IRLI Got Some ‘Splainin To Do.

UPDATE 2: 4:40 PM March 18, 2011: This issue is the top story at American Thinker right now with a link and hat tip to this blog.  The article, “Obama’s Puddles”, was written by longtime reader Sallyven.  Thanks to her and AT for the excellent work.

UPDATE: 4:02 PM  March 18, 2011Patrick J. Charles misquoted Bingham again in the BYU Journal of Public Law back in June 2010.  It’s the same exact misquote which has the words “of parents” omitted from Bingham’s statement on the floor of the House.  Not cool.


Last week, a reader of this blog tipped me off to an incredible misquote of Representative John Bingham which appears in an amicus brief filed with the US Supreme Court by the Immigration Reform Law Institute – aka IRLI – for the Flores-Villar case.  Here is that tip in full:

“Sallyven Says:
March 9, 2011 at 4:54 PM e

In the Flores-Villar citizenship case currently being decided by SCOTUS, the Immigration Reform Law Institute submitted an amicus brief which included the Bingham quote from the 37 Congressional Globe. On page 34 of the brief, it includes the same section you quoted, indented and appearing to be the complete word-for-word quote, although the critical words: “of parents” are missing. More scrubbing?

The comment was in response to articles I wrote – one which argued that the House of Representatives definition of “natural born citizen” requires a person to be born in the US to “parents” who are citizens – and the other highlighting the scrubbing of a Michigan Law Review article by a well known law professor which stated the same, but then was changed after the dual citizen issue began to haunt Obama.

My article concerning Rep. Bingham (aka father of the 14th Amendment) highlighted three statements made on the floor of the House which were not challenged by other Representatives.  One of the Bingham quotes from 1862 was this:

“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.(Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))

But the amicus brief filed by IRLI misquotes Bingham as follows:

The words “of parents” are mysteriously missing from the quote.  I held back on posting Sallyven’s comment until today because I wanted to contact IRLI and question them about the error.

I immediately phoned their office and was later contacted by a staff attorney (who shall remain nameless).  The staff attorney and I had a long conversation.  The relevant facts I need to relay are thus:

1. IRLI admitted the misquote after my call and then contacted the Supreme Court to inform them, but last I spoke to the staff attorney no supplemental brief correcting the quote had been submitted.

2. While the brief bears the name of Michael Hethmon, Esq., it was actually written by Patrick J. Charles.   Mr. Charles operates the Charles Law and History Blog.  Mr. Charles was made aware of the misquote by the staff attorney.  But as of this morning, despite his blog having one article entitled, “Representative Sandy Adams and Revisionist Founding Era History“, Mr. Charles has not addressed the misquote at his blog.

3. IRLI felt that even though the quote was incorrect, it did not change their position and therefore the misquote was not important in context.

I explained to the staff attorney that this misquote was very problematic to me and the readers of my blog since this “of parents” issue is the core topic of my blog.  I directed him to my blog.  At this point, I was prepared to let the issue go since I had been informed that the Supreme Court would be properly notified.   Although the misquote seemed a bit too “accidental”, I had nothing else to go on.  But after the staff attorney went to my blog, he suddenly recalled a message he received about this blog a couple of weeks ago.  I was then informed that…


Remember my report on Arizona Senate Bill 1308?  That’s the compact between numerous states which slyly defines “natural born citizen” as a person born in the US to one citizen parent.

Well hey now.  What have we here?  The same people who misquoted Bingham, are responsible for sanitizing Obama’s eligibility.

The staff attorney was suddenly on the receiving end of… shall we say, many many difficult questions.  To his credit, he tried to defend the position of the compact as not having any direct legal effect on Article 2 Section 1.  I was informed that the compact was not intended to help Obama or to change the Constitution as to eligibility.  Obviously, that would take an amendment.  But the compact is a pseudo amendment in that it includes a bunch of states and it must be approved by Congress.

Should these compact bills pass, the public would not be able to tell the difference.  Intense damage would be done to the legal argument that a person not born of citizen parents isn’t eligible to be President.

I explained all of this to the staff attorney, and he agreed to send an email out to his superiors.

He continued to assure me that the words “natural born citizen” in Article I of the compact were only there to distinguish between “born citizens” and “naturalized citizens”.  I told him that they could have accomplished the same goal by deleting the word “natural” and just using “born citizens”.  I also told him that his superiors – should they truly care for the Constitution – must delete the word “natural”.  He told me that it wasn’t up to them.  It was up to each state.

He agreed that the compact could be changed, but that the states would have to agree on it.  He also told me that IRLI could suggest such a change.

The next day we had a similar conversation and while we were speaking he sent out a second email to his superiors on this issue.  At this point, despite my belief the staff attorney was not in on anything clandestine, I felt there was something rotten in Denmark.

The staff attorney promised to get back to me, but he didn’t.  Yesterday marked a week with no response.  I phoned him yesterday but didn’t receive a call back.

Something is very shady about this situation.  The misquote combined with the compact emits a dangerous radiation.  This radiation is covering our nation and it’s a symptom of disease.  The country is dying.  It is being killed from within.  If IRLI is not part of the disease, they should come forward and make both issues right.

If we accept that a person born with dual allegiance can be President, we are opening the White House to the potential children of despots who hate this nation.  Preventing this kind of foreign influence was the “strong check” John Jay warned George Washington of all those years ago when he introduced the “natural born citizen” requirement for POTUS.

by Leo Donofrio, Esq.

76 Responses to “IRLI Got Some ‘Splainin To Do.”

  1. this isnt a mistake…its not a mistake to omit 2 words like that…that are the crux of the entire issue about natural born citizenship…and have that omission passed to the legislatures of several states..

    i consider this type of behavior intentional fraud…to even consider this a mistake…is naive

  2. Rewriting quotes and then sending them to the supreme court.

    You are right. The country is lost.

    Half the country is actively trying to destroy the country. Another quarter doesn’t care, and only about one quarter do care and can do nothing about it, seeing as how the law enforcement mechanisms of the US are on the side of the destroyers.

    The signal has already been given by the US Justice dept that one side can come to the polling places with billy clubs if they want to and nothing will be done about it.

    Toast. Toast I tell you.

