laws or actions!!!

    Obama may or may not have citizenships in Britain, Kenya or Indonesia. If he still has citizenships in any of those countries, then the US could not offer him any protection from actions of those countries (in which he still has citizenship).

    Your point that Obama needs to immediately renounce all prior allegiances to all prior countries (in which he has had citizenship) is absolutely correct!

    This is a major find and needs to be a front page topic.

    ————————————————–
    Attention Parents: Teach your children to revere the Constitution of the United States and to revere the Great Patriots who have defended the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic: Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, our Armed Forces of all generations, Leo Donofrio, and other unnamed Patriots of Today. The fight to save our Country from domestic enemies who would finish the destruction of the Constitution continues today.

  121. Leo,
    A posting from Scott to this page of your blog, provided a link to the testimony of Dr. John Eastman to the House Judiciary Oversight Hearing on “Dual Citizenship, Birthright Citizenship and the Meaning of Sovereignity”. The title of Dr. Eastman’s testimony was “Born in the USA? Rethinking Birthright Citizenship in the Wake of 09/11”. The link to the testimony is:

    http://www.thedustininmansociety.org/docs/born_in_the_usa_congressional_testimony_by_eastman.pdf

    This is another extraordinary find and I think this one is also deserving of Front Page analysis by you. Eastman does an in-depth analysis of the ‘jurisdiction’ clause of the 14th Amendment.

    Here is one of the crucial quotes:
    “As an original matter, mere birth on U.S. soil was insufficient to confer citizenship as a matter of constitutional right. Rather, birth, together with a person being subject to the complete and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States (i.e., not owing allegiance to another sovereign) was the constitutional mandate, …”

    Here are my questions: Ignoring Wong Kim Ark, which Eastman claims is faulty, does not the original intent of the 14th Amendment’s “complete, exclusive jurisdiction” along with “not owing allegiance” imply that the intent of 14th Amendment was to prohibit birthright citizenship for anyone with a foreign allegiance? If the 14th Amendment were interpreted according to its original intent, then would not a 14th Amendment citizen also be a “natural born citizen”? If not, can you provide an example of a 14th Amendment (interpreted by its original intent) citizen who would not be a “natural born citizen”?

    Would Dr. Eastman be an ally in your efforts?

    [Ed. I encourage everyone to read the link provided. Wong Kim Ark messed things up – that’s true, but only as to the analysis of who is a citizen. As to nbc, Wong Kim Ark supports our position that a a native born child of an alien is not natural born.]

  122. JimA wrote:

    does not the original intent of the 14th Amendment’s “complete, exclusive jurisdiction” along with “not owing allegiance” imply that the intent of 14th Amendment was to prohibit birthright citizenship for anyone with a foreign allegiance? If the 14th Amendment were interpreted according to its original intent, then would not a 14th Amendment citizen also be a “natural born citizen”?

    I myself have posted this question here and on other blogs since the whole ineligibility discussions began in 2008. And there are moments where I still think there might be a problem here. But… there is a but: Since the ruling in Wong Kim Ark we know for sure that not all 14th Amendment citizens are natural born. However, the question must then be: What was before Wong Kim Ark? Let’s quote Marbury v. Madison again:

    It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.

    So we are not allowed not presume that the 14th Amendment renders the NBC part of the constitution to be without effect. It’s an inadmissable argument. Furthermore, SCOTUS has stated that there is no definition of NBC in the Constitution. Wouldn’t they have stated otherwise, if the 14th Amendment defined NBC? But what’s with the statement in Marbury v. Madison where it says that “such a construction is inadmissable, unless the words require it“? Does the 14th Amendment require to make the argument you made above? Let’s look at the text of the amendment:

    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.

    We see clearly that born and naturalized citizens are not treated separately. I’m not a constitutional scholar, but to my mind, the fact that born citizens and naturalized citizens are named in one sentence in the same section, means that the 14th Amendment is autonomous and has no effect (real or hypothetical) on the original constitution and NBC.

  123. Leo,
    I may have figured out the answer to my own question, perhaps providing clarity to both Joss Brown and myself.

    The final question of my 14th Amendment questions was: … can you provide an example of a 14th Amendment (interpreted by its original intent) citizen who would not be a “natural born citizen”?

    We have all known that the original purpose of the 14th Amendment was to provide citizenship to the former slaves. However, Eastman goes further: “To counteract the Supreme Court’s decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford denying citizenship not just to Dred Scott, a slave, but to all African-Americans, whether slave or free, the Congress proposed and the states ratified the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, …”

    It seems to me that any/all of the African-Americans granted citizenship by the 14th Amendment are such examples. They were born on US soil. However, whether slave or free, their parents were not US citizens. Since their parents were not US citizens, they would not have been NBC’s.

    I haven’t resolved in my mind the issue of “foreign allegiances” for slaves ripped from their natural homeland and brought to the US, but I do know that the 14th Amendment was written to confer citizenship on that whole class of non-citizens (at the time). The language chosen by the authors was considered sufficient for that purpose, including their original intent where jurisdiction meant “complete, exclusive jurisdiction” along with “not owing allegiance”. They felt that African-Americans, slave or free, satisfied their “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requirement.

    Best regards, JimA

  124. Sheikh yer Bu'Tay Says:

    Hey, about the photo. You say you are retired? Man, you look young for a retiree! You must have been a damn good lawyer to retire so soon. I was expecting some old dude!

