Friday, December 5, 2008

The Donofrio "Natural Born Citizen" Challenge

12/17 I.O. update:

The essence of the Donofrio v. Wells case (NJ) is contained in the Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz case (CT). In both cases, injunctions were denied, but this may be due to a jurisdictional issue [edit: or an issue of standing]. In September, a federal court ruled against a somewhat similar challenge (to John McCain) based, oddly, upon both its particular merits and an overall, jurisdictional observation. Mysteriously, the Donofrio case has remained listed as "pending," somehow, which may or may not have to do with the jurisdictional matter.

A research work in process, this article failed to address the most central document besides the Constitution itself, to the understanding of the
original intent and thereby meaning of the "natural born Citizen" criteria, the letter from John Jay to George Washington, July 25, 1787. In it, Jay cites the reason for the criteria being one of national security, that is to guard against a "Commander in Chief of the American army" having foreign allegiance in the way anyone might, who is not a natural born Citizen. This lends essential merit to the dual natural born Citizen criteria pointed out in this article, as a strategist in matters of defense and security would naturally know. Metaphorically, in a neighborhood where crime is high, one does not lock the front door (born in U.S. territory) and leave the back door wide open (commonly and "naturally" understood national allegiance by hereditary right). When security is the concern, one thoroughly guards all of one's vulnerabilities which are pertinent and feasible to be made secure.


The Donofrio Case: "Natural Born Citizen" -- not about Obama's birth certificate, but the one that goes, "We the People...."

Today, before the United States Supreme Court lies Leo Donofrio v. Nina Mitchell Wells, New Jersey Secretary of State. This suit was received by Justice Thomas and by the determination of the entire court, it is scheduled for conference on Friday December 5. This conference is held to decide what, if any, further steps should be taken. Only two of these steps would be to intervene in the process of selecting the president, or to hear oral arguments.

Essence of the case

By this case Barack Obama, John McCain, and Roger Calero (of the Socialist Workers Party, on the New Jersey ballot) do not qualify as “natural born Citizens” under Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, which states the following:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Other cases against Obama's candidacy have been rejected by various courts, due to a private citizen's apparent lack of standing to sue a candidate. However, this case is an action against the Secretary of State of New Jersey and as such, has precedent, as Donofrio relates. He originally sought to motivate the Secretary to qualify or disqualify these three candidates on the New Jersey ballot. Donofrio also cites 2000's famous Florida case, Bush v. Gore, as precedent for a state case regarding a presidential election to be brought to the Supreme Court for emergency action.

Merit: reasoning behind Donofrio v. Wells

To interpret the U.S. Constitution with intellectual honesty, one must maintain the integrity of the meaning of the Constitution. That means interpreting the letter of the law: its words and phrases, based upon the immediate context of the Constitution itself, any explanations of the framers, traditional meaning inherited by the framers, and the generally accepted, legal meanings of words and phrases in use at the time of its drafting. Further, attention is to be paid to the spirit of the law, by understanding the purposes of the framers and the results they sought or sought to avoid, as they drafted each element of the Constitution.

In view of these considerations, being a “natural born Citizen,” here requires meeting both of these two criteria: 1. citizenship must be passed on by the constitutionally pertinent principle of natural law, which assumes that citizenship is inherited from one’s father’s citizenship and, 2. citizenship must be granted by means of being born in the actual territory of the United States. Accordingly, to maintain the original intention of the Constitution's framers, a U.S. President is to be free of competing allegiances with other nations, from birth onward. To cite Donofrio's own words from his blog:

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. [I.O. ed., letter by John Jay] The Framers were comfortable 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, especially Great Britain and its monarchy, who the Framers and Colonists fought so hard in the American Revolution to be free of.
According to this case, Barack H. Obama II is not qualified, because his father, Barack H. Obama I, was a citizen of the United Kingdom as a Kenyan. Kenya was a British colony at the time of Obama II’s birth in 1961. This citizenship was conferred to Obama II by U.K. law. Further to this case is the apparent fact that Obama II became a citizen of Indonesia, when he lived there as a child with his mother and adoptive father, Lolo Soetoro. This would mean Obama's U.S. Citizenship status was revoked, since Indonesia had no dual-citizenship provision with the U.S.A.

According to this case, John McCain is not qualified, because he was born in Panama or the Panama Canal Zone, which was a protectorate of the United States and has never been a territory of the Untied States, even though his parents were U.S. Citizens.

According to this case, Roger Calero is not qualified, because he was born a citizen of Nicaragua, to foreign parents, on foreign soil. The mere fact that Roger Calero was on the ballot in five states indicates to the Supreme Court and the nation, that the process of qualifying a presidential candidate is broken and intervention is necessary.

Merit: context, corroboration, and case law

Corroborative to this case, the Constitution's Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10 states that a power of Congress is to "define and punish... offenses against the law of nations." The Law of Nations has been international law, which as documented by Emmerich de Vatel (1758) states, in Chapter XIX, paragraph 212, "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

Vatel follows with paragraph 215, in which he asserts, "It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say 'of itself,' for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise."

The chief framer of the related 14th Amendment of the Constitution, John A. Bingham corroborated this dual criteria stating, "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." An extensive analysis citing this is "Defining Natural-Born Citizen," by P.A. Madison, The Federalist Blog.

Since then, the case of Perkins v. ELG, U.S. 325 (1939) provides precedent for requiring these two criteria, for one to be called a "native born citizen" (see, "The Law -- Perkins v. ELG," blog, The Betrayal).

St. George Tucker, Justice of the Supreme Court of Virgina, wrote a version of the authoritative Blackstone's Commentaries: With Notes of Reference to the Constitution... which became a recognized resource for determining the framers' original intent. In his Volume 1 -- Appendix; Note D, he explained that the Article 2 "natural born Citizen" requirement was purposed to avoid competing allegiances:

That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, whereever it is capable of being exerted, is to he dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. It was by means of foreign connections that the stadtholder of Holland, whose powers at first were probably not equal to those of a president of the United States, became a sovereign hereditary prince before the late revolution in that country. Nor is it with levity that I remark, that the very title of our first magistrate, in some measure exempts us from the danger of those calamities by which European nations are almost perpetually visited. The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora's Box.

If anyone knows of an applicable contemporaneous definition of "hereditary right" which does not include patrilineal descent, he is welcome to inform this writer. Certainly, this applied to sons of subjects of the United Kingdom (and the fact that one subject would travel abroad to declare himself a "Citizen of the World" before hundreds of thousands might also have provided relevant warning).

Intended result of this case

The Donofrio suit calls for a stay of the Dec. 15 Electoral College vote, until a constitutionally acceptable means is attained, of presenting the Electors a set of qualified candidates.

During or after their Dec. 5 conference, the Supreme Court could decide upon a number of directions. Their next step may be revealed this very day, or on Monday, Dec. 8, or at some other time. A book could be written of the many potential outcomes -- and historians will write libraries about one set of results, in their hindsight.

"Post Script" in HTML

Leo Donofrio reports that numerous obstacles have been intentionally placed in the way of his petitioning the courts, in both New Jersey and at the Supreme Court. He also names public officials who have at times attempted to mislead him and by their treatment of his case, have obstructed his path to the Supreme Court. That is another story and not an undramatic one.

Donofrio has had three blogs -- and Internet harassment, as follows:

  1. -- used through November 21, until its blog service was hit by a denial of service attack, bringing it down (servers have been repaired)
  2. -- used through November 27, until it became clear that Google has not been at all swift to remove a "flag page," inappropriately citing that blog for "possible Blogger Terms of Service violations"
  3. -- hopefully, unmolested as of your reading

This report may be updated as progress is made. For information about the operations of the Supreme Court in such matters, see "A Reporter's Guide to Applications Pending Before the Supreme Court of the United States."

h/t: numerous bloggers and forum posters including FReepers: BP2, joygrace, andMamaTexan

Wish to spread the news of this case? Just click the envelope, below...


Anonymous said...

How can the high court swear him in as the next president if his citizenship is still questionable?
They are the ones who are supposed to defend the constitution?

Anonymous said...

I'm not very computer literate so I need some advice. How do I get rid of Google as my search engine? Seems to me that they don't believe in Freedom of Speech, therefore they don't support the U.S. Constitution.

Wonder Woman said...

This is an excellent article.

Anonymous said...

Can't the Supreme Court just refuse to swear him in?

Arlen Williams said...

Anonymous-1: Exactly.

Anonymous-2: Dig into your browser's options. Don't be afraid. I like, for one search engine.

Wonder Woman: Thanks. America needs to shake off the big "DUMB DOWN" and remember what we are about. We are being like King Theoden in LOTR and the psy-ops media are Grima Wormtongue.

Anonymous-3: The SCOTUS could do a lot of things. What they do always depends in large part upon how many intellectually honest Justices they have.

Arlen Williams said...

From FReeper, BP2, today this PM...

Here's some more thoughts to ponder this weekend...

Definitively, there is no definition that applies to "Natural Born Citizen" in the Constitution. Also, the 14th Amendment does apply in this case, as we've discussed here. The full text of the 14th Amendment does not mention the phrase "natural born citizen," nor does it address Presidential qualifications. The phrase "natural born Citizen" is not defined anywhere in the Constitution, as is true with most Constitutional terms.

However, many terms and phrases used by the Framers were derived from William Blackstone's works.

Today, U.S. courts frequently quote Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England as the definitive pre-Revolutionary War source of common law; in particular, the United States Supreme Court quotes from Blackstone's work whenever they wish to engage in historical discussion that goes back that far, or further (for example, when discussing the intent of the Framers of the Constitution).

Blackstone's work has been used most forcefully as of late by Justice Clarence Thomas. U.S. and other common law courts mention with strong approval Blackstone's formulation also known as Blackstone's ratio popularly stated as "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

Here's a passage from the Blackstone Commentaries. Note than many scholars and US court cases consider "Natural Born Citizen" and "Natural Born Subject" as relatively synonomous:

"The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the allegiance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligament, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject. The thing itself, or substantial part of it, is founded in reason and the nature of government; the name and the form are derived to us from our Gothic ancestors.

"Allegiance, both express and implied, is however distinguished by the law into two sorts or species, the one natural, the other local; the former being also perpetual, the latter temporary. Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king’s dominions immediately upon their birth. For, immediately upon their birth, they are under the king’s protection; at a time too, when (during their infancy) they are incapable of protecting themselves.

"When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once.

"Yet the children of the king’s ambassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the ambassador.

"To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants.

"But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s allegiance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attained, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain."

... and Barack Obama, Jr, was a British Citizen from his father at birth... it even says so on his website ...

Arlen Williams said...

I'll note further that according to the research of David Barton, the two sources most often cited in the political correspondence of America's founders are:

1. The Bible
2. Blackstone's legal commentaries

Arlen Williams said...

After further analysis of the comments attributed to Blackstone, one can see that he is observing the two criteria for being a "natural born subject," of 1. birth within the nation and, 2. birth citizenship passed from one's father's citizenship, within English law

However, as I see it, he does not attempt to induce a broad principle in the event of one meeting both standards. It would seem that the scribes of English law saw these two principles of natural law and deduced each to be allowable particulary for English law.

However, Blackstone did observe the problem where these two criteria of citizenship conflict (as did Jesus Christ) that one "cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once."

It would be interesting, whether meritorious or not to
American Constitutional law, to know how English law treated allegiance and "natural born" allegiance when a child of a citizen/subject of another nation was born in the lands of the English crown.

Anonymous said...

Donofrio himself has taken issue with analysis which becomes over-reliant on a common law approach to the Constitution. He points out that the Framers' intent was to create "National law" and this sensibility was echoed by Justice Scalia on November 22, 2008, when he spoke at the annual gathering of The Federalist Society. His remarks on video are at the Society's website and the exact URL page is on one of the blog entries on Leo's website. His speech and a question-answer session extended 50+ minutes with the relevant remark about "there is no common law" at the federal level being spoken about 40 or 41minutes into the presentation.

As far as the poster raising the comment about Google and its search engine -- the CEO of Google has been an early supporter of Obama, from back when the primary race was still a heated contest with Hillary still standing a chance for the nomination. Since Google also bought out YouTube, and there are a lot of clips on YouTube which are not being censored, I would suggest two possibilities:

First is the "innocent" theory that the special Flag that any user can employ to "flag" possible Terms of Service violations on a Blog got hit heavily by ObamaBots and prompted the warning page to go up automatically (which "buys time" for Google staffers to investigate if there is any validity to a complaint while saving Google itself from any legal liability, while also asking the author to pro-actively contact Google);

Second is the "conspiracy" theory that the political support of Google's CEO for Obama (which found the CEO even being touted as a possible Cabinet choice right after the election) percolates downward to the rank and file, and influences how they handle everyday tasks.