  3. did some digging…IRLI is FAIR…

    this is about fair;

    the core purpose of this network/organization is to undermine, not promote, the constitution…and in principal…representing itself as a protector of the NBC clause if a direct contradiction of its foundation principals

  4. borderraven Says:


    Provoking thoughts …

    With conception being more related to citizenship than birth, then is it more proper to say, “conceived of and born to”?

    A US citizen or Natural-born US Citizen, can be conceived out of wedlock and born in wedlock, but marital status is no bar to citizenship, but parental nationality is.

    Should marital status regulate Natural-born Citizenship?

  5. People are now educated and moving beyond jus soli and focusing on just sanguinis. And the cloakers within the administration know it. So they are scrubbing our laws off the web and right out from under us to try to avoid the the undeniable issue of jus sanguinis. The good news is that through your efforts you have killed Bigfoot and put the focus where it should be.

  6. Leo

    Can you send an amicus brief fixing the problem? or some other note directly?

    This should not be allowed to stand. This is obvious attempt to subvert the Constitution. This was no accident. It was on purpose.

  7. Explosive stuff. Someday somebody’s going to start sniffing around, and this blog is going to give them the head start they need to unravel this issue. At the very least, the corruption is being documented. It’s unreal that they would leave out those particular words – indefensible.

  8. Leo,

    Is there anything we as concerned citizens can do to bring this blatant misquotation of Bingham to the attention of SCOTUS? I’m hoppin’ mad at the moment, and want to get my hands a little dirty…

    ed. see the update above, Patrick Charles also misquoted Bingham in a law review article for BYU. – leo

  9. KenDunbar Says:

    Absolutely amazing.

    The fix is in. STILL in, I should say, and with more players IN the fixing.

  10. The unnamed attorney at IRLI probably was told to “stop talking.” He already gave you too much evidence. But what to do with it, Leo. As you said, “the country is dying..from within.”

  11. Leo Donofrio and the NBC issue has them by the short and curlies and they know it….Their shenanigans never seem to end….They’re getting desperate….Stay on their heels and don’t let ’em get away with it, Leo.

    Good work!

    ed. I do not concur in your optimism. – leo

  12. GratefulForLeo Says:

    Another revealing discovery Leo. The orders are obviously coming from the top, silencing the staff attorneys.

    The requirements of Article II presidential eligibility are being propagandized everywhere. Below are links that evidence an insidious, possibly concerted, effort to substitute the improper term “native born” or “citizen” for the proper term “natural born” in such places as official Secretary of State election websites, grade school and community college education materials, internet information websites, and legislation.

    Secretary of State – Election Websites
    Washington State – uses the term “native born”
    New York State – uses the term “citizen”

    School Study Resources

    This cached page shows the html version of a powerpoint presentation that I’ve seen at several grade school websites. I don’t know who produced the powerpoint.
    Here’s another school with the powerpoint version.

    Community Colleges

    General Online Answer Websites

    Then there are our legislators, who are well aware of the significance of “natural born” but pretend to constituents that there is no significance to Obama’s dual citizenship and father’s non-citizenship.

    S-511 Resolution Recognizing John McCain as a natural born citizen – unanimously approved

    “Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment” (nicknamed the Arnold Schwarzenegger Amendment)
    – Joint amendment on eligibility criteria for President
    – foreign-born naturalized citizen for 20 years, possibly combined with eliminating 2-term limit on presidency
    – hearings were held as early as 2000, introduced mid-2003

    SENATE – S.J. Res. 15 Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) Chairman Senate Judiciary Committee
    HOUSE – H.J. Res. 59 Vic Snyder (D-AR)
    – foreign-born naturalized citizen for 35 years
    – Co-sponsors included:

    John Conyers (D-MI)
    Rep. William Delahunt (D-MA)
    Barney Frank (D-MA)
    Darrell Issa (R-CA)
    Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT)
    Rep. Ray LaHood (R-IL)

  13. Leo,

    Can ANYONE make SCOTUS aware of the scrubbing of “parents” from Bingham’s statement? The Constitution of our beloved America is being undermined by an insidious corruption of the legal system which is covering for a fraud whose stealth agenda is to destroy our nation piece by piece. Is there no prophet in all the land to right an injustice?

  14. witch_wyzwurd Says:

    Leo, thank you for being a messenger of Truth.

    Thanks to all those who have contributed articles and data to your site, which has allowed me to understand my environment better.

    Thanks to all those who have submitted comments, providing deeper insight and arguments for or against your articles; they have helped push the boundaries further.

    No thanks to the truly dumb people who don’t support the truth. Yes, you are stupid. And, no, you’re not funny. Change, do the right thing, because it’s time for you to be removed from society.

  15. constitutionallyspeaking Says:

    Just got off the phone with Sen. Thune’s office and thus will wait patiently for my reply on Monday in which they assure me that they will have an answer.

    My question to him, as he is a lawyer & extremely familiar with the writing of laws was:

    I am calling in regards to a question I have pertaining to how laws are written and how specific clauses within them are to be interpreted when there is no clarification in the definitions provided by the US code. The specific law I have a question on is the 14th Amendment. Our country is in dire straights financially and the influx of illegals having babies, which I call anchor babies, is costing this nation’s tax payers billions of dollars a year, thereby creating an undue burden on us in a time when the cost of living is already creating extra financial burdens due to Congressional overstepping & lack of oversight of the law.

    So, my specific question is, can the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” mean one thing for persons born and another for persons naturalized without it specifically seperating the two in the initial language of the bill? If it does not, then that would mean that either there is no constitutional provision for anchor babies aka birthright citizenship for children born to parents in which one or more is an alien or that the oaths that immigrants must take renouncing any and all foreign allegiances is wholly unconstitutional and the US State Dept must immediately cease and desist in requiring it. If it is as some claim, that mere birth alone creates citizens, then it would also leave the Expatriation Act of 1868 formally known as “An Act concerning the Rights of American Citizens in foreign States” completely unconstitutional and thereby creating complete chaos of the laws of nations not to mention the treaties signed by our government from its founding. The Expatriation Act of 1868, known as the sister act to the 14th Amendment, is still in force today as part of Title 8, while some parts of it were transferred under Foreign Affairs. This law is the basis for the renunciation oath that all immigrants must take and is the law which gives Congress the right & authority to rebuke a naturalized citizen’s US citizenship status & have that person deported for “bad behavior”. It is also the law that states that dual allegiance is not now nor ever has been part of our legal system. The Act states: “whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendents, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed” and then goes on to declare ” is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government”.