    [Ed. My law license is not retired. I reactivated it. Thanks for the vibes.]

  125. Sheikh yer Bu'Tay Says:

    John M. Nevettie said: “I was told I was to get the money wether I wanted it or not.” Ah, therein lies the new style of enslavement of the American People: Compelled Benefit.

    Americans are forced to accept benefits from their government even when they don’t want them. And the price for the compelled benefit? Liberty and property.

    Public Option Obamacare is just the latest compelled benefit to be foisted upon the American people.

  126. NH SECRETARY OF STATE AGREES TO INVESTIGATE – NH Rep. Rappaport Requests Investigation of Obama’s Eligibility

    Source: http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/09/12/nh-rep-rappaport-requests-investigation-of-obamas-eligibility/

    Based on the fraudulent election documents found by JB Williams at: The Mistake, The Evidence, Obama is NOT a constitutional president

    Any merit to this?

    [Ed. Rep. Rappaport has spoken in comments for this post and stated that all eligibility issues will be investigated as to Obama…]

  127. […] indeed, especially in light ofthis even more important issue, which has little to do with Obama’s birth […]

  128. […] But FactCheck.org made an error in that statement… an error that Leo Donofrio found and forced the….  […]

  129. FactCheck only confuses.

    RE: Born in the U.S.A.?
    RE: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

    Reply:
    Yes, so what if you can get a US State Department passport, good for international travel, using the Hawaii COLB? But, the passport only identifies the bearer as a US citizen, subject to the US Constitution, and all laws and treaties there under.

    However, neither the Hawaii COLB, nor a passport based on it, can be used to differentiate between a native citizen, a natural born citizen, or a naturalized citizen.

    Only on examination of the vital statistic record(s), and/or a certified copy of the vital statistic record(s), can a determination of the category of citizenship be ascertained.

    But, the question remains, what vital statistic records or certified documents were used by the Democratic National Committee to vet Barack Obama for the office of POTUS?

    And what documents did the government of Hawaii referencing when they produced the BHO COLB shown on FactCheck.org?

    [ed. Under UIPA 92F-12(15) we are entitled to have those records.]

    For YouTube
    “You can get a US passport, using the HI COLB. A passport only identifies the bearer as a US citizen, subject to the US Constitution, and treaties there under. Neither the HI COLB, nor a passport based on it, can be used to differentiate between a native citizen, a natural born citizen, or a naturalized citizen. Only on examination of the vital statistic record(s),
    and/or a certified copy of the vital statistic record(s), can a determination of the category of citizenship be ascertained.”

  130. CFRs I found interesting.

    08CFR320.1 – What definitions are used in this part
    08CFR320.2 – Who is eligible for citizenship
    08CFR322.1 – What are the definitions used in this part
    08CFR322.2 – Who is eligible for citizenship
    22CFR51 – Burden of proof
    22CFR51.42 – Persons born in USA applying for first passport
    32CFR154 – PART 154_DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PERSONNEL SECURITY PROGRAM REGULATION

    42CFR436.407 – Types of acceptable documentary evidence of citizenship

  131. Is it possible, per 22CFR51.42(b), that if BHO has a US passport which was based on the HI COLB, that COLB could NOT be referenced for a US passport, since the HI COLB was issued on Jun 6 2007, 43 years after BHO’s 5th birthday?

    22CFR51.42]

    [Page 242]

    TITLE 22–FOREIGN RELATIONS

    CHAPTER I–DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    PART 51_PASSPORTS–Table of Contents

    Subpart C_Evidence of U.S. Citizenship or Nationality

    Sec. 51.42 Persons born in the United States applying for a passport for the first time.

    (a) Primary evidence of birth in the United States. A person born in
    the United States generally must submit a birth certificate. The birth
    certificate must show the full name of the applicant, the applicant’s
    place and date of birth, the full name of the parent(s), and must be
    signed by the official custodian of birth records, bear the seal of the
    issuing office, and show a filing date within one year of the date of
    birth.
    (b) Secondary evidence of birth in the United States. If the
    applicant cannot submit a birth certificate that meets the requirement
    of paragraph (a) of this section, he or she must submit secondary
    evidence sufficient to establish to the satisfaction of the Department
    that he or she was born in the United States. Secondary evidence
    includes but is not limited to hospital birth certificates, baptismal
    certificates, medical and school records, certificates of circumcision,
    other documentary evidence created shortly after birth but generally not
    more than 5 years after birth, and/or affidavits of persons having
    personal knowledge of the facts of the birth.

  132. […] half-cocked. No less than the liberal bible Factcheck.org has, for example, twice been forced to capitulate to him. Whatever you think of Donofrio, he’s thought this subject into the […]

  133. […] key aspect of that report was false and eventually corrected by Factcheck who cited this blog’s report and analysis in their mea culpa. Please also note their second mea culpa to this […]

  134. […] key aspect of that report was false and eventually corrected by Factcheck who cited this blog’s report and analysis in their mea culpa.  Please also note their second mea culpa to this […]

  135. […] and a British colonial subject who gave his Kenyan citizenship to his son. In fact, by pro-Obama FactCheck.org’s own admission, Obama was a Kenyan citizen until his Kenyan citizenship expired on August 4, 1984 after Obama […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: