If he really was born in Honolulu, which he has not proven so far, he was a natural born citizen of the US and a UK citizen.

The constitution does not mean to include dual citizenships, but it also does not exclude them.

I would like to know where we find the exclusion of people with dual citizenship in words, because one could argue that he was ALSO a natural born citizen to the US.

I'm not sure whose side the first comment maker is one.  His quotation is the very foundation for your case.

How can any court sworn to uphold the Constitution NOT see the willful by-pass of this one candidate in particular...by his own background in Constitutional Law...of the intention within the Constitution???

This is why it's so important for our highest Justices to interpret the Constitution from the perspective of the Framers, and why it is so important that this case is considered by the Supreme Court.

I am a student of history, and I have researched this pretty well. The terms "natural born" appear only 1 time in the constitution. No where else does the requirement of a "grade" of citizenship come into play. All other consitutional requirements, outside of President, and Vice President, are available to Naturalized citizens. In order to understand the mindset of the Framers of the Constitution, you have to look at their other writings to develope an" opinion" of what they were thinking when they wrote the requirements.

I have only found 1 reference to the "Natural born" sentiment in a letter from John Jay to George Washington, insisting that the Commander in Chief of the military ( the President) had "singular loyalty" to the United States, and therefore must be Natural born.

Although none of the other Framers, or influential minds of the age wrote anything specific on the subject, their belief in the "  singular loyalty theory" is evident throughout their writings, both published articles and archived letters.

They had just commited the largest usurpation of Governement in the history of the world , and it could not have been accomplished without educated, pensive, and ferocious patriotism. This would lead anyone who reads any of their writings to understand that not a SINGLE word was taken lightly, nor was their any duality in their meaning.

It is my understanding that the Supreme Court Justices are bound to interpret the Founding Fathers intent when they adjudicate a case that has no precedent. If that is the case, then there is no way anyone could come up with anything other than a firm belief in the "Singular Loyalty" opinion.

Jefferson,Hamilton, Frankilin, John Admas, Samual Adams, John Jay, George Washington, and a whole host of others are implicit in their beleifs.....One Nation......One Loyalty......... no Questions or "Ifs"

One other note on the theory of Obama being born in Kenya and his mother coming back to the US to register his birth, that WAS the way it was done prior to Oct of 2000 when Prsident Clinton signed "Public Law 106-395" which in effect allowed a parent or grandparent who was a citizen to re enter the US to register the birth of their child BUT , and its a big but, it is officially a Naturalized citizenship, AND it is not retroavctive to the childs birth.

Lots of grey areas, but, when laid out in a building block form, unless Obama's Certificate of Birth states that his father was someone who was an AMerican Citizen( negating the British SUbject status) or shows no Father listed at all, then he MAY be a Natural born citizen

just my .02  

And we have already seen that other loyalty of this candidate most recently when he personally (use of influence) interfered in the Kenyan government...forcing a thug into office, resulting in chaos and murders.

One who hung around with and was mentored by others who hate America, thus being formed with both dual loyalties and appearing to wish to fold America into a "global" union, we have much to fear.  This candidate may very easily overrule all that has been sacrificed by our founders and those other freedom fighters and defenders who followed....and to think, he started out as a Brit!

To the last poster - Thanks for the info, but I'm not sure that I understand your very last sentence.?? Would you mind rephrasing for a coffee deprived brain? :) Thanks.

it says he lost his kenyan citizenship in 1982. which raises the question when he visited pakistan in 1980-81 (since americans were'nt allowed what kind of papers (ie passport) did he use? if it was kenyan then it does show allegiance.

this arguement is brought up in the alan keyes lawsuit.

My jaw hit the floor!

So all of this stuff about Obama's possibly being "born in Kenya" or having "Kenyan citizenship" is a smokescreen. 

The truth is that Obama was a BRITISH citizen at birth!! Holy crap!!!

Let go out of the legal woods. Let think plain and simple.You do not have to be very smart  or legally educated to understand this situation.

Let assume for a moment that Obama senior came to the University of  Hawaii not from Kenya but from Iran. Then  if  we svae all other facts of Obama's story the same we would  have a village in the middle of Iran populated by  our Commander in Chief's  grandmother, a few half brothers and countless  uncles,aunts,cousins,nepews and other relatives. Moreover if we take off a road accident  where his father died then a  70 something Obama senior himself   could have a happy retirement in  suburbs of Tehran.

It takes even less imagination to picture that in 2-3 years our President will face a tough choice of using military force aginst Iran, because those fanatics will not  yield to nobody dveloping nuclear arms. 

Questions:

1. Will an option to kill his dear father, his lovely mother and the rest of Obama gang make our  President's decisionmaking  process  more complicated?

2. Will the United States be more vunerable if our Commander in Chief's  close relatives will be living as hostages behind enemiy lines?

If you answer "No" on both questions then you are Osama bun Laden or Ahmadinejad.

To avoid such terrible situation, such obvious conflict of interests and such unhuman choices for our President the beloved  Framers wisely included "natural born citizen" clause in our Constitution.  

It is very simple: in order to not be in this so close to reality situation only a person born in the United States and having both parents who are naturally born citizens of our country  themselves  could be our President  and Commanderr in Chief.

To the last commenter...it wasn't a "smokescreen" - just a different approach - wasn't a "natrual born citizen" due to being born in Kenya (still having to be proven).  If it is proven that he was born in Hawaii they then go to the Indonesia "adoption" re: naturalized citizen. 

In Leo's case, it's more comprehensive and does not rely on the other stuff.

Anyone notice how O's still "voting present" re: Poland and Russia's testing of our missile commitment.  He'll give away the store because he just wants "the world to sing...in perfect harmony".

This whole constitutional issue is starting to show up in more news media, though not mainstream yet.

 http://www.sacunion.com/pages/sacramento/articles/10881/

This last blog post will 

remain at the top of the page 

throughout the weekend and into Monday. 

The argument written here is exact.  

The Framers were not natural 

born citizens because, "at birth" 

they were all British citizens. 

That's why they included a 

grandfather clause in Article 1, Section 2. 

The Framers wanted to make themselves 

eligible to be President, but they didn't 

want future generations to be Governed 

by a Commander In Chief who had split 

loyalty to another Country.  They recognized 

that they were NOT "Natural Born Citizens", 

because "at birth" they were subject to 

the British Crown as was Barack Obama. 

The Framers were comfortable with 

making an exception for themselves.  

They did, after all, create the 

Constitution. But they were not 

comfortable with the possibility of 

future generations of Presidents 

being born under the jurisdiction 

of Foreign Powers.

     The Framers declared themselves 

not eligible to be President as 

"Natural Born Citizens" so they 

wrote the grandfather clause in for 

a limited exception.  Nobody alive 

today can claim eligibility to be 

President under the grandfather 

clause since nobody alive today was 

a citizen of the US at the time the 

Constitution was adopted.

     No person except a natural born Citizen, 

or a Citizen of the United States, 

at the time of the Adoption of this 

Constitution shall be eligible to 

the Office of President;

     That's it right there.  

     Obama admits he was a 

British Citizen at birth and therefore, 

just like the Framers, he was not a 

"natural born citizen" of the United States.  

The Framers distinguised between 

"natural born Citizens" and all other 

"Citizens".  And that's why it's important 

to note the 14th Amendment only confers 

the title of "Citizen", not "natural born 

Citizen".  The Framers were Citizens, 

but they weren't natural born Citizens.

They put the stigma of not being natural born

Citizens on themselves by law.  They chose to

make themselves that way and they wrote 

the Document.

Leo, that was brilliant!

You're right, you're right, you're right.  It's there...in the Constitution.  Hopefully Justice Thomas is brave enough to take this on.

We all need to really pray for all concerned here.

Could you get Thomas Sowell or Michael Steele to back you, Leo?

I always said...it isn't the race here that matters so much to people...it's that it's a real lefty of the race that matters.  Or else...if it had been a good conservative black they'd be screaming that he REALLY didn't represent the black community.  I mean...look at what they did to Clarence Thomas because he was conservative and thought for himself.

I just did something that perhaps others of you might want to do. I did a screen shot of Obama's webpage that admits his British citizenship. It's quite possible that text might disappear as some other article text disappeared on his change.gov website. I've been saving documents on this whole issue. I think it could be historic news and I want to pass all these documents down to future generations.

Just a thought.

It isn't even a race issue at all, it is a Constitutional Issue of great importance, because, IF no one challenges this and wins on the arguments stated, then the whole standing of the COuntry of America is in true jeopardy.  The Supreme Court Judges cannot issue verdicts or laws, because if the Constitution is deemed invalid in the "Natural Born Citizen" clause and Obama proceeds to become President, he coided the Constitution and all it is made of, every law, every precept, every intention, and thus everything that it and all of Congress makes, deems as law, the Treasury and all it does because it is based on the law of the Constitution, the Military and treaties with other nations, debts owed to other nations and by othet nations to us, because the laws that wrote those debts is VOID, the Military cannot answer to a Commander in Chief that is not Constitutionally valid, because they could be held for murder or trials of war crimes that were not written in law and suppoted by laws that the President in TRUTH signed by taking the ofice of President, because the President would be VOID or INVALID as President if he overstepped the "Natural Born Citizen" wording of the Constitution.

The framers put that in the Constitution in the very way they did for a very spegific reason and it must be upheld, no matter what the consequences to Obama because if they are not upheld, the COUNTRY becomes invalid in every respect in the eyes of the rest of the world. 

In the above post, I meant VOIDED, not coided, and a few other typos that I didn't see when I went ahead and posted, so please just read into the context the meanings that I had but forgot that I could NOT edit without being a registered user, which I am not.  Sorry, I am not illiterate, just wanted to get that posted as soon as I had it written. 

It's obvious that you are not illiterate. Thanks for your post.

Question - If Obama does become president and then in the future it is deemed that he is not actually a natural born citizen, will that set some sort of precedent for future presidential candidates? Or can precedents only be set by court rulings?

I want to clarify my question about precedent. If he were made president and then it was decided that he was not natural born and then he was not impeached, would it set a precedent?

Please, roll along with me for a minute folks, I'm not a lawyer, but I want to look at what Leo Donofrio raised from a couple of additional angles.

What Mr. Donofrio points out in this post and the rest of what appears on the page: http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate are the facts that have been staring us in the eyes all along.

And if the heat ever gets turned up on the issue I am sure Obama has intended to make some grand Constitutional argument about if we are to achieve change then we need to stop playing semantical smear games with the Constitution. 

He'll make the case that he was in fact born in Hawaii and even if his Father's status as British national were to allow him to claim dual loyalties, he was born in the US and his loyalties have always been here as evidenced by him coming home to serve his community and nation.

This will of course play well to the O-bots who just want to feel good and don't want to take the time to responsible citizens.