    From all the research into the congressional archives & past legislation that I have done from our founding to the present, and all the historical evidence that I have acquired, it is my conclusion that “subject to the jurisdiction” as it is written into the law can not suppose to repudiate itself nor are laws to be made that create redundancy. Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc., 513 U.S. 561, 562 (1995). I would like to hear how Sen. Thune, being a lawyer & writer/author of our laws can suppose a phrase mean two different things in the same law without specifically addressing them seperately?

    Thank you for your time.

    Now, I specifically did not attempt a conversation regarding presidential qualifications as I have been down that road with them and gotten no where. I decided to take task at a specisic critical issue facing our country today & an issue that has legisaltion in the works but can yeild the same results. I’ll be calling them back on Monday for my answer as Sen Thune will be back in the state tomorrow, as he is every Friday unless Congress is still in session. I also find I get much better results working with the local staff than I do with his “form letter writers” in DC.

  16. I don’t understand this argument about natural born at all. George Washington’s parents were both born in Virginia, but second VP and third president Thomas Jefferson’s mother was born in England — wouldn’t Washington have been upset about that?

    Indeed, Obama is the SEVENTH U.S. President with a foreign-born parent.

    Andrew Jackson was the child of two Irish immigrants. James Buchanan and Chester Arthur both had Irish fathers. Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Hoover had mothers from England and Canada, respectively.

    Obama’s case is not a new phenomenon. This rationale for illegitimacy is groundless.

    Please try to be educated about the facts of what I publish here. I have never stated that it matters where the President’s parents are from. Below is the same response I laid out for your similar question in another post.

    you are reading propaganda. Chester Arthur lied to protect his eligibility and it wasn’t discovered until 2008 – by this blog – that his father was not naturalized until 14 years after he was born. Other than Arthur, every other President was either eligible due to the Grandfather clause of A2 S1, like Jefferson ….or, like Hoover, his parents were US citizens when he was born. Those are facts. It doesn’t matter where your parents are from… it only matters whether they were US citizens when you were born. People are trying to spin your mind into thinking our position is concerned with the issue of where the parents are “from”. FALSE – if the parents were US citizens when the child was born, the child is eligible for POTUS. Chester Arthur was a liar and he actively concealed his heritage through lies issued to various newspapers and such lies threw the trail off of his ineligibility. – leo

  17. Philip N. Says:


    You should see:

    State Legislators for Legal Immigration

    They not only get Representative John Bingham’s ‘of parents’ statement correct they go on to list:

    “IRLI supported this historic SLLI initiative because we saw a critical need to bring elected state leaders from across the nation together with legal specialists in the Constitutional principles of immigration law,” said IRLI Executive Director Michael Hethmon.

    Arizona State Senate President Russell Pearce, a national leader on the issue of birthright citizenship was unable to attend the press conference due to state business, stated that, “The law is clear, the history is clear, the 14th Amendment is clear; natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens, for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country,” said Pearce.

    “Today we are here in Washington D.C. to serve Congress with notice that both the U.S. Constitution and the federal government were created by the states,” said Metcalfe. “Just like any other national policy, America’s immigration laws must protect the lives, liberty and property of American citizens, rather than foreign invaders.”

    Arizona State Senate President Russell Pearce, a national leader on the issue of birthright citizenship was unable to attend the press conference due to state business, stated that, “The law is clear, the history is clear, the 14th Amendment is clear; natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens, for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country,” said Pearce.

    “Today we are here in Washington D.C. to serve Congress with notice that both the U.S. Constitution and the federal government were created by the states,” said Metcalfe. “Just like any other national policy, America’s immigration laws must protect the lives, liberty and property of American citizens, rather than foreign invaders.” -Pennsylvania State Representative and State Legislators for Legal Immigration (SLLI) founder Daryl Metcalfe (R-Butler County)

    Arizona State Senate President Russell Pearce and Pennsylvania State Representative Daryl Metcalfe Got Some ‘Splainin To Do.

  18. constitutionallyspeaking Says:

    Here is my summation of the 14th

    “Subject to the Jurisdiction”: You Can’t Have It Both Ways

  19. Given the surgical-like excision of the “offending” text, there’s no way that was a simple omission!

    These guys are crooks and liars, through and through.


  20. Even here in the State of Idaho the eligibility issue is ignored or scoffed at by politicians. I asked the question of a couple of Republicans at an event just prior to the 2008 election; they just shook their heads. They knew something was up – but as Leo has eloquently displayed this issue is signifcant and I believe beyond what we really know. After checking out the link supplied by JS (to the and seeing the number of Leftist groups listed I was appalled. I try to keep a balance between optimism and healthy pessimism/skepticism but it is increasingly difficult to keep the pessimism/skepticism “healthy”…….

    Knowing the truth, if I do nothing I am complicit – so onward I trudge. I have contacted by congressmen (local and Federal) and the SOS – next step go through the Idaho Constitution and push my leaders to “follow the law”.

    Leo – thank you so much for providing the FACTS, your research and articles are insightful and invaluable. I ask everyone to share their knowledge as much as possible (you never know who you will impact) and it could make a difference.

  21. Researcher Says:

    It is obvious that Mr. Charles and the IRLI give great weight to the statements of Rep. Bingham.

    Will they now attempt to assassinate the character of Rep. Bingham when he is correctly quoted? Will they join us in recognizing that Obama is not a natural-born citizen?

    Those are questions that need to be asked of Mr. Charles, the IRLI, and the BYU Journal of Law (which published Mr. Charles’ article in Volume 25).

  22. Leo,
    Speaking of the 14th amendment, check out how the Obama campaign initially claimed:

    The truth about Barack’s birth certificate

    Obama Is Not a Natural Born Citizen

    Senator Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, after it became a state on August 21st, 1959. Obama became a citizen at birth under the first section of the 14th 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    But then they scrubbed that text and replaced it with this:

    The Truth About Barack’s Birth Certificate

    Smears claiming Barack Obama doesn’t have a birth certificate aren’t actually about that piece of paper — they’re about manipulating people into thinking Barack is not an American citizen.

    The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.

    Next time someone talks about Barack’s birth certificate, make sure they see this page.

    ed. exactly. scrub a dub dub dub. – leo

  23. lightyourcandle12 Says:

    Leo, OT, but would you check out what this man is saying and see if he is correct? Thank you. He is talking about going to court, but not suing. Filing a complaint with Judge on misprison of fraud, etc. I don’t know if you have time to check this out with all you are doing. Just another angle someone has, this maybe something we can all do.

  24. This was posted as a comment at The Charles Law & History Blog:

    Mr. Charles

    In the amicus brief that you refer to above, filed on behalf of the Immigration Reform Law Institute for the Flores-Villar case, you quote John Bingham with regard to the congressional plenary authority over citizenship. In your quote of Bingham, you omitted the words “of parents” from the phrase “all other persons born within the Republic owing allegiance to no other sovereignty” which properly should have read “all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty”. Would you please comment as to the source of this omission?

    With all due respect, I should think that you you would be very concerned about having this glaring mistake corrected as soon as possible.

    :I believe that Mr. Charles should be given the benefit of providing an explanation for the omission. If he responds, I will post his response here.

    ed. Keep us updated… If he is so into Bingham, then he ought to come out and support our position that Obama is ineligible. – leo

  25. goldiewil Says:

    not a legal person, but feel all try anything and everything to get this dual citizen OUT/ GOD BLESS AMERICA

  26. Sallyven Says:

    Obama’s Puddles:


    ed. Everyone should read this excellent article by long time reader Sallyven. It includes a link and hat tip to this blog. Thanks and congrats on getting published. – leo

  27. MichaelN Says:

    This omission by Partick J Charles is yet another example of how the rot has set in and continues to fester, and it is, in my thinking, without any doubt, the effort to influence the minds of the legal community generally is sinister, deliberate and concerted, having been in play starting from way back, to such an extent that now the legal ‘descendants’ follow and actively promote contorting the US Constitution, pushing any opposing argument deeper into the past and establishing their way of thinking at the grass roots academic level.

    I read an article by Polly J Price, where she cited Lord Coke and Calvin’s case, where she came to the part where Coke said that Calvin was ‘naturalized by procreation and birthright’, she breezed over it as if it didn’t exist.

    I posted this at …

    (Patrick J Charles is engaged in the discussion there.)

    My post:

    Re: Lord Coke – Calvin’s case

    The alien born Frenchman, visiting in amity was a subject of the king of England.

    “Concerning the local obedience, it is observable, that as there is a local protection on the King’s part, so there is a local ligeance of the subject’s part. And this appeareth in 4 Mar. Br. 32. and 3 and 4 Ph. and Mar. Dyer 144. Sherley a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the Kingand Queen, and the indictment concluded contra ligeant’ suae debitum;51 for he owed to the King a local obedience, that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection: which local obedience, being but momentary and incertain, is strong enough to make a natural subject; for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject

    “[33. ][Ed.: protection attracts subjection, and subjection protection.]”

    “The third is ligeantia localis46 wrought by the law, and that is when an alien that is in amity cometh into England, because as long as he is within England, he is within the King’s protection; therefore so long as he is there, he oweth unto the King a local obedience or ligeance, for that the one (as it hath been said) draweth the other.”

    Calvin was adjudged a natural born subject, by way of TWO essential qualities.

    “There is found in the law four kinds of ligeances: the first is, ligeantia naturalis, absoluta, pura, et indefinita,42 and this originally is due by NATURE AND BIRTHRIGHT, and is called alta ligeantia42a and he that oweth this is called subditus natus.”

    “Calvin the Plaintiff naturalized by PROCREATION AND BIRTHRIGHT”

    So it appears there were TWO essential qualities to make a natural born subject.

    The subject/citizenship status of the parent father mattered.

    “that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born UNDER THE LIGEANCE OF A SUBJECT,”

    What does this mean?

    Sanguinis and soli, that’s what it means!

    Why did Justice Horace Gray in Wong Kim Ark case not mention these important points, that were expressed by Lord Coke, and which were crucial to the task at hand of attempting to define US ‘natural born Citizen’?

    Why are these important & crucial points from Calvin’s case not discussed generally [by] the legal commentators?

    [I corrected my typo from ‘in’ to ‘by’]

  28. BillCutting Says:

    Thanks Leo and Sallyven, both great articles!!

  29. BillCutting Says:

    Maybe Lawyer Charles should follow his own advice.
    Let’s hope he does the honorable thing and makes a correction.

    from his blog

    [While I cannot speak for other fields of expertise, I will say historians are not happy when advocates and jurists are not honest with their historical arguments. Indeed, both advocates and jurists need a little wiggle room to answer the affirmative “yes” or “no” that any case or controversy requires. However, in doing so, they should rely on accepted works and methodologies. Take for instance a pleading in D’Cruz v. Jennings, where the attorneys cite and include John Galvin’s The Minutemen as authority to assert the following argument:

    A company of Minutemen who lacked their own arms, and instead had to meet at an armory to wait in line for distribution of weapons, would have been of little use when the alarm bell was wrung at Lexington and Concord. The militia who fought that day used their own personal firearms. In contrast, the military stores that the Redcoats marched to Concord to seize were items that couldn’t be carried personally, such as cannons and tons of lead shot and gunpowder.

    Not only is this legal assertion misleading and devoid of historical context, but the fact that the attorneys use the work of a amateur historian to make it is highly insulting to professional historians. There are plenty of accepted historical works from which the attorneys could draw from, yet they chose Galvin’s work because it supported the argument they were trying to make, not because it was historically viable. It is this kind of lawyering that upsets experts…]

  30. constitutionallyspeaking Says:

    ed. Everyone should read this excellent article by long time reader Sallyven

    I concur. Was one of the 1st things I read today & it was amazing! Great Work Sallyven!

  31. borderraven Says:


    Read the US Constitution Article 2 Section 3 Clause 5 again, then see:

  32. Checking back at The Charles Law & History Blog, I find that he has elected to change his WordPress preferences so as not to allow open commenting. He has not addressed or posted my comment as of yet and now comments may only made by persons having a WordPress account after logging in. Not a problem there, as I have three accounts.

    Interestingly, I have found a post on this very subject where he has commented.

    The author is researching John Bingham and makes the observation referring to Cong. Globe, 37th Cong., 2d Sess. 1639 (1862) (statement of Rep. Bingham) that “The crucial language here is “parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.””.

    Mr Charles sees fit to direct this author to his own article:

    “As you are working through this issue, read my article “Representation Without Documentation?” forthcoming in BYU Law Review. It details this issue and the doctrine of allegiance, and actually uses the quotation you refer to.”

    Well, actually, it doesn’t. No where in the context of his article is John Bingham even mentioned.

    More scrubbing?

    ed. Patrick Charles’ big issue is his argument that the 2d Amendment does not provide for the people individually to bear arms, but that it only provides for the right to bear arms in defense of the country. He doesnt believe you have a right to hunt etc. and he’s rather bloated about it too. All puffed up with himself about how he’s basically “the man” when it comes to telling everyone else what the 2d Amendment means. – Leo

  33. Would intentionally modifying quotes to mislead a court be considered a professional ethics violation? At what point does it become fraud?

    Could an attorney that engages in this practice be considered for professional sanctions? For contempt of court? For disbarment?

  34. constitutionallyspeaking Says:

    Pay Dirt! This is PURE HISTORICAL GOLD!

    Naturalization Question: Attorney General Black’s Opinion Upon Expatriation and Naturalization
    New York Times
    Published: July 20, 1859

    [H]ere none but a native can be President…A Native and a Naturalized American can go forth with equal security over every sea and through every land under heaven, including the country in which the latter was born…They are both of them American citizens, and their exclusive allegiance is due to the government of the United States…One of them never did owe fealty elsewhere, and the other, at the time of his naturalization, solemnly and rightfully, in pursuance of public law and municipal regulations, threw off, renounced and abjured forever all allegiance to every foreign prince, potentate, State and sovereignty whatever, and especially to that sovereign whose subject he had previously been. [end quote]

    And there is so much more:

    New York Times
    Published: July 15, 1859

    ed. Very good find, Linda. – Leo

  35. Here’s some interesting stuff I ran across.

    The ultra-left Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) ties the State Legislators For Legal Immigration (SLLI) organization to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) organization. SPLC labels FAIR as an “anti-immigrant hate group because of its white nationalist agenda and ties to racist groups.” The articles can be found here:

    SLLI states that IRLI is helping with their model legislation. This help is mentioned on the SLLI website here:

    SPLC, IRLI, FAIR, SLLI – A very strange conglomeration of competing and cooperating organizations. Perhaps IRLI has a lefty mole within their midsts.

  36. Philip N. Says:

    Beware of SLLI

    The info found in the link I provided previously was dated 1/05/11

    The info found in this link is dated 3/01/11

    Something happened in that very short period of time. The SLLI went from agreeing with Rep. Bingham’s definition of natural born citizen to IRLI’S definition.

    And now Pennsylvania has introduced HB474

    And HB857

    That will not only will define natural born citizen but have it notated on Birth Certificates.

    For IRLI to say that this has nothing to with Obama is a bunch of bull…, they are mocking us.

    Conspiracy or not, Lord have Mercy on our Country.

    ed. It’s looking worse every day. – leo

  37. Chris,

    Welcome. Sorry about the rough landing; we’re obviously a passionate group. I personally hope you take some time to learn more about the issue. I started out a complete skeptic, so I understand where you’re coming from.


  38. I’ve sent a personal email to Mr. Charles. As a graduate of BYU, I’m particularly concerned that his misquote might make it into the pages of our Law Review. Once was a mistake, twice would be a travesty. I assure everyone here that I’ll do everything in my power to make sure that doesn’t happen.

  39. Perhaps if a bunch of US sent this info to Ginny Thomas…..?
    I bet she’d show her hubby, Clarence.
    Anybody got her numbahs?

    ed. You can’t try to influence a Supreme Court justice in that manner. That’s not the answer. – leo

  40. It seems to me that even with the misquote it still doesn’t help Obama. It now reads that the one born can’t owe allegiance. As we all know, he WAS born owing allegiance to another sovereignty, Britain. They try to shoehorn him in and he still don’t fit.

  41. borderraven Says:

    The SPLC is the Southern Poverty Fraud Center enriching the live of Morris Dees and his cronies.

  42. No misquote. This was an aggressive attempt to mislead the SCOTUS, for obvious reasons. The people who do this type of behavior should be sanctioned on a national and state level. As pertains to Obama, he was neither born of Citizen parents or of allegiance, so not NBC. The SCOTUS better wake up and start addressing Constitutional issues, or they will be left in political irrelevance very soon.

  43. justawhoaman Says:

    Another interesting article has cropped up regarding the illegitimacy of this “president”.

    I included a link to Sallyven’s article in American Thinker and one back to this website. The more we know…

  44. Are the GOP covering this up as much as anyone because of a blackmail situation if the truth were to be exposed of Mr. O’s prior involvement with our gov’t, as some have speculated? Of course we wouldn’t know that at this point, would we, but this ongoing bull’s eye of a lie and cover-up defies all sanity and truth.

  45. witch_wyzwurd Says:


    I’m not sure the intention of your post. Do you understand that a naturalized citizen is not a “natural born Citizen”? That a naturalized citizen is different than a native citizen? A naturalized citizen can run for congress, etc., but not President. Your post infers that you believe a naturalized citizen should be able to become President. Asking for clarification.

  46. GratefulForLeo Says:

    The links showing the substitution of the term “native born” or “citizen” for the proper term “natural born” in the constitutional requirement for the presidency in my comment above (GratefulForLeo March 17, 2011 at 6:15 PM) were actually compiled October 24, 2010.

    Since then, the Washington State Election website has replaced the term “native born” with the correct term “natural born” for presidential eligibility requirements. The New York State Election website, though, still has the erroneous term “citizen.” I also see that the links under General Online Answer Websites, now link to different pages. Why? But the School Study Resources websites still are propagandizing with the term “native born.”

    I share your pessimism, Leo. The extent of the corruption is astounding in its breadth. The additional finds from constitutionallyspeaking, JJMiller, and Philip N. among others only adds weight to your discovery. To actually dare to commit fraud on the court and get away with it is mind-boggling.

    What chance do we have when the common sense explanation of why the term “natural born citizen” was used in the constitution and its significance to the country’s security, are unimportant to many “educated” professionals or too complex for people who require written suffocation warnings on plastic bags?

  47. So why doesn’t the opposing attorney in the Flores-Villar case notify the SCOTUS there is an omission error, “of parents” in the filing by IRLI? It seems that is a simple solution to the problem of getting honest information before the SCOTUS?