My leaning would be toward the first explanation. There seem to be a lot of ObamaBots out on the loose who like to dismissively characterize all those who raise sober and legalistic questions "looney" and "wingnuts" and people with "time on their hands" when there are "more pressing problems facing the nation" and/or fundamentalists waiting for the "rapture" etc. There is a commonality among the themes and terms used in all the ad hominem attacks, which reflect more negatively upon those who employ them than those they attack.

Ted said...

The choice facing the Supreme Court boils down to civil unrest to protect the Constitution or civil war to proceed to ‘inaugurate’ a non-”natural born citizen”.

Arlen Williams said...

Latest Anonymous,

Yes, and I was kind of expecting Blackstone to have made more of a universal, point of common or natural law, but he held to explaining English law in particular.

After the Restoration, English law was mostly "either... or" regarding the two factors (born in the state a/o having a citizen father). Before that, not so much. In America, the sentiment seemed to be that whatever the case for each state, the rule of "both... and" was meant by "natural born Citizen" in Article 2 Sec. 1.

It seems this is one scenario where federalism has gotten in the way of creating the clearest precedence, with states being allowed to establish their own laws regarding such a national issue.

mtngoat61 said...


Very good. Welcome to the fight.

Mountain Publius Goat

Anonymous said...

You've got to be kidding.

Arlen Williams said...

mtngoat61, thank you for your contribution, I've listed your Web page in sidebar on the topic.

Latest Anonymous was hardly convincing.

Unknown said...


Under the first paragraph of the Merit: context, corroboration, and case law

The quotation of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10 conveniently abbreviates the quotation and GUTS THE INTENT of the clause. The clause refers to actions of PIRACY and crimes on the HIGH SEAS. Please read any handy copy of the US Constitution. As the basis of this point is now incorrectly framed, this issue is not supported by the argument.

dennis222 said...

To Ted- unrest or civil war.
They must support the constitution for without the rule of law there can never be anything but unrest and war without end. There may be rough times ahead but the roughest would be for them to ignore the problem.

Arlen Williams said...

Mercedesmatic, thanks for your comment. Here is Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10:

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

The Law of Nations, was applied (probably, chiefly) to legal matters on the high seas, yes. But that was not its only use, as the construction of that clause affords. As "Law of Nations" shows, it covers international law, i.e., how to handle legalities between nations (whether in vessels wet on the outside, or merely on the human inside).

Of utmost importance, the Law of Nations does us the favor of merely demonstrating what lawyers of the day meant by "natural-born citizens," as it states. It demonstrates contemporaneously understood legal meaning.

Bill in NC said...

Just wait until the electors meet to certify next week.

Once that happens, only Congress has the authority under both the Constitution and federal law to determine who becomes the next POTUS.

All court challenges then become moot.

politicalcynic said...

Excuse me, but...

1. The Supreme Court decided the issue of citizenship many years ago. The decision clearly stated that having a "parent" who was a citizen made you a natural born citizen. Under the rule of stare decisis, unless the Court wishes to overturn that decision, then it is the "parent" not the "father" who passes on citizenship.

2. The US constitution requires that all people be treated equally under the law. The Court's have long recognized that treating women differently violates the 14th amendment. In order to ignore the fact that Obama's MOTHER was a valid source of his US citizenship, you must assume that a female citizen is NOT equal to a male citizen in this country. This would overturn every decision the court has made on civil rights and would overturn Title VII of the Civil Rights Act as unconstitutional, as well as many sections of the US Code.

You all might actually try a little legal research before reaching your conclusions.

Arlen Williams said...


Are you referring to the Wang Kim Ark decision that Donofrio has historically shown to be tainted? From what I have seen it does not quite refer to a presidential candidate, nor exactly the terminology of "natural born Citizen," as you describe. (Doesn't it say "native?" Stating "native," while obviously referring to being born within a nation neither carries the definite hereditary, "natural law" oriented meaning of "natural born Citizen," nor does it match the Constitution's phraseology. Why not? I am not sure, but words are written for reasons.)

It does, however, appear to be a large gloss-over of Chester A. Arthur's British citizenship, the deciding opinion "dealt" by the very Justice Gray which Arthur nominated.

Original intent is more important to this case than a tainted and protracted attempt at finding stare decisis.

And, that was not actually a case about a candidate for President.