Now, the quote that Leo lifted and analyzed is "debunking" that Annenberg, oops I mean FactCheck.org posted to their website. Obama's campaign used it essentially as their explanation.

But let's go to the top of the page shall we? I will comment in italics. Read through 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.

(Pay attention, remember this is the official response from the Obama Campaign. They use the term 'birth certificate' dodging the discussion of a vault copy with more detail. They dismiss the document they released as a 'piece of paper'. And they contend that the smears are to manipulate people into believing that Obama is not an "American Citizen". Interesting choice of words there isn't it?  Well, Senator Obama is yet to make public any documentation of his citizenship status. But let's assume for a minute that we all agree that he is in fact an American Citizen, where has Obama ever stated that he is a "natural born citizen"? Has his campaign ever made that statement? I think not.This blows right past "I never had sexual relations with that woman" on the slick scale.)

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

(Without seeing his vault copy CLOB we cannot even begin to piece together the truth. But even if he was born in Hawaii as he and his campaign has asserted, there is that dodging of using the correct qualifying term again. Instead they elect to state he is "a native citizen of the United States of America". Official sounding but it's meaningless.)

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

(Well, of course they want us all to see this page, because it dodges directly answering any of the legal questions surrounding Senator Obama's Constitutional eligibility to be President of the United States.)

It seems more and more likely that Senator Obama is complicit is perpetrating fraud on the American people . . . ultimately this dishonest and willful act could do more to divide this country than any event since the Civil War.

We must maintain the heat on the MSM and courts until this unfortunate and destructive situation is taken seriously and dealt with appropriately!

Keep writing letters, making phone calls and most of all talk with your friends and family and don't let them dismiss you out of hand.

Regards,

JBL

I tried to research British vs. Kenyan citizenship, and found this info from a Yahoo Answers post: 

"Because the kenyan government at the time Obama was born was part of the united kingdom, the law of the united kingdom allowed any offspring of a citizen to also be a citizen of the territory in which the father or mother was from. His father was in service to the UK when Obama was born.

After Obama was born, Kenya broke away from the UK and became its own country. Obama then inherited his citizenship in kenya, which was automatically nulled when he turned 21."

Is it true that Obama Jr. inherited the new Kenyan citizenship? Or did he still have the British citizenship due to living in the U.S. at the time of the change? 

BRITISH CITIZENSHIP DOES NOT EXPIRE, BY THE WAY...which means that if it can be proved that Obama was British and not Kenyan, then he is still partly British since he never denounced it.

If it realy comes down to the fact that his father was Kenyan and 1961 Kenya was British.

No Mombasa birth, no Indonesian adoption, no Pakistan travels needed.

Then I really don't uderstand how he got that far.

This fact is known all along.

 http://www.timothybirdnow.com/

November 15, 2008

YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!!

I do think that Mr. Donofrio has hit the nail on the head, so to speak, with his understanding of the quoted Constitution. It says what it says, and you must look at it through their eyes and how it was written.

Here's what no one may agree with, and if they don't, that's okay too.  Our creator, Yahweh, guided our forefathers.  Did they know they were being guided?  I don't know the answer to that one. It was supposed to be that way that he guided them. He did so for a reason, which is to establish his covenant thinking for a future time.  And Yahweh also states that no alien is to rule over you who is not of your brothers when you have your king, i.e., your leader.  I'll leave it at that.  I won't quote the verse because unless you know who we are, it won't make sense to you anyway.

And Mr. Donofrio has it correct.  He's a very good attorney for pulling that out. Part of understanding something is mentally placing yourself there at the time. Therefore, Mr. Donofrio must be a very good attorney.  Heck, if I got in trouble, I'd want to be using him for me!

Obam's murky past and questionable citizenship certainly requires scrutiny.

Obama has done two things as an adult that cause me to question his loyalties.

One is that he aided Raila Odinga in raising close to a million dollars in the US.  The purpose of this fundraising was to support Odinga's political efforts in Kenya.  Odinga, of course encouraged the murderous rampage of over a thousand Kenyans when he lost, and apparently with Obama's advance knowledge, per the results of Jerome Corsi's recent trip to Kenya.

The other is that he travelled to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport at a time when travel to Pakistan was prohibited for US citizens.

I believe both of those actions are adverse to citizenship.  When citizenship is questionable, for instance in the case of dual citizenship, such actions are used to determine where a subject's loyalty lies.

Good Luck and Godspeed with your lawsuit.

I have been searching for proof that shows that Obama & McCaskill tried to remove that clause ...  if anyone finds it, please post it here!

Leo, you're running circles around Berg & Martin, you know that?

About the question of Precedent and Obama not being a valid President, I believe, but I am not an attorney or even schooled in juris prudence, that the precedent would have to be set by the NEW President after his removal, and that it would follow the line of the Constitution.  In other owrds, the precedent that would have to be followed henceforth would be that total validation of Eligibilty would have to be proven beyond a shadow of doubt and be verified by any interested Forensics Expert in documentation identities.  The only ones that could Impeach him would be the Congress,  or a qualified Attorney General for the Country, however, he could be put into Jail for up to 10 years (per law alaready on books) and/or ordered to repay all of the $650 Million that he received form donors during his campaign.  The Supreme Court could not make precedent, because any and all things that they might do would be invalid and Void by the fact that all works of any branch of Government would be invalid by having a Posuer to the Presidency in Office, that is why all of this has to come out now, or before he actually takes the Oath of Office on Jan 20. 

He sure has F***ed up the works of this great Country by not SHOWING his Birth Certificate and "Natural Born Citizen" status.  His doing things the ways he has chose to do them puts every ONE who helps him in jeopardy as well as everyone who abbets him by keeping silent on this issue.  Everyone else is jeopardized by paying taxes, following a commander in the field of Battle in any country, under any circumstances, or whomever makes any laws, even at the city or local levels, for nothing is good and right unless it is all good and right, from the top down to the bottom of the ladder.  Every law is dependent on the ones on top of it to be relevant and honored by the people. WE THE PEOPLE, who are the ones that willl be dishonored most of all.  By him not giving up on this quest, if he knows that he is not legally able to be President, he is flaunting everything this Country stands for in everyone of our faces.  That is why he must be forced to show his legality.  For him not to do so, makes our nation Null and Void in the eyes of the world and in the laws of WE THE PEOPLE. 

Here is an excellent article that you might want to read:  It is by Edwin Vieira and is titled Obama Must Stand Up Now or Step Down and is at http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm  so that you can see the overall impact of what will happen if  Obama is allowed to continue his charade.

That punk needs to be taken down for doing this to our country.  On top of all of that, the MSM needs to be held guilty of something and including some of those other punks who are anti-Americans in Congress.  I personally don't give a hoot what color the guy is, he's a big-time lawbreaker. 

Leo, i've been plastering this article everywhere on the net the past day or so.I've had a hundred people tell me it's no good because they "Amended" the Constitution that makes your lawsuit worthless ? I'm not one to jump to conclusions and that's why i'm asking buddy.I'm sure this is not the case, but it would be nice to hear it from someone in the know like yourself.Thank you for what you're doing sir !!!!!!!!!

Leo, i've been plastering this article everywhere on the net the past day or so.I've had a hundred people tell me it's no good because they "Amended" the Constitution that makes your lawsuit worthless ? I'm not one to jump to conclusions and that's why i'm asking buddy.I'm sure this is not the case, but it would be nice to hear it from someone in the know like yourself.Thank you for what you're doing sir !!!!!!!!!

Here is the link to all 3 versions of the bill I posted above. The first is S.RES.511.IS is as "Introduced to the Senate", the second S.RES.511.RS is as "Reported to the Senate" and the third is S.RES.511.ATS is "Agreed To by Senate": http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=sr110-511

If you click on the "show changes in color" link, it will highlight changes as it goes through the process of being introduced, reported to and finally agreed to.

Hope this helps.

MM

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html

Someone was asking about the resolution introduced by the senators (Patric Leahy & McCaskill), and this is the URL requested.

 

Hope this helps

 

SissySue

Okay the links right above this post say the McCain was indeed a Natural Born Citizen "because" he was born of "two" American citizens.It doesn't say anything about whether or not Obama would fall into this category.Since one of his parents was under jurisdiction of Britian and therefor so was he when he was born, does this lawsuit that Leo has going hold merrit?

Leo, from the same website as I quoted the Senator's Resolution 511- something you should be aware of since you don't know what kind of defense Obama may pull out of his... acorns. If Obama's mother was unmarried (because Obama Sr was alleged to have been married at the time of his birth & some claim he was polygamous) that may be another area to look into.

http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/obama-born-in-kenya-new-information/#comments

"...Likewise it would explain why Michelle Obama tried trawling the “very single mother” canard. Were he illegitimate there is precedent and Statute that says if his parents were unmarried at the time of his birth he would have become a Citizen of the USA at Birth under Title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act Section 309. [8 U.S.C. 1409]. However, as Miller v Albright, 523 US 420 (1998) demonstrates there is, and was, a split in the Supreme Court as to whether this Law is in fact Constitutional under the XIVth Amendment. A new case might change the precedent. For now it stands."

But even if Stanley Ann was a single mother who gave brith in Hawaii, as is supposed to be the story, she still took him out of Hawaii at age 5 or 6 and moved to Indonesia and married Lolo Soetoro, and Obama was given a name change to Barry Soetoro and enrolled into school under Indonesian standards, (having Indonesian Citizenship by Adoption, which was the ONLY way he would have been eligible to go to school in Indonesia) and that still makes him ineligible to be a natural born citizen ever again, even if he came back into the country before the age of 21 and natuaralized himself, he would NOT be a "Natural Born Citizen" any longer.  You cannot regain status if you ever took another country citizenship and renounced yours by so doing and Indonesia did not allow dual citizenships at that time.  You can become "naturalized" and for all intents and purposes, you are a Citizen, but not a "Natural Born Citizen" anymore.  You enjoy the same benefits, witih the exception of being able to beome POTUS.

These SOB's knew, and they set us up by using McCain. Read Leahy's language very carefully, and insert "Obama" where he says "McCain".

This is the argument they are going to use.

Leo, When I went out of the Country, I had to have a passport "like all normal people need to do" and When I applied for my passport, I had to show my Birth certificate, so I ask, How the hell did Obama leave this country without a passport and if he has a passport, how did he get it

 without a Birth Certificate.

LEO, GET THIS SOB

I'm sorry to say that this is a dead issue. The Demo congress will NEVER ALLOW Obama to be removed from eligibility. 

It does not matter what any court says. And their lapdogs in the MSM will tell us that anyone who thinks that Obama is anything other than a natural born citizen is a dangerous racist extremist.

From: AnonymousGuy

First:  Obama and Mcaskill can not amend the constitution with senate legislation according to Article 5 of the constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate

Second: Mcaskil/Obama legislation, which passed unanimously in the Senate must be signed in to law after being reviewed by the congress.

From: AnonymousGuy

Dead Issue??

Last time i checked, the MSM and DNC were not part of the Supreme Court of the United States.  That was clear in 2004 in Bush versus Gore.

Their opinions and our opinions should not change what SCOTUS has sworn to uphold; the constitution.

"I'm sorry to say that this is a dead issue. The Demo congress will NEVER ALLOW Obama to be removed from eligibility. 

Let them say what they may. We know what most of the media is...they really don't give a crap what the exploit and ruin as long as they are making money. If it means pushing a dark agenda, they will do it as long as money is being made. The majority of the media does not hold a light for truth and probably never will. Truth will prevail, it always does. The truth never lies.

All of the points y'all are raising have been covered by Mr. Donofrio in his papers.  The man has it all locked down tight, the BC, the McCain issue, Indonesia... it's obvious most of you are still bumping around in the dark going over the same things again and again. Mr. Donofrio's suit is beyond the guesswork and confusion, but you would have to sift through all of arguments to grasp why these other issues are irrlevant.  Just think about these two things and let them sink in: 

1: the Framers of the Constitution didn't consider themselves as natural born Citizens, that's why they added the grandfather clause into Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5

2: The USA has never had a President who wasn't born in the USA of two US Citizen parents.

Stop equating "natural born Citizen" with "Citizen".  Mr. Donofrio believes that you can concede Obama was born in Hawaii, but regardless, Obama was, just like the Framers, a British subject "at birth" and so he isn't a natural born citizen.

From: AnonymousGuy

Another thought on the DNC and possibly the MSM and organizations like factcheck:

At some point, when there are hints that legal prosecution could occur and this may indeed be a very serious issue, the DNC and MSM will be confronted with the time tested "Prisoner's Dilemma".  You see, once it becomes apparent that obstruction of the constituion with fraud is potential treason and to be knowingly doing so may become a criminal reality to any individual, they will nolonger defend "the cause".  If there is any merit to this case, justice will eventually prevail.

Tracker posted on Nov 15, 2008 @ 10:06 PM:

"...I've had a hundred people tell me it's no good because they "Amended" the Constitution that makes your lawsuit worthless..."

Tracker,

Those 100+ people are not too smart. The fact is that since our Constitution was ratified in 1789, there have been over 10,000 amendments introduced but only 33 have been proposed by Congress. Of those 33, the Constitution has only been amended 27 times; the first ten times are The Bill of Rights. The last time there was a Constitutional Amendment was in 1992 when the 27th Amendment limiting congressional pay raises was passed. We know Barri-O has long tentacles but even the NYSlimes would have to report a 28th Amendment on its front page, above the fold. So go educate the 100+ nay-sayers, sit back with a beer & watch them dissolve into panic. Then toast Leo's brain & heart and R-E-L-A-X.

Cheers!

MM

Tracker,

Those 100+ people are not too smart. The fact is that since our Constitution was ratified in 1789, there have been over 10,000 amendments introduced but only 33 have been proposed by Congress. Of those 33, the Constitution has only been amended 27 times; the first ten times are The Bill of Rights. The last time there was a Constitutional Amendment was in 1992 when the 27th Amendment limiting congressional pay raises was passed. We know Barri-O has long tentacles but even the NYSlimes would have to report a 28th Amendment on its front page, above the fold. So go educate the 100+ nay-sayers, sit back with a beer & watch them dissolve into panic. Then toast Leo's brain & heart and R-E-L-A-X.

Cheers!

Thank you very much for clarifying this for me buddy ! I'll keep splattering this case all over the web !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MM

If anyone else here has been vexed by the "Comment Box" - meaning has cut & pasted from elsewhere only to have it not show up here at all, or have it show up as mine did in BLACK PRINT which doesn't show up on the BLACK BACKGROUND, join me in ASKING LEO to either change the background to a lighter color so the text shows up or give us an optional background color in the comment box.

I've posted probably 1000 letters/posts in the past week and only HERE DO I GET A HEADACHE TRYING TO READ/WRITE COMMENTS. HELP!!

MM

Someone else posted this in the earlier comment thread. It had really good info, so I'm taking the liberty to copy and paste it into the current comment thread.

******

The hits just keep on coming.

Consider the following case note from the Yale Law Journal: http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/pryor_note.pdf

The note was published in 1988, and thus the author did not have any motivation to mold and shape her arguments or conclusions to benefit the candidacy of Barack Obama.

According to the author, the issue of whether a person born of one American and one alien parent qualifies as "natural born" has never been resolved.  In a related footnote (number 5), the author considers the question of whether it matters which parent (Mom or Dad) is the American, and which is the alien parent, suggesting an answer that may not be pleasing to "the One":

"Whether, in cases of one citizen and one alien parent, the father or the mother is the alien might also affect natural born citizen status since, under American naturalization statutes in effect around the time of the Constitutional Convention, the citizenship of the child depended on the citizenship and residency of the father.  See Act of Mar. 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103, 104.  The American naturalization acts were based on earlier British statutes.  See, e.g., An act ... For naturalizing ... the children of natural born subjects of the crown, 4 Geo. 2, ch. 21 (1731).  The Supreme Court in Montana v. Kennedy concluded that the Naturalization Act of 1802, the controlling statute at the time of the petitioner's birth, made children born abroad citizens only if their fathers were or had been citizens.  Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308, 310-11 (1961).  Until 1934, citizenship of the mother could not be passed on to her foreign-born children.  See Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 826 (1971).

        It is obvious that a certain Supreme court Clerk thinks that he is a Supreme Court justice. His deliberately errant manner in handling Donofrio's case seems to say that he is in Obama's corner. I expect that he will continue to behave in this manner in the hope that Donofrio will give up. About the only recourse that Dondfrio has is to write a open letter to Clarence Thomas, and advise him that someone at the front desk is impersonating him, and that his insanity is impeding the resolution of a very serious national matter which needs to be heard immediately. It would seem that if Clarence Thomas is a reasonable person he might be curious enough to investigate the impersonation allegation, and dig down into the dung pile a little.Maybe as a result the clerk will get a size 10 put to his backside.

First of all let me make one thing perfectly clear....I DO NOT want Obama to assume the office of POTUS!!!

I understand the premise of the legal argument being made here and while it is a good one, there is one minor detail that could be a problem.

Unless somewhere in the Constitution there is a broad brush statement (and there might be, I have not read the entire document) which states that every single written word shall be the law of the land from that day FORWARD, then the case cannot be won.

"at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution"....There is the problem...Without a broad brush staement such as the one I mentioned, it can be argued that Obama WAS NOT born at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution and therefore the clause does not apply to him....Without a broad brush statement it can be argued that the clause would need to have been worded in a manner such as "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution and HEREAFTER" or "HERETOFORE".

Yes, it's a technicality, but a legitimate one...Like I said, I have not read the entire Constitution and for all our sakes I hope that there is a broad staement or clause in it such as the example that I mentioned....If not, then even a novice could win the case on the arguement that I have mentioned.

Best of luck and I hope you win your arguement for the sake and well being of our country...If not, then God help us all!!!

That clerk was probably planted there by Obama

BO studied Constitutional Law didn't he? Has anyone noticed when you write his name,his picture comes up and asks if you like him?  What's up with that? He's haunting us!!!!

 posted by Anonymous. on Nov.16.2008 @ 1:55 am

So according to your logic, every change of law or new law from that time forward to the present day AND BEYOND (I GOT IT COVERED)should have to specify "from this point forward"? Wouldn't that just be implied since one cannot change what happened BEFORE the law was written? Your brain is screaming, "Go to sleep, man. We need some sleep!"

Obama is likely going to join his "Auntie Z", the illegal alien living in public housing in Boston, on a one way ticket back to Kenya. So sweet dreams my friend.

MM

 posted by Anonymous. on Nov.16.2008 @ 2:18 am

Dude, can you not wrap your head around what I wrote.

The past does not enter into the argument.

The clause is worded poorly and specifically says "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution".

To assume that it implies from that day forward can be argued till the cows come home.

And yes, any further amendments would need to clearly state that they are intended from that day forward.

If in the Constitution it is stated that every written word shall be the law of the land from that day forward, then any future amendment would automatically rule into the future.

To simply implie that the Framers meant to say "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution and Hereafter" instead of what they did say "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" is a mistake in a court of law....To simply implie or assume just won't cut it....Now go get some rest!!!

This case is absolutely "BRILLIANT" ! All the other cases out there are going after the Birth Cert. etc....and they all fail to see pure "simplicity" of the whole deal. He's simply NOT eligible folks. END OF STORY, NO WAY TO CHALLENGE IT, IT'S CUT AND DRY ! He was ***BORN*** with dual citizenships, and that alone eliminates his ability to be POTUS. Even the Supreme Court of the United States can't overlook or throw out this "SIMPLY BRILLIANT" lawsuit. Mr. Donofrio, you my friend are a brilliant ... the only way you can possible understand the Constitution is to look at it through the framers eyes. This is just BRILLIANT !!!! GOD BLESS AMERICA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please stop reposting this over at Hannity.com!

All you're going to do is drag the internet scum that panders to Obama here since the O-moderator has refused multiple-thread discussion on this topic.

Goodlife obviously doesn't like having to do the job she is there for.  She also has a bias against this topic.  Posting this again there is only going to encourage her more to use her egotistical power against guys like Leo and make him look bad in the end.

Nothing against Sean Hannity, but his internet forums are controlled by immature kids that don't know how to foster responsible discussion.

In response to Annonymous @ 2:43 AM post: "Dude...":

Okay, I got some rest. I agree that you can't add a word like "hereafter" or any other word. It is AS WRITTEN: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President; "

"a Citizen of the U.S. at the time of the adoption of the Constitution" NOT a citizen at the time... AND THEREAFTER. Just AT THAT PRECISE POINT IN TIME WHEN THE CONSITUTION WAS ADOPTED MAKING ALL THE FRAMERS ELIGIBLE, BUT NOT THEIR CHILDREN OR ANYONE WHO CAME AFTER (LIKE OBAMA, 220+ YEARS AFTER).

Dude, yo feelin' me? We cool?

P.S. Call me "Dudette", yo.

MM

 Lots of grey areas, but, when laid out in a building block form, unless Obama’s Certificate of Birth states that his father was someone who was an AMerican Citizen( negating the British SUbject status) or shows no Father listed at all, then he MAY be a Natural born citizen

* * * * * * * * * *

I strongly disagree.  the person must PROVE he is a  Natural Born Citizen. NBC.  Therefore he must prove both his mother and father were citizens at his birth.  Actually it is probably more important to prove the Father was a citizen at birth.   If there is no father then he is not a NBC.  

at the time of the constitution citizenship was considered to flow with the father not the mother.  thus the father is most important.

RESOLUTION

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

"Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a ''natural born Citizen'' of the United States;

Whereas the term ''natural born Citizen'', as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to American citizens serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country's President;"

How convenient of them to leave out "the rest of the story" here...that stipulates the mind of the framers...no other type of citizenship qualifies.  IF they felt that any type of citizenship qualified the person they would have just worded it "citizen of the U.S.".  They stipulated that no other loyalty to any other birth country linkage was permitted.  There has been no other change to that.  In fact, just in this action alone is the admittance that there must be something else done in order to make the standing wording of the Constitution null and void.

BTW, just where is the marriage certificate of Stanley Ann and Obama Sr?  Just in case.  Anyway, Obama and appointees openly admit to the marriage and parentage and it results from his time of birth.

What would be the situation if Obama's defense now would be to attempt to make this marriage null and void?  Resort back to the Kenyan grandmother's claim of the Kenyan birth?

The issue truly is of the utmost simplicity.  

It boils down to a simple question:

What distinction were the Framers making 

between a "natural born Citizen" and 

a "Citizen"?  

Article 2, Section1, Clause 5:

No person except a natural born 

Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, 

at the time of the Adoption of this 

Constitution shall be eligible to the 

Office of President; 

Riddle me this: what distinction are the Framers drawing? 

As I've said repeatedly in interviews and even in my SCOTUS Stay Application, Obama has no legal responsibility to show his BC to anybody not legally authorized to ask for it.  Not one single person who is legally authorized to ask for his BC - for example any of the several Secretaries of State - has asked for it.  But if one of these suits does accomplish its goal and a Secretary of State asks for it, and he produces it, then, if that was the only element of the law suit, the law suit will be dead.  And so will every other law suit on this issue.

My suit doesn't ask a question I don't know the answer to.  I know the answer to the question I've asked at the top of this comment.  And once you know the answer to that question, you'll forget all about Obama's birth certificate.  

Everything about all of the attempts to obtain the truth, in court, should make for a landmark case. I'm surprised that we don't have attorneys marching on Washington, simply because of the weight of the arguments.

Considering Obama's involvement in McCain's citizenship status years ago (mentioned above), and his unwillingness to present "legal" evidence of his own qualifications, it appears that he has been planning his bid for the POTUS much longer than what has been acknowledged. 

This issue is so deep.  There are such huge questions regarding the man's integrity. Every red (the pun is what it is) flag should be raised in the thinking of all Americans who care that we have something very precious and very special just having this particular Constitution. Most of us are not veterans, or currently not soldiers so our investment has been minimal. This goes so far beyond any ordinary politcal battle.

Just putting the American people in the position of even having to ask these questions and go through this process indicates a serious character flaw. I'm concerned about the willingness of so many people to just push the Constitution aside to put a man in as the POTUS, just because they like him, or just because he is a Democrat, or just because he is of African descent. That alone is scary.  Once we have  abdicated the authority of the Constitution, we have nothing left. 

It wouldn't matter if he were purple with pink and yellow polka dots.  This is NOT about his color. It is about his refusal to prove (not make excuses for - PROVE) he is legally qualified according to the Constitution BEFORE he is sworn in to UPHOLD IT!  How can he uphold it when he has shown such contempt for it?

For the record, I'm not registered here either but here, I will be BJay.

IF there were a marrriage between Stanley Ann and Obama Sr, there is no way ot make it Null and Void, AFTER THE FACT, WHEN BOTH OF THE INITIAL PARTIES TO THAT MARRIAGE ARE DEAD........ 

Me, as a child of my parents, have no right to go back to the courts or any other jurisdiction and even request that I want the marriage of my parents striken from the records, as I was a result of that marriage.  That is simply ludicrious.

If on the other hand, there were NO marriage, I would not be able to go to the courts and have a petition to have them MARRIED, either.  They are dead and what they did or did not do is irrelevant in the matter of marriage, at this date and time in the eyes of any court, because they are DEAD.  The only thing that has any consequence is what they actually did, not what they may have intended to do or what they would have liked to do.  Those things cannot be reversed or importuned upon to make me happy.

And IF Stanley Ann was single at the time of birth, she may or may not have been in Kenya, under a different soverign rule, and that would have to be found out, as that alone affects her Citizenship status in the controversy here.  IF she was there and not married, she was too young at the time of Obama's birth to have held onto her Citizenship per the laws at that time, she would have had to be a natural born citizen having lived in the USA for 5 years prior to his birth, after her emancipation from her parents, and she was not of  the age where that could have happened, she was only 18 years old when she gave birth.  She would have had to have been emacipated from her parents at age 13, which she obviously wasn't.  If she was married to Obama Sr, then he was a UK Citizen and under the soon to be new Kenyan dictates,  and that makes Obama ineligible to be POTUS because he shared dual citizenship at birth.  Even if that dual citizenship was negated at his age of 18 or 21, it makes no difference, because he was born in that status. 

IF, and we have a lot of proof out there that, he was adopted by Soetoro at the time of the marriage of his mother and Soetoro, and was enrolled in school in Indonesia, which at that time, did not allow dual citizenships with any other countries, as it was at war, and we (America) did not allow dual citizenships with that country, then he is NOT eligible to be POTUS either, because he was adopted by and put into school by Soetoro, in a country that demanded as part of its own rules that no one can attend the type of school he went to other than CITIZENS of that Country. 

Obama is NOT a "Natural Born Citizen" and may be a naturalized Citizen, but only if he, when he came back to the USA at age 10, went in and was naturalized at that time, either taken there by his mother or by his grandparents.  The only UNLESS in this picture is that he might have possiby been born in Hawaii, and his father may have been someone other than Obama Sr, such as Frank Marshall Davis, or Malcom X, both or either, American Natural Born Citizens......  (this is all based on the timelines and the following of Stanley Ann to the places and things she did do that we know or speculate about)

To the left of the factcheck blurb on BO's website, is the following statement encouraging emailers to include this.

"Hi everyone!
People who are determined to keep us divided start these rumors about Barack’s birth certificate to manipulate us into thinking he is not an American citizen.
The fact is Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.
Learn the facts and see the birth certificate for yourself:
http://my.barackobama.com/birthcertificate
Together we can make sure these negative and divisive attacks don't affect this election.
Thanks for your help.

Rather significant, isn't it... they don't even call him a NBC!

Does the constitution say anything about native citizens?

I wish you, Leo, all the best as you carry this forward, and my prayers are with you!

Might want to pass this around:

http://www.f2a.org/NewsStory.cfm?Story_ID=2794

I am curious about why no one has challenged the "President-Elect" about the Logan Act:

<blockquote><table border=3><tr><td bgcolor=lemonchiffon>It is learned on November 11 that the Obama campaign had been in contact with the terrorist group Hamas for months, but Hamas had been asked to keep the discussions secret until after the elections. [475]</table></blockquote>

Okay, I'll try that again:

It is learned on November 11 that the Obama campaign had been in contact with the terrorist group Hamas for months, but Hamas had been asked to keep the discussions secret until after the elections. [475]

Logan Act apply here?

SissySue

I've got a serious question! Lets say that Obama is proven "not eligible" instead of the torch being passed to Biden, wouldn't there be grounds for a criminal investigation into the "entire DNC" as being part of the biggest fraud in U.S.History?How can they just pass the torch to Biden if the whole campaign was a fraud.I mean the democrats won this election using an ineligible candidate.It doesn't seem fair to me that the Dems get to keep the election if they ran a fraudulent campaign all together??? It looks like McCain is also not eligible, so what happens from this point on ?

Here's a technicality I think deserves some thought and an argument prepared for:

The framers, at the time they were born, and even though born on this land, were not also US citizens.  This land was a British colony, therefore there was no dual citizenship.  They were ONLY Brit citizens since the US didn't exist at the time they were born.  On the other hand, Obama was also a US citizen at the time he was born (assuming he was born in Hawaii) and could therefore be a NBC.

In response to this post:

posted by Anonymous. on Nov.15.2008 @ 8:33 pm

Obama's murky past and questionable citizenship certainly requires scrutiny.

Obama has done two things as an adult that cause me to question his loyalties.

One is that he aided Raila Odinga in raising close to a million dollars in the US.  The purpose of this fundraising was to support Odinga's political efforts in Kenya.  Odinga, of course encouraged the murderous rampage of over a thousand Kenyans when he lost, and apparently with Obama's advance knowledge, per the results of Jerome Corsi's recent trip to Kenya.

The other is that he travelled to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport at a time when travel to Pakistan was prohibited for US citizens.

I believe both of those actions are adverse to citizenship.  When citizenship is questionable, for instance in the case of dual citizenship, such actions are used to determine where a subject's loyalty lies.

Personally I don't think criticizing a young man for traveling into Pakistan with a Passport he held legally holds much water on judging his character. I know that in my late teens and early 20's , as a Political Science major, I had wished I could have traveled to certain off-limits countries, such as Cuba - simply out of  academic curiosity. That curiosity was fueled by a junior year high school trip to the still titled U.S.S.R., literally just months after glasnost and perestroika had been instituted by Gorbachev.  And it was a trip that proved to me that there are friendly peace loving people in every country, despite the corrupted men and women who ruled their country's. Because of that and subsequent experiences in college I don't feel comfortable judging a 20 year-old Barrack Obama's motivations in visiting Pakistan at age 20 with a passport and citizenship that was completely legal for him to hold and travel on.

As for Odinga, I don't know enough about that scenario to comment, and really no one should be if one book (by an author with controversy in seemingly everything he does now) is the only source for the claim.

Bottom line, there are several different angles challenging Obama's citizenship status. I happen to believe Mr. Donofrio's is the simplest, most reasonable evaluation of what the Constitution states. He has framed his argument in a context that is reasonable to assume is consistent the Founding Father's vision and intent. It has been reported that there is as many as 13 separate active cases at various levels of the judicial system, including several already listed or soon to be on the Supreme Court docket. Those of us that are serious about making sure this case gets at least one fair hearing in front of Supreme Court, in other words - allowing the Supreme Court to do what it was intended to, read the Constitution and render a decision based on the validity of arguments and the evidence provided - need to observe, learn, intellectual, active, truthful and vigilant about spreading what we have learned to as many people as possible, while resisting attacks not backed up with thoughtful logic. And most of all, we need to scour the internet and other media resources and share news with each other as it happens if possible.

And finally, I suggest we refrain from rehashing facts from Obama's past that does not pertain to this or other pending cases that have relevance.

Regards,

JBL

"I'm sorry to say that this is a dead issue. The Demo congress will NEVER ALLOW Obama to be removed from eligibility. 

Actually, when and if this or any other lawsuit is accepted by a Justice for review, the Supreme Court will be painted as to Conservative, stacked against Obama and writing laws when it should only be making decisions. How's that for tired rhetoric? 

Personally, I think Mr. Donofrio should be filing his appeal to the Honorable Justice Scalia as this case is right in his wheelhouse as a strict constructionist, but Donofrio is the attorney and he has made a professional judgment. And so I'm hopeful of how this will proceed.

 When Alexandar Hamilton wrote a rough draft of the
Constitution, his original draft said:

"No person shall be eligible to the
Office of the President of the United States
unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."

Notice how the FINAL DRAFT now says:

 No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President;

response to 'tracker' 11/16/08 @ 3:00 PM

I have not verified the inforamiton with my own reading of the Constitution , however, in Alan Keyes Writ, he addresses your issue on page 12, line 12 #77:

"77. The Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, “if the President

http://www.soundinvestments.us/files/final_writ_keyes_v_bowen.pdf

 posted by Anonymous. on Nov.15.2008 @ 11:43 pm

If anyone else here has been vexed by the "Comment Box" - meaning has cut & pasted from elsewhere only to have it not show up here at all, or have it show up as mine did in BLACK PRINT which doesn't show up on the BLACK BACKGROUND, join me in ASKING LEO to either change the background to a lighter color so the text shows up or give us an optional background color in the comment box.

I've posted probably 1000 letters/posts in the past week and only HERE DO I GET A HEADACHE TRYING TO READ/WRITE COMMENTS. HELP!!

MM

HELPFUL HINT FOR CUTTING AND PASTING ON WINDOWS MACHINES:

After you have selected and cut your text, OPEN NOTEPAD  (NOT Word, Works or Wordpad or anything else, just Notepad, which can be found in Start>All Programs>Accessories).

Paste your text into NOTEPAD and make sure there are no extraneous characters in the pasted text.

If the text is running off the page to the right, Select-all  text displayed in Notepad, leave it selected, go to the FORMAT MENU and select WORD WRAP.

Your text is now ready to be cut or copied from Notepad and pasted into your blog post.

That process will help clean up your text and make sure there are no hidden HTML tags creating problems with color and formatting.

There is no proof that Obama raised money for Odinga.
His website claims that "Friends of B.O." doesn't mean
Barack Obama. I know it's ridiculous and probably a lie,
but the onus is on you to prove that "Friends of B.O." really
means Barack, and where exactly that money came from. 

The $600,000 he donated to Odinga is no small amount. 

Is there a way to prove that it came from Obama's coffers? 

You can search for campaign disbursements here...
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?C00411934

You can do "shift-enter" on your keyboard to force a
word-wrap, as well....

Meaning first you press down the "shift" key, and THEN press
down the "enter" key. That will move part of your sentence
down to the next line directly after.

Interesting,
http://www.mikefrancesa.com/wordpress/?p=976, according to this site Barack Obama never used a
former name.

Does anyone really care that he lies?

SissySue

Biden ONLY becomes President if Obama is removed after their Inaguration. 

If Obama is disqulified before the electors meet, the electors can cast their vote for anyone ELIGIBLE for POTUS.

If after Obama becomes President-elect (the electors give him at least 270 majority votes), Biden would ONLY temporarily serve as the President until a President can be qualified...presumably by either the electors or the House.

Donofrio pointed this all out above, but here it is, copied from his own words.... 

What distinction were the Framers making 

between a "natural born Citizen" and 

a "Citizen"?  

Article 2, Section1, Clause 5:

No person except a natural born 

Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, 

at the time of the Adoption of this 

Constitution shall be eligible to the 

Office of President;

The key words in that sentence or meaning are:  "At the time of the Adoption of this Consitution shall be eligible to the Office of President."  The phrase "or Citizen of the United States" was put in there so that the actual people involved in gaining this country its freedom could be President, by being a Citizen of the United States while it was still under th the throw over of the 

jurisdiction of the British, where most of the people came from at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, however, no one else would be able to claim that distinction, after the first say 30 or so years (at the time of Adoption), thereby, everyone else coming up later would necessarily have to be "Natual Born Citizens" in order to qualify themselves as candidates.  That simply means that that particular element had a time limit on that availability.  It would not apply to Obama today, as the framers so wisely limited the time for that period of opening to include only  those who might want to be President and being of dual soveringty for a short while, so that they could start this country off on the process of the freedom of the Constitution.

I picked this up off of Berg's web site as a recent posting.  It is a lengthy read but an interesting one. Hope you can copy and paste it if it isn't 'hot.'

http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2008/11/15/find-out-whether-barack-obama-is-a-natural-born-citizen-as-required-under-article-ii-of-the-us-constitution-and-stop-the-electoral-college-from-voting-for-him-if-he-is-not/

I need help. Does anyone here have a membership with Ancestry.com?  If so, can you please look this up for us and let us know what's happening?  A lady on Obamacrimes wanted it checked out.  Thanks so much!

http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?gl=ROOT_CATEGORY&rank=1&new=1&so=3&MSAV=0&msT=1&gss=ms_f-2&_80004000=Obama&_81004010=1961&msbpn__ftp=Africa

Does anyone know the time frame we're looking at for a decision by Judge Thomas on whether or not he will allow the case to be seen in court ? Or do you think it will be just another "you don't have standing" and be thrown out without a second look ? I sure hope he decides to take this case :(

Dear Mr. Donofrio:

I have read some of your docments, yet not all of them so far, and I have no idea what the heck is going on here in our country. It's not just what you have filed and tried to go forward with, but it's what others have done too. I find it soamazing that some people's ears are closed up, mainly those in a higher-up office. I don't understand it myself. Something just isn't right. How can we can hear what you're saying, which is many of us, yet others can't hear this with regard to Barry and then it's like we're talking to brick walls?

This concerns me.  Doesn't it concern you, Mr. Donofrio? It just doesn't make sense at all.

Many people are saying on other forums that because the U.S. doesn't recognize dual citizenship, it doesn't matter whether or not another country considered Obama a citizen - if he was born in Hawaii, he's a natural born citizen of the U.S.

Does anyone know about this particular aspect?

Can someone tell me which link on the left is Leo's case?

 I'd like to read his suit that he filed.

thank you!

Try this link to read the various documents pertaining to the case: http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/myimages/album2143.html

 http://www.lanlamphere.com/public/2008/11/14/virginia-state-court-dismisses-action-challenging-obamas-eligibility-to-be-president/

Has anyone read this?  Does this mean that it is over and there is nothing left to do but let a foreigner lead our country?

Leah

Well, after much research I had typed a long detailed, sourced post of what would happen if Obama is found to be unqualified to serve as President.

Then the blog did some sort of auto-update refresh and 1 hour of typing was wiped out.

I can re-type this in detail at a later date, essentially the process outlined in the Constitution and in the US Federal Code states in the event that a candidate is deemed unqualified to serve as President, then on the date of Electoral vote certification, which would be January 6, 2009 during a mandatory joint session of Congress (and after the NEW Congress will have been sworn in on January 3rd) then the remaining candidates with electoral votes, no more than three candidates with the highest electoral vote totals, would then be presented to the House to vote on for President, with each State's Representation (including D.C., making it 51 total votes) getting 1 vote to cast for the President.

The Senate would be given the task of electing the VP from the three VP candidates who had the highest pledged electoral votes. Again 51 total votes would be cast.

All this means that a disqualified Obama could very well result in an administration of John McCain as President and Joe Biden as Vice-President, which though not my preference, is hardly a terrifying prospect.

 <i>The Socialist Workers Party has gained official access to ballots in ten States that Respondent is aware of.  And, despite the fact that the Socialist Workers Party has qualified to have their chosen candidate listed on those ballots, state election officials from Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, and Washington have all, for good and legal cause, refused to list Mr. Calero on the ballots since, having been born in Nicaragua, he is not a "natural born citizen" as is required by Article 1, Section 2, of the United States Constitution.</i>

The very fact that Obama himself and his appointees of his websites conveying his stamp of approval clarifications, state that at the time of O's birth he had citizenships of two countries, it is the same meaning as if Obama had two separate places of birth - each giving him the advantages or disadvantages of its citizenship.  He may therefore use both citizenships to his discretion.  That conclusion, for all practical purposes, places him, to an extent, in the same position as the above stated other "candidate" who was rightfully removed, under the Constitution, by certain SOSs.  One cannot be forced to vote for only "one half" of a candidate while ignoring the "other half"!  And this is exactly the kind of situation of dual loyalties that the framers were concerned about for posterity...and they had the experience to back them up!  One, then must examine the frame of mind of intention by the framers in order to exactly remedy any political preference for individuals or mere cultural preferences of a limited moment in time.

I respect and honor that our forefathers chose jus solis when
they started our great country, but our laws are being trampled
on. Maybe it's time to have jus civis instead - in other words
ones' loyalty matters. If you have had more than one nationality
 then you cannot be the POTUS. 100% red-blooded American
for POTUS or nothing!

Leo -- You argument is best so far: Why? Blackstone's Commentaries 1:354 ff; also, John Jay on Single Loyalty of "Commander-in-Chief;" traditional role of Chief Justice administering Inaugural Oath (since 1974, violating Oath is high crime and misdemeanor); special role of Chief Justice, "When the President is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside." With all of this Democrat's baggage, I can't see how he can make it as far as the Inaugural Oath?  I'm convinced the Democrat Party will have to substitute: Hillary? This whole transitional team do-dad is peopled with Clintonistas. Do you think that Barack Obama knows in his heart what's coming? Will we hear "Obama for Secretary of State," or "Obama for the Supreme Court?"

With Mr. Donofrio's lawsuit as my catalyst, I have been looking into what the Constitutional term "natural born citizen" should be considered to mean, and have found the topic simultaneously fascinating and vexing.

Just now, I am considering that the term could possibly be defined to exclude individuals who, though arguably possessing full citizenship at birth otherwise sufficient to permit them to run for president when they reach the proper age, nevertheless take actions later in life that disqualify them.

Thus even if the Supreme Court decides that an infant born under circumstances that bestow dual citizenship (e.g., U.S. and UK) is not disqualified for the presidency at birth, if there is a "break" or "discontinuity" in that person's U.S. citizenship, that person can no longer be described as a "natural born citizen".  That is, I believe that the Constitution requires that for a person to assume the office of the presidency, that person's citizenship must be unbroken and pure, dating back to the day of that person's birth.

For example, are we certain that can the following be said to be true, absolutely:  Barack H. Obama "is" a natural-born citizen?  That is, if his present citizenship in the U.S. was attained via a process by "re-naturalization" of sorts following a stint as a non-U.S. citizen, why should a presumed status of "natural-born citizen" at birth be of any relevance?

Under my theory, status as "natural born citizen" sufficient to qualify one to run for president is (as I believe it should be) one that, if not possessed at birth, cannot be later acquired, and if present at birth, can in fact be forfeited for all time by one who subsequently becomes a citizen of another country, at whatever age, and for whatever length of time.

BHO's record of U.S. citizenship may ultimately be found to contain an interruption or discontinuity.  I'm eager to learn what others have to say about whether one's status as a "natural born citizen" can be lost by virtue of such a discontinuity.

I could be wrong, but I think if you want to format
your text, you can type it in MS Word or
OpenOffice the way you want it, then copy it with
your mouse and paste it into the comment screen at
Leo's blog. This is my test to see if that works...

Hmm... that didn't work out so great. Let me try again! 

I could be wrong, but I think if you want to format
your text, you can type it in MS Word or
OpenOffice the way you want it, then copy it with
your mouse and paste it into the comment screen at
Leo's blog. This is my test to see if that works...

Got this from Freeper. The blog page is in Spanish or Portuguese so the translation is a little wonky:

http://saguaenmuerto.blogspot.com/2008/10/posible-presidente-sagero.html

The possibility that Barack Obama the next president of the
United States, has increased the curiosity on its origin and her
family Ann Durham, the mother of Obama, from very young
had socialist ideas, like the majority of " hippies" of the time.

When it turned the 18 years traveled to Cuba, with a
support battalion to the revolution. During its stay in Cuba in
1960, it was involved in voluntary works living in a commune
in the central zone of the island, where it knew a Cuban
young person, Francisco I spread, native of the town of
Sagua the Great one.

Ann like its companions and companions of the commune,
tapeworm dissolute sexual ideas, but Francisco always was
his favorite. When Ann left Cuba, in December of 1960, had
two months of pregnancy. To his arrival to Hawaii, where
their parents lived, he resumed his studies in the University of
Hawaii in Manoa, where Obama-father knew Barack., with
which married in February of 1961.

In its book " The audacity of Hope" Obama says that her
mother had four months of pregnancy when she married with
his father. If we followed the chronology of the facts,
nonBarack Obama can be verified that the father of the son
of Ann is Francisco I spread, Mr. This creates a new
situation, of being chosen president Barack, would become
an elect federal official of Cuban origin with roots in the town
of Sagua the Great one.

At the moment the Great one is another elect official of
Cuban origin with roots in Sagua, son of the Melquiades
veterinarian Martinez, the Senator of Florida Mel Martinez,
now we would have another elect official of Cuban origin,
with roots in Sagua the Great one, son of gp Ann, Barack (I
spread) Obama.

10:47 AM again.

To test my theory, I ran the following query on "yahoo":  "natural born citizen" and "continuous citizenship".

I obtained one result:  a 1987 New York Times letter to the editor by one Donald M. Kresge, an immigration lawyer finding fault with certain ruminations by William Safire regarding the meaning of the term (you guessed it): "natural born citizen".

Did I just channel Mr. Kresge, whose emotions I seem to be seconding?  More to the point, is Mr. Kresge still with us, and/or has he received any unwanted attention from "the One"?  You make the call.

See http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE4DF103EF933A1575AC0A961948260

No Simple Matter to Be a Natural Born Citizen

This very question (effect of a break in citizenship) was put to Yahoo readers about a month ago, eliciting a string of responses.

See:  http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081004210017AAUCt4V

The following was one of the responses:

"And your point is what, exactly? That this is a cause to disqualify Obama as a candidate for President? If you think this, you are wrong on what the requirements ARE to become president, natural born (he is), a citizen (he is), 35 years of age, (He is older), A resident for the past 14 years (He has been for longer). Sorry, he meets the requirements as listed in the Constitution. The Constitution says nothing about being a citizen for the entire time from birth to present! And you seem to think that not having continuous citizenship is a dealbreaker. So, you know Constitutional law better than anyone else and found the discrepancy on your own? Don't you think the McCain camp would be looking for JUST exactly a reason of the kind you point out here to get RID of Obama if they could? McCain isn't so stupid that he would not look into this if there were any grounds to disqualify Obama. Or is it that you think you are so much smarter than McCain and his lawyers? Or what? IF, as you say, that his citizenship changed, who cares? His place of birth has not changed, he is old enough, he is a citizen NOW and he has lived in the US for more than the required 14 years. THAT is why this is a non-issue. Drop it already. If there had been anything to find, it would have gone to the Supreme Court for a decision. McCain does not have a problem BECAUSE the Supreme Court already ruled on citizens born outside the US on military installations (including ships at sea) and in embassies ARE natural born and thus McCain qualified based on this precedent from many years ago, which is why McCain's birthplace is a non-issue. His situation already came before the Supreme Court and was ruled on. A break in citizenship will never make it to the Supreme Court because it is not a Constitutional issue. Actual physical place of birth DID come before the court precisely because it IS a constitutional issue in defining what natural born means."

It seems to me like this responder is flailing a bit.  Notice how he considers the term "natural born" separately from the term "citizen" in a casual way that I'm not sure would ultimately pass muster.  If its all the same, I'd prefer to have an on-point decision from the Supreme Court of the United States in hand before putting this question to rest, rather than rely on his personal opinion.

A previous poster - Leah - gave this link. After reading it, I wondered if there is there any hope of getting a different outcome with this case or the Keyes case? It seems like the Virginia court addressed all of the issues.

http://www.lanlamphere.com/public/2008/11/14/virginia-state-court-dismisses-action-challenging-obamas-eligibility-to-be-president/

FYI: Consider the following passage describing a related issue "Resumption of Citizenship" having to do with Canadian law:

See http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/bills_ls.asp?lang=E&ls=c37&source=library_prb&Parl=39&Ses=2.

"For people who were born Canadians, then lost citizenship and later resumed citizenship under situation 1, above, (that is, under the new section 3(1)(f), clause 2(1) of Bill C-37), citizenship is made retroactive to the time it was first lost (new section 3(7)(d))."

Dual citizenship is not a problem. There amble court cases. Move along, folks.

What about circumstances evidencing a loss of citizenship presumably attained at birth, followed by a resumption of same?  Wouldn't this require the affected individual to be considered a naturalized citizen, ineligible for the office of President?

I am no expert on the laws of the constitution of the US but the original post fundamentally mis-understands the nationality laws of the UK as they were applied to colonies.

The act that applied at the time of Obama's birth was the British Nationality Act of 1948.  That act declared that people living in Independent Dominions (Australia, Canada South Africa etc) were citizens of their own countries but remained subjected to the British Crown. In other words their primary loyalty was to Britain with a secondary loyalty to their own country. Residents of colonies such as Kenya
as well as the UK itself were also British susbjects with a secondary claim as "citizens of the United Kingdom and its colonies. However that citizenship part only conferred rights to someone who was within the United Kingdom. In other word a Kenyan  had free right of access to the United Kingdom and would become a citizen the second he set foot on its soil. When outside the UK a Kenyan would be regarded as subject. Since neither Barack Obama Senior or Junior visited the United Kingdom before Kenyan indpendence neither ever excercised their right to citizenship. Although Snr. was certainly a subject of Britain. Junior could only have had even that distinction if he or his parents applied for it .

Hi all!

ALAN KEYES has now joined the ranks of several states in filing a Petition for Writ Mandate in the Superior Court of California.

We have been in contact with Leo C. Donofrio, and he has given us consent to proceed as follows:

Due to several places where we're meeting censorship on trying to organize people in favor of upholding the Constitution and making sure that the SCOTUS understands it's imperative that they preside over the issues at stake here....

We have made the follow sites available for informational use, syndication of the Donofrio case, discussion and most of all, organizing Americans of like mind together.

If you support this issue, please consider signing up for this free uncensored, strictly conservative-speak talk regarding the upcoming Electoral College that is soon to meet and the pending suits we're following:

Main Website: http://grou.ps/zapem/home (this is a main portal for blog feeds, storage area for you, videos and basically everything to get started organizing except for forums which is resolved with the next link, seamed into this one)
Forums Only : http://zapem.aforumfree.com/forum.htm (requires separate registration but offers so much more in terms of readability and functionality)

If you have time to help out there, we'd love to have you.  Send a PM and let us know!

Thanks so much for your interest and support! This is a crucial time where Obama and his camp are trying to feed the public the message that our Constitution is irrelevant to elections. Nothing can be further from the truth and is seen from 17+ states now filing separate suits and they need your support of numbers and voice.

If you've made any important posts here or elsewhere, please feel free to copy them over to the forums.

It's not over until it's over... and it's STILL not over!

ZAPEM

Please then cite the cases that pertain directly to the President of the U.S.

Taht's wrong. Obama was a british Citizen at birth. Factcheck.org states it quite clearly and Obama's own web site Fight The Smears also says the same thing and link to Factcheck.org, which says:

Doesn't even this case need a determination of place of birth or else it too is only an assumption that Obama WAS born in Hawaii/U.S.?  Wouldn't SCOTUS need to determine this?  Could they assume this too from only what Obama has thus far produced as proof??

ditto, please read again:

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.”

Add that to the fact that it doesn't matter his father was born, Obama was born in Honolulu, which last I checked, was in America. His mother is also American which, again, makes Obama a Natural Born Citizen.

Seems pretty cut and dried to me

 posted by Anonymous. on Nov.17.2008 @ 9:06 am  

Leo -- You argument is best so far: Why? Blackstone's Commentaries 1:354 ff; also, John Jay on Single Loyalty of "Commander-in-Chief;" traditional role of Chief Justice administering Inaugural Oath (since 1974, violating Oath is high crime and misdemeanor); special role of Chief Justice, "When the President is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside." With all of this Democrat's baggage, I can't see how he can make it as far as the Inaugural Oath?  I'm convinced the Democrat Party will have to substitute: Hillary? This whole transitional team do-dad is peopled with Clintonistas. Do you think that Barack Obama knows in his heart what's coming? Will we hear "Obama for Secretary of State," or "Obama for the Supreme Court?"

I answered the question, based on What the Constitution and Federal Law states in a post at 3:36 AM (in other words, scroll up to read it) of what happens if Obama is judged as unqualified to serve as POTUS.

The Virginia court case Lan Lamphere is quoting has been widely denounced as a hoax. It was written to obamacrimes.com by a poster named Wild Bill. There is nothing about it on the Virginia Court sites. 

I have submitted this information to Lan's site, let's see if he is man enough to post it. I doubt it.

12:56, you've swerved into the reason why this case is so special.

Yes, in the ordinary course, in order to ensure that the court does not end up having ruled on a set of facts that is merely hypothetical, the court will allow and uphold a corresponding discovery request directed to the state of Hawaii (read: not to B. Obama) obliging it to produce either the original long-form 1961 birth certificate that Hawaii has already confirmed exists, or a certified copy of the same document.  Provided no irregularities or surprises appear in the information set forth in the birth certificate or certified copy thereof, the court will proceed to issue its decision based on the notion that BHO was born in the state of Hawaii.  Of course, if the information set forth in the birth certificate or certified copy thereof is at odds with what BHO has stated publicly (e.g., shows that he was born outside the U.S., fails to indicate a father of African descent, etc.), the court will abandon the question Mr. Donfrio is posing (dual citizenship at birth precluding "natural born citizen" status) in favor of a new and different inquiry based on such newly-surfaced facts.

The point is that Mr. Donfrio does not appear to be vulnerable to an attacked based on standing to sue.  Thus he will be entitled to at least an initial round of discovery during which the discovery order to Hawaii is virtually certain to issue.

Thanks for checking into the Virginia court post! It seemed hoaxish to me, but reading it on Lan's site made me wonder if there might be some truth to it. I could not figure out how that ruling could have slipped by without people knowing about it. Thanks for doing some research and reporting it. I feel hopeful again.

 "Add that to the fact that it doesn't matter his father was born, Obama was born in Honolulu, which last I checked, was in America. His mother is also American which, again, makes Obama a Natural Born Citizen. ...Seems pretty cut and dried to me"

You got it wrong.  I have stated repeatedly, that if Obama was born in Hawaii that would that would certainly make Obama a "Citizen", but the Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 1,Clause 5, makes a distinction between Citizens and "Natural Born Citizens":

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;"

To be President, you must fit into the first class of Citizen and Obama does not.

How can you be any more "Natual Born" than to be born on American soil? I don't know where you get the part about what nationality his father was, as being relevent to the fact that Obama was actually BORN HERE.

What am I missing?\

Thanks

Leo, can you offer any "valid" info as far as the Virginia court case as listed a few posts above ? Is this a hoax? or was there actually a lawsuit in VA that was dismissed??

Thanks for all you're doing Leo !!!!!!!!!!!

Anon 12.44

You are missing the point I am making. At the time of Obama's birth all residents of the Commonwealth were subjects of the crown. Residents of the Dominions were additionally citizens of those Dominions.

Residents of the colonies were different. They too were subjects and technically had a right to be UK citizens...but that right could only be excersied by physically being in the UK.

Hence a Kenyan in Kenya had no right to vote in UK elections. A Kenyan in the US had no right to vote in UK elections. A Kenyan in UK had the right to vote. He, or she, was absoultely a citizen...but only if physicaly present.

This stuff is difficult for Americans to get their heads around because of the difference between a Republic with a written constitiution and a Monarchy without one. Both are fine democracies but they are chalk and cheese.

Ultimately the basic difference is this. The UK starts from an historical foundation that the Crown has the right to demand the loyalty of an individual. The US starts from the individual having a right to citizenship. Being a British subject or citizen is not a right but an obligation and the it is the Crown not the individual that decides.

But here's one thing that's understandable. Were Obama to apply for a British passport tommorrow, would he be entitled to one?

The simple answer is No.

“Not every "born Citizen" is a "natural born Citizen".  And every "Citizen" may not also be a "born Citizen" or a "natural born Citizen".  Three classes of Citizen exist:

1. natural born Citizens

2. born Citizens (aka native born)

Citizens”

Uh, no. There are not 3 tiers of citizenship and that argument will be immediately slapped down in court. There are only two classes of citizenship: Natural born, and naturalized.

Period.

Does anyone know if that "natural born" clause rules out children born by caesarian section , conceived by IVF or by dads on Viagra?

That is meant as joke- but seriously its no more ridiculous a suggestion than arguing that a child born of an American mother on American soil is somehow not an American.

You are missing the point I am making. At the time of Obama's birth all residents of the Commonwealth were subjects of the crown. Residents of the Dominions were additionally citizens of those Dominions.

Well, then, in that sense, Obama had 3 loyalties via the father and mother!

Then, let's just see his Birth Certificate (Long Form), which the Director of The Hawaiian hospital said is intact there and is what most objectors have insisted on.  I know it sounds so simple, but BHO won't settle this once and for all.  However, we then would have to see if he was naturalized upon coming back from Indonesia...uuuggghhh, a whole 'nother can of worms.

Ok, I listened to the podcast of your radio interviewith Ed Hasle, and I unerstand the point which you are trying to make. Please correct me if I.m wrong.

It is your view that only children born of an American mother AND father qualify as a "Natural Born" citizen and all the rest are simply "citizens" and therefore not qualified under the Constitution to be President.

I have no idea where you came up with that defiinition even after I read it 6 times.

But at least I now understand your point of view.

Good Luck

Not true.  If you go to Berg's site, you will get correct info.

First of all, Obama has to have an answer for Berg/Court on Dec 1, it does not mean he has to produce bc.  He probably will answer with another motion.  Which Berg in return has to answer and then judge will give decision on whether to proceed.

Also, electors meet on 12/15 not the 13th.

Some of this is getting twisted around...leave it to the professionals.  Yes Obama sr was under UK, then Kenya but Obama was born in US then it did not affect him.  If born in Kenya, yes it would have.  The real issue is going to have to do with the indonesian citizenship from his school records.  Berg and others will be pulling out more info as things progress.  His ast also said that false info on the net could jeopardize the case.

And as far as Ed Hale, Mr. Berg and his ast has told him to keep out of it as he has been caught more than once spreading lies about things that he knows nothing about.  He is not involved and he has tried to be on more than one occasion.  Berg's ast posted this on the Hale website and Hale took it off.  I know because I was on the phone with her when it happened. 

If it comes from Hale assume it is untrue then proceed.

The lawsuit by Lan Lampare, as a lawsuit referred to above, was cancelled.  He never went through with it.

There are legitimate things being done which you can help with.

Write supreme court justices and write electors (needs to be to the before Dec 1 so they have time to join lawsuits).

This is a link for all current lawsuits.  Andy Martin's goes to court today.

americamustknow.com/default.aspx

These are legitimate links where people are taking action..

peoplespassions.org

wethepeopleusa.ning.com/groups

 http://americamustknow.com/electoralcollegecase.aspx

has cover letters and more info re electors

http://www.democratic-disaster.com/index.php?board=64.0

has justice info, cover letters

http://wethepeopleusa.ning.com/profile/CharlesLingerfelt

It's really quite a simple matter to be considered a 'Natural Born Citizen'.

1. If born on United States soil and both the Mother AND Father are currently United States citizens, the child is considered to be a natural born citizen of the United States.

2. If born outside the United States and both the Mother AND Father are currently United States citizens, the child is considered to be a natural born citizen of the United States.

3. If born on United States soil and the Father is a current United States citizen but the Mother is not, the child is considered to be a natural born citizen of the United States.

4. If born outside the United States and the Father is currently a United States citizen but the Mother is not, the child is considered to be a natural born citizen of the United States.

5. If born ON UNITED STATES SOIL and the Mother is a United States citizen but the Father is NOT A CITIZEN of the United States, the child IS NOT considered a natural born citizen of the United States.

6. If born outside the United States and the Mother is a United States citizen but the Father is NOT A CITIZEN of the United States, the child IS NOT considered a natural born citizen of the United States.

In the case regarding Obama, it would appear that there are only 2 of the above mentioned items that could possible pertain to him.....those being items #5 and item #6.

In either case, if true, then Barack Hussein Obama is NOT qualified to hold the office of President of the United States!

Simple really.

I just hope our Supreme Court gets this ruling right since they are they ones SWORN by oath to defend the Constitution of the United States.

Also, they had better give this some thought........IF the constitutional clause requiring a person to be a natural born citizen in order to be President is waived in ANY FORM, then the clause giving the Supreme Court appointees life time tenure can also be waived!

That previous comment (11/28) is a very precise list of conditions, but where did it come from?

You can't just make it up.

I think the old saying, "where there is smoke, there is fire!" still holds true and in particular in this case. Like Senator McCain, who instantly made his birth certificate public when accused by Democrats of not being a "natural born citizen" of the USA, Senator Obama has procrastinated and ignored the issue or responded with smoke and mirrors. Either he or someone in his employ published a clearly fake so called ‘birth certificate,’ but for what purpose? Wouldn't it have been easier and less controversial to have just published Obama's validated birth certificate instead? For Christ sake, he wrote two books! But now there are even questions about who actually wrote those books…more smoke. It appears now that the document in Hawaii lockdown by Democrat state officials is a "Certification of Live Birth" and not a “Birth Certificate” which means there is a “Birth Certificate” someplace that has not been made public, nor has the FBI or a court reviewed to make a determination of Obama’s eligibility to hold the office of President of the USA. There is plenty of smoke here and I would suspect fire too in the manner of the greatest fraud to be perpetuated on the people of the United States and the World. The best approach is to settle the issue NOW, rather than later. And, the truth will eventually be outed. If that final resolution is against Obama’s eligibility, all that he will have acted on and signed, as President of the USA, will become null and void and even more turmoil will result and loads of legal cases will result. Now is the time to settle the issue once and for all. The US Supreme Court, it would seem to me, has no option but to address such a possible and serious breach of our Constitution. If they don’t all justices opposing hearing the case should be impeached because they will be playing politics from the hall of our highest legal office of our nation. This turn away from our Constitution can not be tolerated by a free people…

Please turn on "word wrap" for this page.

Wow! 

 I disagree.  His father's UK citizenship may have passed onto him, but (if we stipulate that Obama was born in Hawaii) he was born in the US, so he is a natural-born citizen.  The fact that he had UK citizenship at birth doesn't, in my opinion, change the fact that he was born in the US.  Using the logic that dual citizenship prohibits being president, then every single descendant of the first Americans (including the Framers) also held dual citizenship at birth, so they couldn't have been president either.  It would have to be 3rd generation natural born citizens who could be president.

Why do we "ALWAYS" forget about his mother, a U.S. citizen. Please stop this maniacal racist rantings.

U.S. laws in effect at the time of Barack Hussein Obama II’s birth pertaining to citizenship by birth stated that, for a child born between 24 December 1952 and 14 November 1986 if only one parent was a US citizen, that parent must prove ten years’ physical presence in the US, legally or illegally, five of which must have been after the age of 14.

Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham was born on November 29, 1942. Barack Hussein Obama II was born on August 4, 1961. According to her birth date, she was only eighteen at the time of his birth. To meet the qualifications, she would have had to be nineteen years of age. She missed the five years after her fourteenth year requirement by 117 days. As a result her son, even if he was born in Hawaii, did not qualify for automatic U.S. citizenship. Thus he could not have received dual British/US citizenship. Barack Hussein Obama II has no claim on US citizenship whatsoever

Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., was a citizen of Kenya, a British protectorate at the time that his son (Barach Hussein Obama II was born. If his son was born in Kenya, as alleged, he would have automatically become a British citizen by birth according to the British Nationality Act of 1948. If born in Hawaii, as also alleged, his citizenship would still have come from his father since his mother did not meet the age requirement to qualify her son for U.S. citizenship.

According to our Constitution, if a Presidential candidate is not an American citizen by birth, he is not qualified to be President of the United States.

Therefore, Barack Hussein Obama II is not legally qualified to be the next U.S. President.

Wow, you people are really pathetic and bitter. Get over it, he won, he's a natural born US citizen, end of story.

Just keep bitching from the sideline though, watch the rest of us pass you by as we renew America and leave you in the rubbish heap of history.

"Using the logic that dual citizenship prohibits being president, then every single descendant of the first Americans (including the Framers) also held dual citizenship at birth, so they couldn't have been president either.  It would have to be 3rd generation natural born citizens who could be president."

Correct, except that they specifically excluded those resident in America at the time of the Founding from the "natural born" requirement.  That is, they "grandfathered" themselves and all others alive at the time.

Duh.

It's dual citizenship, stupid.

You gotta be pretty stupid to walk into courtrooms with such a lousy argument. Barack Obama was both British AND American subject at birth. That's not mutually exclusive - it's called dual citizenship. The Constitution does not say: "A person who is British (or foreign) subject at the time of their birth cannot become President." It says: "A person who is NOT an American citizen at birth CANNOT become President."

Again: If you want to become President of the United States, it does not matter which countries you're citizen of when you're born. The only thing that matters is whether you were born an American. If you were "also" born British, you were still born American AS WELL, hence you're eligible.

Comment on the post regarding Obama's mother (Dec.07.2008 @ 5:06 pm):

If what you say about Obama's mother is correct (I'm waiting for the proofs!), then it means Obama was not born an American citizen by virtue of ius sanguinis. However, he was born on US territory, which means he was still born an American citizen by virtue of ius soli. Look it up, folks.

What a sad lot of losers.  Get over it, forget your negative instincts and grasp that Obama represents the best of America, that now Americans of goodwill to all can again raise their heads after the Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney nightmare.

We have to feel blessed to have overcome racial prejudices and to have a brilliant man to lead us. 

The founders were dual citizens and had to "grandfather" themselves, in order to be eligible.  The Constitution's intent was to avoid divided loyalities like the plague. The concept of someone being both a British citizen and and American citizen would never be accepted. THAT alone would negate the very intent of being a "natural born" citizen, that is being a second generation American. What if Obama's father was an Iranian and his family was in Iran instead of Kenya?? Can you not see what the consequences are and what the Founders were trying to avoid!  Obama is NOT a natural born citizen because his father was an alien and that defined his citizenship as either being a "citizen" or a "natural born" citizen.

PLEASE don't try to con people into thinking Obama is a "brilliant" man. I've seen  dropouts who could also "move" a crowd. We don't know how he did in school. The records are SEALED, and nobody can be found that remembers him attending Columbia!  I counted 15 ers and uhs in one minute of a statement he made off the cuff. He is the absolute WORST without a teleprompter. He stutters so much because he is unsure of himself about saying the right thing. That's what happens when you are less than honest and can't remember how you answered the question the last time.

Obama got elected because the MSM refused, or were afraid of being called racist, to vet him or to investigate him. We know very little about the man and he is the most UNresearched president ever in this Nation.

An ILLUSION was elected, that fronted a movement of "feelings" and  driven by "emotions" devoid of any reality, but its COMING, big time!! Reality, that is!

Obama is a natural born citizen. The government of Hawaii has confirmed that he was born on American soil. Therefore, he is a natural born citizen (dual nationality or not). Natural born means born on American soil.

Static Brain staticbrain.com

Fourteenth Amendment

The adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment obviously affects how we view natural-born citizens because for the first time there is a national rule of who may by birth be a citizen of the United States. Who may be born citizens of the States is conditional upon being born "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. The legislative definition of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was defined as "Not owing allegiance to anybody else."

This national rule prevents us from interpreting natural-born citizen under common law rules because it eliminates the possibility of a child being born with more than one allegiance.

Rep. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means "every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen."

Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father's who are themselves citizens of the United States. A person who had been born under a double allegiance cannot be said to be a natural-born citizen of the United States because such status is not recognized (only in fiction of law). A child born to an American mother and alien father could be said to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father.

Obama was born in the US but father was a Kenya citizen while mother was American. So, he is a Native Born Citizen and not a Natural Born Citizen.

 of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty

Per Wong Kim Ark case, only applies to foreign diplomats, etc..Per the case, Obama Sr. as a student owed no such allegiance.  He was simply a guy from Kenya, BHO was born in Hawaii.

Just like Chester Arthur, Obama is eligible if he was born here.  The only difference is the mother was underage and Obama senior did not eventually naturalize.  I cannot imagine the latter is material unless Arthur's father had applied for citizenship before he was born.  How much it matter that Dunham was underage I cannot tell if it is important since the old definition of naturally-born moving with the father or needing to be of both parents was broken by Arthur.  It is too complex going down this road and does nobody any good.  Let's see the birth cert and be done.

Founding fathers intent was most likely that many people at the time who had demonstrated loyalty in forming the nation were BORN ELSEWHERE, hence the grandfather clause.  Nothing to do with dual citizenship as far as their intent, it is far more obvious.  The repeal of the 1790 act with the 1795 act and Dred Scot and the creation of "citizenship-at-birth" imply that the main difference in naturally-born is being born on our soil (not because dual citizenship is put upon you)  Chester Arthur's presidency and the 14th amendment and Wong Kim Ark completely muddy up whether your parentage means anything as far as being naturally-born as long as your father was not a diplomat or under the service of a foreign state (father's citizenship by itself does not seem to matter) or here for 5 days on vacation "passing through" or a Mongolian. 

A court would have to break with these past court arguments and figure out a way to give Arthur an exception because his mother was of age and his father had applied for naturalization before his birth or something but it is murky and a waste if you ask me.

Eight framers were born elsewhere: four (Butler, Fitzsimons, McHenry, and Paterson) in Ireland, two (Davie and Robert Morris) in England, one (Wilson) in Scotland, and one (Hamilton) in the West Indies. The intent, confirmed by the language in 1795 was to make them eligible even though they were born elsewhere.

Since the court does not want to deal with Chester Arthur, deem him a usurper and all his doings invalid, liar or not, this case has to be doomed.  By being doomed and it being pursued so vigorously, what will come out of it is that naturally-born will become defined as born here or in a US territroy or base and a citizen at birth.  

There will become a requirement that only one parent be a citizen to avcoid the anchor baby issue. Right?

Their primary loyalty was to Britain with a secondary loyalty to their own country. Residents of colonies such as Kenya
as well as the UK itself were also British susbjects with a secondary claim as "citizens of the United Kingdom and its colonies. However that citizenship part only conferred rights to someone who was within the United Kingdom. In other word a Kenyan  had free right of access to the United Kingdom and would become a citizen the second he set foot on its soil. When outside the UK a Kenyan would be regarded as subject.online games Since neither Barack Obama Senior or Junior visited the United Kingdom before Kenyan indpendence neither ever excercised their right to citizenship.

 THIS IS ALL A CROCK OF SHIT!! U.S. CITIZENSHIP LAWS STATES AS FOLLOWS-->
BY BIRTH: Every person born in Kenya after December 11, 1963, becomes a citizen of Kenya
if, at the date of birth, at least one parent is a citizen of Kenya.
BARACK OBAMA JR WAS BORN IN 1961. SINCE THERE IS NOTHING IN THE US CITIZENSHIP LAW THAT STATES WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU WERE BORN BEFORE DECEMBER 11, 1963, WE CANNOT ASSUME THAT BARACK JR LOSES DUAL CITIZENSHIP AND BECOMES A KENYAN CITIZEN. YOU DO KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU ASS-U-ME RIGHT? THIS WOULD ALSO APPLY TO BARACK SENIOR WHO BY 1963, WAS ALREADY MARRIED TO DUNHAM, A U.S. NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. THE IMMIGRATION LAWS STATES THAT-->If a person enters the US and marries a US citizen, THAT PERSON IMMEDIATELY BECOMES A PERMANENT LEGAL US RESIDENT (LPR). In addition, they are allowed to apply for citizenship two years before the typical allowed date (normally LPRs are allowed to apply five years less 90 days after they become an LPR, but LPRs by way of marriage may apply three years less 90 days after that point). OBAMA SENIOR MARRIED DUNHAM IN 1961. SO HE AUTOMATICALLY AQUIRED PERMANENT LEGAL RESIDENCY. WHETHER OR NOT OBAMA SENIOR APPLIED FOR CITIZENSHIP I DONT KNOW. CONSIDERING HE WOULD WANT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF BEING MARRIED TO A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, HE MAY HAVE DONE SO. HE GRADUATED PHI BETA KAPA FROM HAWAII UNIVERSITY AND WENT ON TO ECONOMICAL WORK. I THINK HE WOULD BE WISE ENOUGH TO APPLY. AS FAR AS OBAMA JR, THE 14TH AMMENDMENT GUARANTEES OBAMA'S CITIZENSHIP ALL THE WAY. 14TH AMMENDMENT-->Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. THERE IS NOTHING THERE ABOUT "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN". AS A MATTER OF FACT, A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY RESEARCH WILL TELL YOU THAT-->In 1795, Congress removed the words "natural born" from the law; the Naturalization Act of 1795 says only that foreign-born children of American parents "shall be considered as citizens of the United States." NOW, THE TERM "AMERICAN PARENTS" DOES NOT SPECIFY NATURAL BORN. SO WHEN OBAMA SENIOR MARRIED DUNHAM AND GAINED PERMANENT RESIDENCE OF THE U.S., HE IS CONSIDERED A CITIZEN SINCE HE STILL HAD DUAL CITIZENSHIP. THE INDEPENDANCE OF KENYA DID NOT EFFECT OBAMA SENIOR SINCE HE WAS BORN BEFORE DECEMBER 11, 1963. THIS WHOLE THING IS SO STUPID. ALSO GOING BACK TO OBAMA SENIOR, THERE IS ANOTHER LAW THAT STATES-->That any alien now residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the US MAY BE ADMITTED TO BECOME A CITIZEN on his declaring, on oath or affirmation THAT HE HAS RESIDED TWO YEARS, AT LEAST. WE ALL KNOW THAT OBAMA SENIOR LIVED IN THE US MORE THAN TWO YEARS DONT WE??
AND JUST FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, THE SUPREME COURTS WOULD NEVER TAKE AWAY OBAMA'S CITIZEN STATUS BECAUSE HE IS ALREADY BORN. ANY CHANGES TO CITIZENSHIP CLAUSES WOULD BE IN EFFECT ANYTIME AFTER 1961 WHEN OBAMA WAS BORN. IT CANNOT EFFECT HIM. PHILIP BERG IS OFF HIS ROCKER.
 AND ON TOP OF ALL THAT, THERE IS A CLAUSE IN THE CONSTITUTIION THAT SAYS-->The court admitting such alien shall be satisfied that he has resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States five years. It shall further appear to their satisfaction that during that time HE HAS BEHAVED AS A MAN OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the same." NOW HONESTLY, IF THIS IS WHAT THE COURTS HAVE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION, DO U HONESTLY THINK THAT ANY SUPREME COURT JUDGE WOULD SAY THAT OBAMA HASNT BEHAVED AS A MAN OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER?
CASE CLOSED.

It is great.  farmville cheats