  48. borderraven Says:

    LURIA v. U S, 231 U.S. 9 (1913)
    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.’ Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 22 , 34 S.Ct. 10, 13.

    ed. You have the quote wrong. It’s this…

    These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency. -leo

  49. Leo,

    On February 16, on the O’Reilly program, the issue of Obama’s eligibility was brought up between O’Reilly and Karl Rove. They both just dismissed the issue with O’Reilly bringing up the birth announcement in the Hawaiian paper of proof of Obama’s birth in Hawaii.

    I sent O’Reilly and Karl Rove the same email:
    “I watched again with dismay as you blew away everything related to Obama’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States. You and O’Reilly do not understand the problem.

    Obama does not meet the constitutional requirements as a “Natural Born Citizen” as required in the Constitution. He was born a citizen of the United Kingdom and unless he became a naturalized citizen, he is in fact an illegal alien. His father was Kenyan.

    ed. He is a US citizen as long as he was born in the US since his mother was a US citizen. – Leo

    His birth certificate is not the issue. He would not meet the constitutional requirement even if he had been born in the Oval Office with you, O’Reilly and all Congress watching.

    Being a citizen of the United States is required but insufficient to serve as President. To serve as President he must have been born on US soil to parents, both of whom were citizens at the time of birth to be a Natural Born Citizen. That citizenship requirement is conveyed at birth and cannot be conveyed by any law or Congress. It is an allegiance problem.

    Please become educated on this issue.”

    I received this reply from Karl Rove, none from O’Reilly.
    From: 2/17/2011 5:58 AM
    “No, you’re wrong. He was born in Honolulu, the son of a US citizen. That makes him a US citizen.
    The president likes having some conservatives stuck on arguing he’s not a citizen because the vast majority of Americans accept that he is and it takes time away from conservatives making the case against his failing policies.

    Let’s turn our attention to the more important issues.”
    I then responded to Mr. Rove (2/17/2011 1:20 PM) explaining the natural born issue and received this reply:
    From: 2/17/2011 3:43 PM
    “He is the legal president.
    Someone born to an American mother on US soil is a natural born US citizen. You can’t find a single instance where a court has held otherwise.

    Don’t fall into Obama’s trap and waste valuable time on this side show.  Let’s keep focused on the issues we were are right and the people are with us.”

    I continued with several emails to and received these replies:
    On 2/17/2011 6:59 PM, Karl Rove wrote:
    “again, you cannot give a single example of where someone born on US soil of a US mother and a father who is a foreign national has been held by a US court NOT to be a citizen.”
    On 2/18/2011 4:42 AM, Karl Rove wrote:
    “I repeat: no court has ever held that someone born on US soil of a US mother and a father who is a foreign national is anything but a US citizen”
    and he has changed his natural born citizen statement of 2/17/2011 3:43 PM to citizen status which is necessary but insufficient to be President of the United States.
    It is my opinion that all Congress knows of Obama’s ineligibility, but for some inexplicable reason have failed to honor their oath of office to defend the Constitution and, in many cases, rather than just remaining mute on the subject, have in fact done exactly what the IRLI did in their amicus brief to the Supreme Court, to rewrite history.
    I hope the justices on the Supreme Court become aware of what is going on. Unless, like Justice Thomas stated in a video, “we are dodging the issue”. They have so far.

  50. This is so black and white without a hint of gray.

    How does one charge IRLI with treason?
    How does one inform SCOTUS of the deception?

  51. Philip N. Says:


    This document puts us in Check, I just hope it’s not Mate.

    Hamilton, Jefferson, Rawle and Natural Born Citizen

    ed. It’s a propaganda paper with nothing new or even remotely challenging. I have no idea what you are talking about. – Leo

  52. constitutionallyspeaking Says:

    @ witch_wyzwurd who said: I’m not sure the intention of your post. Do you understand that a naturalized citizen is not a “natural born Citizen”?

    I guess we are both confused because I do not know which of my posts you are talking about. I fully understand the difference. So if you could specifically quote what wrote that you are confused about, I would be happy to respond with more specificity.

  53. First, I want to tell you that I have been checking in to this site over and over since you went dark. I have never given up hope that you would reappear like some phoenix and now that you have I thank-you and God for lifting my heart to know that the battle continues. Next, I would like to ask if you would be willing to go on the road for a speaking tour around the country regarding this issue and what you went through with the Chrysler fiasco. Maybe others like myself would be willing to go forth in our communities and raise money to pay your way so that you could get your message out to others in person, especially now that the 2012 election looms. We need to rid ourselves of this usurper before the country is lost. All the best patriot!

    ed. I dont think a speaking tour will do any good. No interested. – leo

  54. Your alter-ego ( on this debate has apparently thrown in the towel as of January. I often read the material there when trying to pull together a comprehensive view. But I never really noticed the subtitle of his blog until tonight:

    “Where native and natural coincide”

    And our friends at Fight the Smears have only ever declared their guy “native born” (

    The strategy to totally ignore and deflect the undeniable issue of jus sanguinis and rely on forged images is simply incredible.

  55. bob strauss Says:

    UPDATE: 4:02 PM March 18, 2011: Patrick J. Charles misquoted Bingham again in the BYU Journal of Public Law back in June 2010. It’s the same exact misquote which has the words “of parents” omitted from Bingham’s statement on the floor of the House. Not cool.

    criminal usurpation of POTUS in action.

  56. Voco Indubium Says:

    RE: “ Kay Says: Are the GOP covering this up as much as anyone because of a blackmail situation if the truth were to be exposed of Mr. O’s prior involvement with our gov’t, as some have speculated? “

    The GOP believes that the 2012-GOP-candidates would be hurt if the eligibility issue were used. They believe that they can get into the White House on debating policy-issues alone. They are unwilling to explain their logic to the voters.

    Probably, they are thinking that they would loose certain block’s votes. In other words, the (wrongly) perceived tactic trumps the Constitution. because the major players of the GOP all know that O is not eligible. Is the GOP any less corrupt than their opponents?

  57. Theresa Cao: Another Obama Opponent Headed for Jail? When she made her now famous (some say infamous) statement in the House of Representatives’ chamber on 6 January 2011 during a formal reading of the US Constitution as Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) read the Constitutional requirements for a United States president, Theresa called out from the gallery “except Obama, except Obama, help us, Jesus! My name is Theresa.” She now faces imprisonment for her outburst.