As to your other matter, the mother's lineage trumps neither the father's lineage (the demand of natural law) nor the requirement for both parents to be citizens. It does not change BHO-II's "heriditary right" of U.K. citizenship through his Kenyan father.

See Tucker and Bingham, in the article, above.

Why U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Can Never Be Considered Settled Birthright Law


United States v. Wong Kim Ark
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...which includes a description of the longstanding opinion that this has no bearing upon Article 2, Sec. 1.

PS: The courts have never quite found that "equal treatment under law" is a universal, constitutional demand as to thoroughly equivalent treatment among the sexes. In federal buildings, the Men's and Women's rooms are still different.

Anonymous said...

This case needs to be heard by the Supreme Court. The question needs to be settled once and for all. Waiting until after Obama takes office would be a disaster. Joe Six-Pack has already suggested that the electors themselves are not constitutionally required to pick Obama (though they may have problems in their states).

See Joe Six_pack's Letter to America:

Anonymous said...

One point people have made is that because the man Obama’s mother “married” first was actually Muslim but more to the point ALREADY MARRIED to another woman, then although by Muslim law she was married to that man, (since by Muslim law a man is allowed to have 4 wives), still, by American law, a man is allowed to have only one wife at a time, therefore since Obama senior was already married, his “marriage” to Stanley Ann Dunham never truly occurred legally by American law.
Therefore, Stanley Ann Dunham was in fact an unwed mother.

Because she was an unwed mother, by US law, in that situation, birthright is ONLY given through the mother.

The unwed mother would have had to have resided in the United States for the year preceding the birth of her child.

However, since Stanley Ann Dunham says that she lived in Hawaii for the year preceding little Barack Obama II’s birth, she could NOT have passed on US citizenship to him. And this is why:


Hawaii had NOT become joined to the United States at that time, and was not for several years afterwards.

Therefore, Barack Obama II was NOT given ANY US citizenship at birth.

Therefore at least in terms of his birth, Barack Obama II has no US natural born citizenship.

As such, Barack Obama II has NO eligibility to run for President of the United States.

Darn those anti-bigamy laws anyway!



Some people might see that I have made this same blog post other places, but I want people to see it and hopefully look into it.

I hope this helps.

Anonymous said...

Barbara wrote:
However, since Stanley Ann Dunham says that she lived in Hawaii for the year preceding little Barack Obama II’s birth, she could NOT have passed on US citizenship to him. And this is why:


Hawaii had NOT become joined to the United States at that time, and was not for several years afterwards.

Therefore, Barack Obama II was NOT given ANY US citizenship at birth.

Hawaii was admitted to the union on August 21, 1959, two years before Barack Obama II's birth. Not that it matters. He was born in Kenya.

Anonymous said...

The laws that applied to Obama Mama at his birth say that she had to reside in the US for 5 years after her 14th birthday. There have been changes in the immigration laws that were not retroactive. Here is an article that discusses it:

As Obama has not yet produced a certified copy of his birth certificate the determination of where he was actually born is anyones guess. The Certification of Live Birth that Obama produced to pro-Obama websites is not sufficent for this point, nor is it accepted as such by the State of Hawaii. Obama has stated on numerous occaisons that he was born in a hospital in Hawaii. The name of the hospital, doctors and witnesses would only show up on the certified copy of his birth certificate, that can be obtained from the State of Hawaii for $10.00. Here is and article that discusses this issue and shows how to obtain the certified copy of a birth certificate in Hawaii for $10.00. See pages 7-11:

Once the certified birth certificate is made available the facts can be verified by going to the hospital, contacting the doctors and witnesses. If, however, the certified copy says Obama was born someplace where there are no witnesses, say he was born at home, then it is likely he was born abroad and registered by his parents under the lax immigration laws in Hawaii up to 1972. That is exactly what Obama's parents did with his half sister who was born in Indonesia.

It would also raise questions about Obama's veracity as this would not confirm his statement that he was born in a hospital in Hawaii. His obstinant refusal to produce this simple record is deeply disturbing and is fueling much of this controversey.

Just for fun take a look at this:

Anonymous said...

Sorry, not clear in my earlier post. While there have been changes to immigration laws those were not made retoactive to the laws that applied to Obama. The current laws would require his mother to live in the US for one year after her 16th birthday (I think). The original law that still applies requires 5 years after her 14th birthday as shown above.

Anonymous said...

This gives an unbiased account of the legal issues invoved here:

Anonymous said...


Arlen Williams said... said...
An exhaustive critique of this article, Two Kinds of Citizen, has now been posted.
I hope you will take the time to read it; I certainly took a lot of time writing it.

I do not choose for this Weblog to get into a slough of two camps debating each other. Whoever is shielded behind the "" moniker: you obviously have a focus upon the efforts to find out and declare what Barack Obama either hides, jives, or slides and people such as me. I, however, do not focus upon you. My concern is America and this person who so obviously, throughout his lifetime, has been a part of a movement which is antithetical to America and our foundational principles.

As for "two kinds of citizens," feel free to opine day and night -- that neither changes the phrase "natural born Citizen," nor the historically clear criteria for its scribes (born in American territory to two American citizens). That qualification among the Citizenry at large, stands on its own. It is a natural fact.

I suggest you turn your attention to Barack Obama and the courts, to make known what is hidden and to shed the truth of the historic Constitution upon his status. But of course you do not wish to do that, so again, I choose not to spend my time upon you nor your fellow travelers.

Once again, your link and its post are deleted.

Anonymous said...

The degree of stupidity in these posts is amazing. Obama could not have been born in Kenya since his mother was never there. The Kenyan govt. found no record of her having been there. Her husband was there in 1960, but not again until 1965. There is no way a pregnant 18 year old white girl left the comfort of her parents home in Hawaii to travel to Kenya during the late stages of the Mau Mau uprising to give birth to a baby WITHOUT HER HUSBAND. It never happened. Obama was not born in Kenya.

So, he was born in Hawaii. On November 3, the Chicago Tribune's Swamp reported that Ms. Okubo (Health Department Spokeswoman, per the Press Release) confirmed in both e-mail and telephone interviews that Obama was BORN IN HAWAII:

"Seeking to squelch persistent rumors that Sen. Barack Obama isn't eligible to become president because he allegedly was born outside the United States, a Hawaiian official has confirmed she has "personally seen and verified" that the state "has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate" - meaning Obama was born in the Aloha state, and is therefore an American citizen. [Quote from Official News Release, already quoted above.]

Does this mean Obama was born in Hawaii?

"YES," said Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo, in both email and telephone interviews with the Tribune. "That's what Dr. Fukino is saying."


As to the Certificate of Live Birth, the state stopped providing vault certificates almost 30 years ago. Anyone who asks for their original birth certificate instead receives a laser short form identical to the one Obama received and submitted. It is not necessary for him to show a birth certificate because the certification is a legal document showing that the birth certificate exists in the files. It is like a bank book, which proved that you had money in the bank. The certification has now been accepted by at least one court. The court has seen the paper certification and ruled that it was authentic.

In one case, the The court found the claims against Mr. Obama’s citizenship “wholly unpersuasive and bordering on the frivolous, especially in light of the complete absence of any first-hand evidence on any critical issue” and further classifies it as “conspiracy theory of the lowest sort, fueled by nothing than internet rumor and those who truly want to believe egging each other on.”

Finally to put an end to all the right wing lies about his travel to Pakistan in 1981, contrary to the blog BS, the truth is that Americans were not banned from traveling to Pakistan.The U.S. State Department Travel Advisory to Pakistan in 1981 confirms the newspaper account:

"NO. 81-33A
Travel Advisory
Passport Services/Bureau of Consular Affa[irs]
Department of State/Wahington. D.C. 205__
AUGUST 17, 1981




Sorry guys. Try again next time we have a black running for president.

Arlen Williams said...

To correct the post immediately above, no Hawaiian official confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii, only that a birth certificate existed of a kind accepted in Hawaii.

As to the last comment, it is just typical, absurd race baiting. This is about race: human.

And of course, a valid birth certificate showing that Barack Obama I was BHO II's father would simply verify that BHO II is *not* a "natural born Citizen," acceptable under the Constitution to be Commander in Chief.

Anonymous said...

And, by the way, to add to my comment above re: the March on DC, I support anyone and everyone who is calling for this usurper in the White House to produce the sealed documents that will prove he has no alligance to The Flag, The Constitution and the American way of life. If people did have an open mind and just looked at the people and organizations he favors, they could not come to any other conclusion except that this man is groomed for a 4 year term to push the agenda for globalization. To reach that goal, the "Banksters" need to break America. I belive, that's this puppet's assignment.