    Can you help this woman. She is a Sentinel for freedom. She only has a public defender and needs your help.

    ed. Her public defender is her best hope and is an experienced attorney. I do not do criminal law. – leo

  58. Leo,
    I just received this e-mail from Rep JBurges AZ,
    The eligibility language is apparently an amendment to another bill (SB1157). Have you seen the language in the AZ amendment and is it appropriate for the purpose intended (Enforcing Constitutional Eligibility)?

    Mar 23, 2011 12:16:28 AM, wrote:

    Sam: SB1157 just passed out of government committee tonight that requires every candidate running for public office show that they qualify for the office. That includes our President. Judy

    ed. This bill is significantly lighter than the old one. This one does not address dual citizenship. It requires a long form and info as to parents citizenship but does not require candidate to affirm he was never a dual citizen as the last one did… I seriously doubt this or any other bill will pass in any state. – Leo

  59. for those interested:

    Mr. Heman Allen submitted the following resolution; which was read, and debate arising, it was laid over, under the rule, viz:

    Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to inquire into the expediency of so amending the law on the subject of naturalization, as to exclude those from the privileges of natural-born citizens who are or shall be born of parents who have been removed, or shall remove, from the United States, and have taken or shall take the oath of allegiance to the Government in which they so reside, until such person shall become naturalized like other foreigners, agreeably to the laws that now do or hereafter may exist on that subject.

    page image:

  60. witch_wyzwurd Says:



    Naturalization Question: Attorney General Black’s Opinion Upon Expatriation and Naturalization
    New York Times
    Published: July 20, 1859

    I think I’m twisting the basis of your post. Sorry if I am. The first time I read your post, I thought you were trying to say that a “native born Citizen” and a “naturalized Citizen” were both the same as a “natural born Citizen.” Re-reading your post shows me that I inferred that. But it seems you were saying that a “naturalized Citizen” should not be considered the same as a “native born Citizen” eh?

  61. constitutionallyspeaking Says:

    KenDunbar Says: Absolutely amazing.

    Hey there Dunbar! Where ya hanging your “mic” at these days? Contact me through my website, will ya? Patriot Linda

  62. Philip N. Says:


    I’ve never heard of Rawle. How is this Propaganda?

  63. today 3/24/11
    Joseph Farah to be interviewed by Hannity (Radio)
    1:05 PM PST (4:05 pm EST) I believe this is the exact time

    For those interested including Leo, Hannity’s radio station will have Joseph Farah – Editor of WND talking about the birth certificate, etc. I suspect Joseph will bring up all issues including dual citizenship. We can thank Donald Trump for bringing up the issue. And of course thank you Leo for the knowledge.

    Leo, if you can, call in!

    Above is the link to your local radio station that carries Hannity’s show.

  64. For the sake of considering another angle, set aside the arguments over eligibility, citizenship, patriotism, treason, and the like.

    The election of this historic POTUS has uncovered something that looks a lot like racketeering. However, it may be worse than that; perhaps a confluence of historical and contemporary trends that are not well described or well understood on the streets and homes of our nation, but are forcefully emerging under the same institutional momentum that carried Obama into the presidency.

    The term “alien” has meaning here. Not from the perspective of nationality, but in the context of describing an entity which is “not human”.

    If we can escape the programming that has the average human person demonizing “corporations”, we will instead be in a position to begin to look more carefully at the incredible postmodern phenomenon of corporations. We should specifically contemplate the explosion of tax exempt corporate forms, foundations, institutions, and political corporations, but do so in the context of their essential embodiment as “alien persons”.

    Under our laws, these corporations are citizen-persons who enjoy equal protection under our laws. Yet, by their nature, form and scale, they have become “super persons” enjoying a superior standing; an oddly protected standing enforced by other corporations, and frequently by the formal corporate embodiment of a particular government, government agent, officer, agency or entity operating as the government, or operating as a ‘governance construct’ to influence or dictate public policy — in direct competition with individual human citizen persons.

    I have given up on the paradigm of the complaint arising from the facts which materially contraindicate Obama’s eligibility. He is POTUS, plain and simple. He was elected, plain and simple. Life is full of dualisms. That Obama is POTUS and is not eligible tp be POTUS is one of life’s many dualisms.

    Corporations are not “bad”. They are merely “not human” — non-human citizens that have gained disproportionate authority over human persons in our modern era.

    So, what are these alien citizen persons doing in our political process? Why do the citizens and non-citizens who control or who are “credentialed” by these alien citizen persons get “super influence” and “super privileges” with special privileges under our laws and in our governments and legislatures?

    We have before us an evolved superior culture of non-human alien citizen persons. Out politics has never looked more like a complex syndicate that engages in serial fraud to solicit money for personal use by the respective alien citizens conducting the said solicitations. These alien citizen person entities cannot vote in our elections. These alien citizen person entities cannot run for public office. Yet their human citizen officers, agents and employees may direct their involvement to disproportionately amplify their personal power and influence in an manner that represents a de facto failure of “equal protection under the law.”

    Do we now live in an American era, where, as a matter of practicality, no American citizen has a reasonable expectation of meeting with their legislators but through the proxy of an alien citizen person, or as an officer, agent or trustee thereof.

    And what does our modern politics do? It appears they divert more and more from the human citizen person so the superior culture of alien citizen persons may further consolidate and norm the systematic usurpation and increasing subjugation of the human citizen by the de facto syndicate of non-human, alien citizen persons.

    All domestic government in our nation exists in a corporate form, except for the very small unincorporated communities. These corporations, other non-profits, foundations, institutions, for-profit, publicly-traded companies, unions, quasi governmental entities, government sponsored enterprises, NGOs — they are all brother and sister corporations — brother and sister alien citizen persons who, if lawfully operating in the United States, are all certificated by one or more of the 50 state governments comprising the United States of America, a nation operated by the respective government corporations formed for that stated purpose.

    Some will say: “But a corporation is not a person?”

    It’s not, but it is. It’s just not a human person.

    Intended or not, there is a pathology of de facto racketeering and perniciously entrenched syndicalism which has been exposed by the POTUS eligibility scandal.

    Where is the lawful constitutional basis for non-human citizen persons to conduct a popular national election for POTUS, and solicit funds for such a popular election, and sell services to engage in and prosper from such a popular election of POTUS, when such an election is usurped by the lawful and constitutional role of the Electoral College?

    And who are they nominated to represent?

    One might consider Obama election as POTUS as a predictable by product of the syndicalism arising from the postmodern ascendancy of non-human corporate citizens and their agents, employees, officers and stakeholders.

    Again, corporations are not evil. They are non-human, alien citizen persons.

    How else do you expect them to behave?

    Was our nation formed to provide non-human alien citizen persons with control over our political processes? Was our nation formed to create and protect an elite syndicalism or to prevent such malignancy known to the history of Europe and Western Civilization from taking hold of the American experiment to render citizens to subject status in a manner consistent with the feudalism they had just thrown off?

    Is the media publicly licensed to conduct and profiteer from a national popular election of POTUS candidate chosen by officers and members of a corporation containing the word “republican” or “democrat”?

    What does it mean if the answer now becomes: “maybe so.”

    What is a ruling class but a corporatism; a syndical form. What is “Royalty” but a corporate person; a syndical form. Both corporate, enabling supercitizens by proxy who animate the positions of officer, trustee and employee; who operate the syndicate interests of the non human citizen person; created to subjugate the individual to the will of the citizens and non-citizens who control the operation of the alien citizen person.

    This alien citizen person cannot manifest an individual materiality of human being, cannot go to jail, and it does not feel pain or death if destroyed.

    Part Ghost. Part Zombie. Non-human. Citizen.

    POTUS Obama is a feature, not a bug.

  65. Joe Loleczek Says:

    Leo, way back in the beginning of all this you stated, I’m paraphrasing here, that “it’s not about the birth certificate; it’s about the natural born eligibility.”

    With WorldNetDaily, Rush, Trump, and now Hannity jumping on the birth issue it seems like your concerns might be coming true.

    What happens to the natural born issue if and when BO finally shows the certificate? Of course everyone will look foolish and the issue will simply go away, just like you predicted.

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

    As I remember she released this statement immediately after a resolution passed in congress regarding hawaii’s birthday and it being the birth place of Obama. Still to this day the Department of Health in Hawaii has not released any information which backed up this claim even though by law they must.

    Radioactive backdoor sanitizing….

  67. borderraven Says:

    @ witch_wyzwurd

    “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.'” Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 22 , 34 S.Ct. 10, 13.

  68. constitutionallyspeaking Says:

    @ witch_wyzwurd who asked: But it seems you were saying that a “naturalized Citizen” should not be considered the same as a “native born Citizen” eh?

    Only for the constitutional purposes of A2 S1 C5 Presidential qualifications. Or state elected offices that may apply such as Governors. In all other aspects, the naturalized person stands on equal footing as the native/natural born person.

  69. Leo, now Donald Trump has jumped into the mix calling for Obama to release his birth certificate. Obama might be perfecting a birth certificate fake but who will he list as the delivering doctor and the birth hospital? Will this not raise more questions than answers especially since by this time we all know he is lying.

  70. borderraven Says:


    See the misleading site at:

  71. Leo,

    First, open the following URL in a new tab or new window:

    Then, scroll right… so that the electronic reader says “Page 4 of 31″, but the actual newspaper page shown is page 6A.

    Note the following on page 6A of the Oct 2, 1952 edition of The Deseret News and Salt Lake Telegram:

    “General’s birth certificate officially filed,”

    “A certificate recording Dwight Eisenhower’s birth in Denison on Oct. 14, 1890, was filed Wednesday [Oct. 1, 1952] in the Grayson County Clerk’s office.

    “Nobody had bothered to make out a certificate when the Republican presidential candidate was born in a house at the corner of Lamar and Day streets in nearby Denison.

    “A copy of the certificate filed Wednesday was mailed to Mrs. Eisenhower in Denver. Eisenhower’s older brother, Arthur, signed the certificate. It was also signed by the Grayson County Judge J.N. Dickson and recorded by County Clerk J.C. Buchanan.”

  72. Kenny Bunk Says:

    Dear Leo,

    Was much taken with Attorney Hemenway’ s take on the legal name issue. He thinks that suppression of the BC may be due to the fact that the POTUS’ legal name is still Barry Soetoro (or similar), pointing out that the original BC would be sealed, then amended to reflect the facts of the adoption. So a request for a BC, would yield a document showing illegal use of the alias “Obama.”

    Both residents of the White House were asked off the State of Illinois Bar, Michelle by court-ordered suspension, and “Barack” by accepting “voluntary” retirement rather than disbarrment. On his Illinois Bar App he actually had the temerity to deny ever having used a name other than Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. (or II). He also denied drug use, and multiple traffic infractions. Since the Bar records are sealed, this interesting avenue is also closed to inquiry.

    As serious and as telling a all these issues may be, they pale in comparison to the basic situation. Because the man’s father was not an American citizen, the man cannot be a “Natural Born Citizen.” My question: Have the dozens of foggy side issues, the various strategies of Team Obama, and the many ill-conceived and badly executed suits, now so complicated the situation that a Writ of Quo Warranto will prove impossible to obtain from the DC Federal District Court?

    Should a movement to force congress to investigate be started? Grand Jury proceedings?


  73. borderraven Says:


    President Zachary Taylor was born in November 24, 1784 in Orange County, Virginia.

    The United States Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787.

    Little Zachary Taylor was 2 years, 9 months, 24 days old.

  74. borderraven Says:


    Donald Trump has posted his hospital birth certificate online.
    It would be nice to see a county or state certificate.

    Also, his mother’s naturalization date is a question,
    Mary Anne MacLeod (May 10, 1912, Stornoway, Scotland – August 7, 2000), who married Fred Christ Trump
    on 1936, would not have been derivative-naturalized under the 1855 Act of Congress.

    Donald may be a US Citizen, but not a NBC.

    ed. Trump IS a natural born citizen. His mother was, according to numerous posts at Free Republic, Politico and by Mario Apuzzo, naturalized as a US citizen on March 10, 1942. Donald Trump was born June 14, 1946. Therefore, born in Queens NY to parents who were citizens = natural born citizen- Leo

  75. Did you see the article “Presidential Eligibility for Dummies” at Quite the article. I admit I have no recollection of having studied this subject in detail in school (at any level–elementary/secondary/college) but mainly through your writings, I have now been educated. Thanks. I read other articles to further my education and wait impatiently for more “teachable moments” from you.

  76. Hello Dianna,
    Join me on twitter

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: