The work by Linda A. Melin, Citizen Researcher in her three part series, at Constitutionally Speaking is a must read.

The enormity of what took place in the 2008 election for President of the United States is both stunning and sobering. The reality is, not only did we have two candidates running for the office who were constitutionally ineligible to hold office as required under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 (A2, S1, C5) of the Constitution, but in order for this to happen, high ranking officials in both the DNC and the RNC (whose job is to verify and certify the eligibility of their candidates to hold the office of POTUS) had to falsify and/or modify documents certifying their candidates eligibility to the 50 Secretarys of State.

I want you to go to Constitutionally Speaking (CS)… but not quite yet.

As I have written numerous times, most members of Congress (past and present), knew that Obama was constitutionally ineligible for the office of President and remained silent. The names include Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Shelia Jackson Lee, Joe Scarborough, Ted Kennedy, Orrin Hatch… the list is endless. This is the dirty little secret known to most everyone in Washington, in the MSM, and in the legal community. It was purposely kept from the general public. Read here and here.

The CS series provides exhaustive details of Congress’ extensive knowledge & avoidance of the Natural Born Citizen clause of the Constitution. The mission of these legislators was simple … eliminate and destroy this clause that the Framers of our Republic felt so strongly about.

Make no mistake, electing an ineligible Obama was done with intentional malice leading to the destruction of the Constitution.

As law professor Peter J. Spiro made abundantly clear on the topic:

[…] “Constitutional questions do not require constitutional decisions. If non-judicial actors, including Congress (Frank, Hatch, Kennedy, Waters, Graham, McCaskill, Conyers), editorialists (NY Times, MSNBC, LA Times et. al.), leading members of the bar (Turley, Dean, Epstein, Toobin), and the People themselves (can you say Kool-Aid?)manage to generate a constitutional consensus, there isn’t much that the courts can do about it. In cases such as this one, at least, that seems to be an acceptable method of constitutional determination.

In other words, it is perfectly alright to ignore those parts of the Constitution you do not agree with. Just ignore what you don’t like and if others agree with you and/or conspire with you, why bother with legislation to change it?  What we have is de facto change we can believe in! mmm,mmm,mmm!

Stepping back to see where we’ve come from and where we are to today is warranted.

I began asking questions about Obama’s citizenship in August 2008, here and here as did others. The questions were simple enough, if Obama’s father was Kenyan how could Obama meet the natural born citizenship requirement for POTUS? His own website clearly stated that Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children.

It seemed to be a simple question to me, one of extreme importance given the fact that if Obama was ineligible this country was embarked on electing a fraud. More importantly, as Dr. EdwinVieira detailed in October of 2008, if we elected Obama and he was found to be ineligible after the fact, every law passed, every appointment, etc, would be moot.

Certainly the MSM would jump to cover this story, right? Yet inexplicably, as we witnessed, they were either silent or they purposely mislead the public as to the true nature of the controversy. The question wasn’t whether Obama was a US citizen when he was elected, the question was and remains, what was Obama’s citizenship status on the day he was born; that is the primary question.

Legal analysts and JournoListers like Jeffery Toobin, lied and spread misinformation about the meaning of natural born citizenship as did other legal analysts on CNN. Jonathan (if you want a purebred, get a dog) Turley and John (the clause is pernicious) Dean both OPPONENTS of the natural born citizen clause were just as complicit remaining silent.

Then we had members of Congress, many who are attorneys themselves, who sat on committees bent on changing the NBC. Their intent was specific… obliterate the NBC clause and extend this very particular presidential requirement to virtually anyone that could chew gum and walk a straight line. They all remained silent, demonstrating once again that inactions can have consequences. As you will see in Constitutionally Speaking,Congress has been more active about subverting the NBC than even I had discovered. See here and here.

What we have seen in the last year and half is a multitude of public officials that either didn’t do their job (the New Jersey Secretary of State is the most egregious example. See Donofrio v. Wells), or who purposely lied, obfuscated, or ignored the underlying issues of Obama’s citizenship status. They put their politics and their grab for power ahead of our country.

Canada Free Press has reported on intimidation tactics used on the few reporters or media people willing to risk bringing the truth to light. We all know how Lou Dobbs was treated for merely questioning why Obama hasn’t produced records which verify his eligibility. It has been evident to anyone with half a brain that media personalities were instructed to avoid any discussion of the birth certificate issue at all costs.When Ann Coulter is saying “birthers” are crazy, someone is holding a very big stick, one few have the courage to mess with.

Also reported by J. B. Williams & CFP, are charges that high ranking Democratic party officials knew that Obama was not constitutionally eligible, that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi knew that she was signing false statements when she was certifying his eligibility for the 50 states as required in the election process.


The truth is that in the 2008 election for POTUS neither John McCain or Barack Obama were eligible to hold the office of president. Donofrio was spot on with his law suit against the New Jersey Secretary of State.

Not only did she allow McCain and Obama’s names on the ballot without checking their citizenship status, but she also allowed Roger Calero, a man born in Nicaragua with a green card to to be placed on the ballot to run for President.

In the background, numerous law suits seeking information we are entitled to see have been ongoing and to no one’s surprise, under reported by the MSM. The sad reality is that not one case has been heard on its merits.

It started with Judge Surrick’s ruling in September of 2008. What Surrick said was that Berg’s case lacked standing and that voters weren’t personally harmed by a possibly ineligible Obama. Why? Because voters had a choice to vote for someone besides Obama in the national election. The problem with that argument is that if you were a Hillary supporter, your choice for president was taken away before the national election was held.

The truth is that the judiciary of this country has let its citizens down whether through cowardice or complicity, or ignorance. After all, what is left to say when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg purposely chooses to ignore the NBC clause as it relates to her grandson? Is it any wonder that the Supreme Court declined to hear the Donofrio v Wells case?

Which leads us to today, Constitutionally Speaking, and part III in her series of subversion and malfeasance by the Congress of this United States which is slated for later today. We are promised even more explosive detailed information. Stay tuned!


  1. paulg

    Putting them behind bars infers that they will be well fed and cared for the rest of their natural lives. I DON’T THINK SO! They have run this country soo far down the wrong road, that even if we do 180 degree turn around and doubletime it, we are 20 years away from the conditions we were in as a country in 2008. If you remember it wasn’t rosie then either. THEY ARE ALL GUILTY OF TREASON. Its time to take the money and all toys away from the children running this country. Its time to remove all the money power and prestige from “serving” in public office. Very low pay no perks,pensions,NOTHING! Term limits, as if you’d need them in a job where you are subjected to the same laws as everyone else. The time is nye…

  2. paulg

    Natural born hell, the SOB can’t prove his Hawaii birth. That long form wouldn’t
    Get a D Grade in elementary computer ED. WHAT a joke. Its time to round em all up….

  3. Carol

    I never watched Lou Dobbs when he had the “birth” issue on there but I have always admired Lou Dobbs. So when I heard on Bill O’Reilly that he was being fired for “fueling this controversy” proded me to find out why. I have always trusted Lou and in no way would he make his show some Jerry Springer show. There had to be some plausible info in covering this. When googling I went to the website, and found the birth certificate that Bill O’Reilly said he saw that satisfied his investigation and proved to him was authentic and he concluded “Obama was indeed born in Hawaii”.
    There is one thing on that birth certificate that “flew in my face” big time. Under Race for Father: African. ????
    I was a hospital birth certificate clerk in 1971. THERE WAS NO CHOICE ON THE LIST IN 1971 FOR “AFRICAN” FOR RACE….even ten years after Obama was born the check list for race would have included the word “Negro” . I know that in years afterward that they changed that to “Black” but Negro was still in place in 1971. There was on the list: “Other”
    with a line beside it to write in but even so if the word was a Nationality like African we would then question the mother what the race was not the nationality because even in Africa there were other races than black. This is the information we gathered from the mother by which we typed up both a Hospital Birth Certificate with the footprints on it as well as the long form which was then signed by the mother, father, attending physician, blood type, etc.
    JUST SAYING THE WORD “AFRICAN’ BESIDE THE RACE IS REALLY SUSPECT especially to someone like me that actually was the one gathering the information, typing up the birth certificates and sending it to the State Office of Vital Statistics whereby that Certificate of Birth as seen on that site would have been sent to the parent usually within 3 to 4 weeks…During that space of time until it arrived all the mother would have had on hand was the Hospital Birth Certificate.

  4. sandstone Post author

    I feel honored to make your list of wing nuts. Hillary ‘n Me is higher than Politico! Who knew? BTW, other than calling people names, I noticed you never addressed a single point that anyone made. Name calling is so much more fun than real thought, isn’t it?

  5. David Sexton

    To Richard Kent (et al). You may be an immigration lawyer but you apparently have failed to do a fact check before voicing an opinion or a dozen here. To understand the Constitutional aspect of the 14th Amendment’s clause 1 as it applies here you need to look at the docs at the bottom of this post: Let me, a mere paralegal with a bit of Con-law experience, help you in dsicovering the intent of that “Clause 1” in the words of the writer of same:

    Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2893. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull, participating in the debate, stated the following: “What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” In a similar vein, Reverdy Johnson said in the same debate: “If there are to be citizens of the United States entitled everywhere to the character of citizens of the United States, there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says citizenship may depend upon birth, and (BEGIN OPERATIVE CLAUSE)—>I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, SALIENT POINT)—>born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.”<—(END OPERATIVE CLAUSE, END SALIENT POINT)
    At not time was his father "subject to the authority of the United States" as he was a British subject.

    Next point: barry obama became "barry sotero" when legally adopted by Lolo Sotero in Indonesia. At that time he became an Indonesiaon citizen and was registered into school as such. There is no record anywhere of barry sotero's name being LEGALLY changed back to "barak obama" nor anything showing a restoration of U.S. Citizenship. Even if someone like you did help him regian same, he'd be a "naturalized citizen" regardless of his place of birth as that "natural born" status was removed from him when he was adopted by an Indonesian citizen as a child.
    see the records here:
    and here:
    And here:

    All say the same thing: Citizenship: Indonesian

    So Mr. Wizard (esq.) How does that fit your stated position on this issue?

  6. antikarlmarxs

    For those who do not trust the constituttion then they should declare themselves not US citizins. For those that endorse violating the constitution then they should delcare themselves enemeies of the state. for those of us that have served to defend the ‘rights of WE THE PEOPLE” we know when lies have been told trust me. In the end the stars and stripes will prevail. For those that think that they can trample the laws of this land beware of the light.The good in all this is all the sicko communists are making their views known to “WE THE PEOPLE” since they think now is the moment. But, as we stood with Wshington, Patton, and others to defeat the nationlists ‘WE THE PEOPLE” will stand this test as well.

    1. sandstone Post author


      I pray that the stars and stripes are strong enough to withstand the enemies from within … from all those part time patriots who say they defend the Constitution and the rule of law …. only when it fits their political agendas.

  7. Ronald Whaley

    HE might be a citizen but he is NOT a “Natural Born Citizen” and that is the point. Not where he was born but the fact that his daddy was NOT a citizen makes him not qualified period.

    1. Carol

      The Constitution imposed the restriction of “natural born citizen” clause as a requirement for POTUS with great forethought and deliberation. Regardless of the citizenship of your parents if you are a citizen of the US, born or naturalized citizen such as Swartzeneggar you can run for any political office in the US EXCEPT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE ONLY THE PRESIDENT IS ALSO COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES. As such the Commander in Chief must be free of conflict of interest in any potential declaration of war against any country.
      There is a conflict of interest with Obama’s Uncle being a leader of Kenya and also because that region is predominantly Muslim.
      As for McCain I believe you are very wrong. I don’t know the law regarding this but I do know that there is a protection in place for children born on foreign soil when a parent is there in execution of a government duty. He was born in Panama on a military base because his father was in the military. Thus McCain’s father has no allegiance to Panama only the US. Whereas, Obama’s father has allegiance to his parent country, Kenya. Also, in Kenya the father of a child is the predominant parent and Kenya would claim Obama’s citizenship is predominantly Kenyan not the United States.

      1. sandstone Post author


        Regarding your last 2 comments, you are very right to perceive the word “African” as being a dead giveaway that is written on the Obama birth certificate. When people go online to view it, too bad there isn’t a red flashing light shouting “forgery”.

        As for McCain, his place of birth unfortunately did disqualify him to run as POTUS. If this wasn’t the case then there was no need for him to spend thousands of dollars for attorneys to write an opinion that he was qualified to run. Don’t forget the Senate passed a non-binding resolution (an opinion and feel good piece) S Res 511, declaring him to be a natural born citizen. You are either born a NBC or you are not. Declaring it to be so, doesn’t make it so.

        I have mixed feelings about McCain … no one can doubt his love for this country or his service, but had the Congress not been trying to make an exception for McCain we wouldn’t have a fraud sitting in the White House. McCain was in NO POSITION to object when Obama ran … sad but true. I voted for McCain, but he was still ineligible. Hillary was my choice, but that was taken away from us and the country by the frauds in the DNC.

        1. Carol

          Regarding McCain: Like I said in another post I always look at the “intent” of the framers of a law. Our Founding Fathers were beyond wise and I believe our Constitution absolutely has “Divine” inspiration.
          When our military is deployed to even our enemies soil and a child is born on that soil I believe that the Framer’s of the Law would not have our soldiers children subject to that foreign soil, it’s King, nor dictators. If there is no such law for that protection then there should be because some dictator of a country could declare that the child could not leave the soil as it belonged to them.
          Just yesterday the leaders of Haiti stopped Americans trying to take orphaned children out of their country.
          The country you are in claims children born on their soil as their citizens and that would mean that if there was not some law regarding the military deployed there then Panama could have declared that McCain’s parents had no right to leave Panama with one of Panama’s citizens.
          McCain provided all his records (which Obama never has) and let the Congress rule that he his parents had not relinquished his natural born status just because he was not on America soil but on an America base retaining American soveignty on that American base born of two American born citizens.
          Obama’s father was subject to the King/Queen of England and any child of his would be subject also. Women’s rights were always subject to the man’s. So the man’s allegiance to his country takes precedence over the mother’s rights and her allegiance to her country. The child is claimed through the father and not the mother in a country that has a King or Queen. Regardless, of where Obama’s children are born they are subject to the Mother country. That is one of the reasons why America claimed it’s Independence. Unless Obama’s father declared his own independence from Britain then any child of his is a British subject and that citizenship trumps any claim to a US citizenship.
          That is how I reason out the intent of all these laws but the actual laws I personally do not know myself.
          btw: Even with the KNOWING HE IS NOT ELIGIBLE what and who can do anything about this. I also reason out that if it is finally ruled that he is ineligible and if Pelosi knowing this did cover it up….then he would be deposed and his whole Administration demantled (Vice Predident) and Pelosi would have to be deposed. Hillary would automatically be sworn in as President because the election was stolen from her by this cover up. Ya think?


  9. Richard L. Kent, Esq.

    the sensational conspiracy >>

    Called the XIV amendment.

    If you don’t support the plain reading of the XIV of the Constitution then you do not support the Constitution.

    Don’t worry. I won’t post here any more. Unlike you, I’m sworn to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. It is plain that you are not.

  10. Richard L. Kent, Esq.

    I disagree that everything is decided on the day of Barack Obma’s birth, how and where Barack Obama is raised also is part of the issue.>>

    I don’t care if you think he’s a catamite prostitute or that you’re secretly Fearless Fosdick, the Human Fly.

    The law says he’s a citizen. He’s a frakking citizen. What you think makes absolutely zero, nil, nit, no difference whatsoever.

    Get over yourself and get a life. This “He’s really not a citizen!” crap is like a small child screaming for his favorite toy after it’s been taken away, and just makes us all look like we’re morons.

    Stop it. Drop it. You’re doing the anti-Obama forces absolutely no good whatsoever. In fact you’re harming us.

    Stop it already. Capiche?

    1. sandstone Post author

      Mr. Kent:

      I’m about to give you fair warning. If you want to post here it is expected that comments will be thoughtful without being arrogant or rude. If you have to resort to name calling, you’ve already lost the argument. There are no morons here, particularly Alessandro, whom I know to be an accomplished and caring citizen.

      I’ve been studying Obama’s citizenship status for over a year and a half. Obama may be a citizen today, a naturalized citizen. He cannot claim to be natural born … he knows it, you and I know it, half the frakking world knows it … after all as has been pointed out ad naseum why hide all of his documents etc. He’s spent over a million dollars in legal fees. Not the acts of an innocent man in my book.

      Now to quote Leo Donofrio … a name I’m sure you have heard:

      It is undisputed that Obama was Kenyan-born by the blood of his father. That led to his Kenyan citizenship having been automatically granted in 1963 by the Kenya Independence Act.


      The legal concept by which it is undisputed that President Obama was “Kenyan-born” is “jus sanguinis“, which means “right of blood”.

      Furthermore, President Obama admitted that, under the British Nationality Act of 1948 – at the time of his birth – he was a British citizen. It has also been accurately reported by that President Obama became a Kenyan citizen in 1963. (However, a separate key aspect of that report was false and eventually corrected by Factcheck who cited this blog’s report and analysis in their mea culpa. Please also note their second mea culpa to this blog.)

      JUS SOLI

      Unfortunately, the undisputed legal fact of Obama’s jus sanguinis foreign birth has been supplanted by the sensational conspiracy theory relating to the place of his birth. The headline from the 2004 Kenyan news report does not indicate whether “Kenyan-born” relates to Obama’s Kenyan bloodline or – in the alternative – to his place of birth. Place of birth citizenship is conferred by a legal concept known as “jus soli“, meaning law of the soil.

      Please don’t miss the forest for the trees. President Obama admits to having been a British citizen at birth by law and a son of Kenyan blood which led to automatic Kenyan citizenship in 1963. This alone should disqualify him from POTUS eligibility – regardless of where he was born – since he was a dual citizen at birth and at least until 1984.

      Again, fair warning PAL … Capiche?

  11. Alessandro Machi

    Lets say that Barack Obama’s father had moved to the United States, lived here for a few years, established himself with a job, became a citizen, and then fathered his child.

    If Barack Obama senior then left the U.S. to be come a Kenyan politiician, Barack Obama would still NOT be a natural born citizen.

    Natural born means your lineage are american citizens who plan on remaining american citizens.

    If the above scenario had happened, and dad waited until Barack was of voting age, at that point, Barack would retain his natural born status.

    The above is a scenario I bring up because I disagree that everything is decided on the day of Barack Obma’s birth, how and where Barack Obama is raised also is part of the issue.

  12. Richard L. Kent, Esq.

    I would like to share the following written by an attorney in support of his case pending before the US District Court in New Jeresy; since I could not have written it better or on better point I defer:>>

    Whatever the earlier law was, the XIV Amendment clearly states that, from the time of its passage, any individual born in the United States is a citizen from the day of his birth. It also defines “citizenship” in precisely those terms. In failing to define “natural born citizenship” from “citizenship” it therefore ipso facto by that silence meant that the two terms meant the same thing. A natural born citizen is anyone who doesn’t have to be naturalized. End of statement, sentence, and argument.

    Furthermore, new constitutional law trumps old statutory law. Any first year law student could tell you that.

    The passing of the XIV Amendment killed any old Congressional ruminations on the subject, just as the passing of the XIII Amendment killed the Escaped Slave Act.

    What the old Congress could have thought on the subject is as irrelevant as Scottish law to the question of whether President Clinton needed to be impeached for getting the full Monica.

    Lawyers quote irrelevant superceded law all the time when writing briefs. The legal words to describe this process is “specious and frivolous argument.” The colloquial term for this kind of legal writing is “boilerplate bullshit.”

    I hate Obama’s guts. I don’t think he’s mentally or morally qualified to be President. But he’s a citizen. End the delusion that he ain’t before you guys make us ALL look like morons.

    1. Carol

      mmm? Then why was Swartzeneggar so eager to have the law changed so that he, himself, could run for President? Just because the “new” law meant that any child born on American soil was indeed a citizen and just because it is silent regarding the POTUS clause just means that the clause of exclusion of the POTUS still stands until addressed as such by an amendment. Natural born is the requirement because the POTUS is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and should have no conflict of interest in deploying troops to land of foreign soil therefore he must not have comprising issues as possibly declaring war against a country that shares his citizenship…..Kenya.

      1. sandstone Post author


        I don’t know what new law you are referring to. Also, I agree with you as to the NBC clause and its relationship to the Commander in Chief.

        1. Carol

          I was referring to Richard Kent’s quote:
          Furthermore, new constitutional law trumps old statutory law. Any first year law student could tell you that.

          The passing of the XIV Amendment killed any old Congressional ruminations on the subject, just as the passing of the XIII Amendment killed the Escaped Slave Act.

          I am not a lawyer but I have worked as a member of the fraud investigative unit for the Dept. of Social Services. Our manuals regarding eligibility and what constitutes fraud were ever evolving and changing. I learned that even in any questionable situation you always refer back to the Original law and the Original intent of that law.
          You must go by the principle that a law is not imposed just to have a law.. it is not a law just to be a law…Always ask why they would make such a law. So in looking at this matter you see that the Framer’s of the Constitution studied hard and long on where one’s loyalties would lie in a time of War and being the Commander in Chief of the US with the decision to deploy troops the President must not have a conflict of loyalties. Having both parents born and bound in loyalty to the United States would alleviate any such conflict.
          This law must be kept intact. It is vital to the security of this nation. If we allow Obama with dual citizenship with inherit split loyalties it sets a precedent that could endanger our nation in the future should that other nation be an enemy of the US.

          There is also a very dire situation that we have in this present day and that is because our enemy is not a religious sect that refers to itself as the Nation of Islam.
          Just as a Jewish person is deemed Jewish via his mother’s bloodline, A Muslim is deemed Muslim via his father’s bloodline. His Muslim name is considered holy and if he converts to any other religion he must change his name. Obama knows this and yet he keeps his Muslim name. So he has already a conflict of loyalties. He also knows that by keeping that name his father’s bloodline citizenship trumps his American born mother’s citizenship because women are not considered to have the same authority. Therefore, I would surmise that according to Kenyan’s his loyalties would lie first to Kenya and his Muslim namesake. That is why I think that Obama is having a problem saying that we are at war with terrorist nor will he call them terrorist …just criminals.
          No one seems willing to vet this information. And even with this knowledge what are we really dloing here but bloviating. The people are so proud that we have a black man in office and that Martin Luther King’s dream has come true but this black man is not a Martin Luther King. He could very well be a usurper and I believe we have been hoodwinked.
          Who can really do anything about this? Going thru the courts as Orly Taiz has tried and Phillip Berg has tried and that seems to be going no where fast. Every reasonalbe Republican is afraid of being mocked as a “Birther”. So who and how can this really be addressed.

  13. ahrcanum

    yes please keep up what the prior post calls nonsense! It is makes no sense that Pres O would spend million or one dime defending his NBC when he could just provide the documentation. Good work! Our site just went on a rant on the Obama Khalidi tapes and censorship if your interested.

  14. Richard L. Kent, Esq

    Citizenship in this country and around the world, is more complicated than being born on the soil of any nation. There are a host of considerations that have to be taken into account that include the nationality of the parent (s), dual citizenship status, etc. The fact is, that the citizenship status of Obama on the day he was born disqualifies him for office because his father was a British subject and his mother’s age (whether 17 or 18) prevented her from automatically passing her citizenship to her son in 1961.


    Under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, any individual born on American soil (er, Hawai'i) is a US Citizen by definition at the instant of birth.

    He was born here in the United States.

    Therefore he was a U.S. Citizen.

    And you're a moron.

    1. TruthandFreedom

      That as you stated makes them a US citizen, not a natural born citizen!!! I think you need to go back to law school!

  15. Richard L. Kent, Esq

    The fact that Richard says he is an immigration attorney doesn’t make it so. Anyone can add Esq. to the end of a name in a comments section. >>

    Richard L. Kent, Esq.

    22815 Kelly Road

    Eastpointe, MI 48021-2073

    (586) 202-6170

    Michigan Bar # P65494

    (Licensed Since 2003)

    Virginia Bar # 43527

    (Licensed Since 1999)

    Okay, pal. Show us YOUR bar credentials.

  16. Dr. Conspiracy

    The problem with this article is that it presumes that the Democrats knew the Constitution and Obama’s opponents did not. That’s simply impossible.

    Obama himself said his father was British on his own campaign web site. There was no secret.

    The fact is that the whole “two citizen parent” idea never existed in US law, the constitution or court cases until it was invented for the sole purpose of excluding Barack Obama from being president. Before 2008, it was the universal belief (with perhaps the exception of a handful of anti-immigration activists) that everyone born a citizen of the United States, whatever the status of their parents, was a natural born citizen.

    1. sandstone Post author

      Dr. Conspiracy

      Sorry, there’s no polite way to say this. I’m not sure, but I think your comment ranks up there with one of the two or three dumbest comments I’ve ever read. LOL … pure nonsense.

  17. Kaci Jay

    sandstone – please explain where you get your info because Richard is an IMMIGRATION attorney and has just explained to you that if you are born in the US then you are a natural born citizen – with the only exceptions being clearly spelled out.

    1. sandstone Post author


      The fact that Richard says he is an immigration attorney doesn’t make it so. Anyone can add Esq. to the end of a name in a comments section. Frankly, his comments are silly and unworthy of more than a few seconds of my time. In the oft chance Richard really is an immigration attorney, might I opine that if his stance is that ANYONE born on US is automatically a citizen then it is easy to see why our country’s immigration policies are so screwed up.

      Citizenship in this country and around the world, is more complicated than being born on the soil of any nation. There are a host of considerations that have to be taken into account that include the nationality of the parent (s), dual citizenship status, etc. The fact is, that the citizenship status of Obama on the day he was born disqualifies him for office because his father was a British subject and his mother’s age (whether 17 or 18) prevented her from automatically passing her citizenship to her son in 1961.

      There are numerous legal authorities who believe that Obama was fully a British subject on the day he was born. He own website clearly stated that he and his father were subject to the British Nationality Act of 1948. That means, even if his mother’s citizenship status was acknowledged, in the best case scenario, BHO was a dual citizen on the day he was born … and it doesn’t matter if he was born in Hawaii, Kenya, or a room in the White House. Those facts are immutable.

      A citizen and natural born citizen are not the same … in the same manner that orange and a tangerine are not the same. Yes, both are “round & orange in color” but they are not interchangeable because they have characteristics that differentiate them from each other.

      As to where I get my info, anything written here is cited and referenced, to the best of my ability.

  18. Jim Buzzell

    For Richard L. Kent, Esq.

    I would like to share the following written by an attorney in support of his case pending before the US District Court in New Jeresy; since I could not have written it better or on better point I defer:

    Thursday, May 28, 2009
    Natural Born Citizen Through the Eyes of Early Congresses
    Not much information exists on why the Third Congress deleted “natural born” from the Naturalization Act of 1790 when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1795. There is virtually no information on the subject because they probably realized that the First Congress committed errors when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 and did not want to create a record of the errors.

    It can be reasonably argued that Congress realized that under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is given the power to make uniform laws on naturalization and that this power did not include the power to decide who is included or excluded from being a presidential Article II “natural born Citizen.” While Congress has passed throughout United States history many statutes declaring who shall be considered nationals and citizens of the United States at birth and thereby exempting such persons from having to be naturalized under naturalization laws, at no time except by way of the short-lived “natural born” phrase in Naturalization Act of 1790 did it ever declare these persons to be “natural born Citizens.” The uniform definition of “natural born Citizen” was already provided by the law of nations and was already settled. The Framers therefore saw no need nor did they give Congress the power to tinker with that definition. Believing that Congress was highly vulnerable to foreign influence and intrigue, the Framers, who wanted to keep such influence out of the presidency, did not trust Congress when it came to who would be President, and would not have given Congress the power to decide who shall be President by allowing it to define what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is.

    Additionally, the 1790 act was a naturalization act. How could a naturalization act make anyone an Article II “natural born Citizen?” After all, a “natural born Citizen” was made by nature at the time of birth and could not be so made by any law of man.

    Finally, allowing a child born on foreign soil to be President would have invited conflict with the foreign nation on whose soil the child was born. For example, Great Britain adhered to the concept of perpetual natural allegiance. Just imagine the Framers allowing a child born in Great Britain to two U.S. citizen parents (a perpetual natural born subject under English common law) after the adoption of the Constitution (post Article II grandfather time period) to be President and Commander in Chief of the United States. Also, “natural born Citizen” status, having a uniform definition under the laws of nations, could not be made to depend on the laws of the foreign country in which the child would be born to U.S. citizen parents. Congress realized their errors in passing the 1790 Act and corrected it in 1795.

    What is important about these two naturalization acts which were passed in the early part of the founding of the Republic and which is also reflected in the Constitution itself, is that they show that the Framers of the Constitution clearly saw a distinction between a “Citizen” and a “natural born Citizen.” They show that the Framers rejected English common law which in addition to how it granted “natural born subjectship” through jus solis also made a child a “natural born subject” if born out of the King’s dominion to parents who were “natural born subjects” (jus sanguinis). Under the law of nations which the Framers adopted for the new United States, a “natural born Citizen” was a child born in the United States to a mother and father who were at the time of the child’s birth both United States citizens and a “Citizen” was any person who became a citizen by naturalization. A “Citizen” had the same civil and political rights as a “natural born Citizen” except he was not eligible to be President if born after the adoption of the Constitution. Only by becoming a citizen could a father and derivatively from him the mother give to their child the inherited right to be a “natural born Citizen.” Not including the American Indians because they belonged to a different nation and blacks because they were or their parents had been slaves, the United States was a new nation and only after its new citizens gave birth to a new generation of Americans could that new generation be called indigenous, natives or “natural born Citizens” of the United States. All those who were born British subjects before the adoption of the Constitution (which included the Founding Fathers themselves), actually became naturalized United States citizens by electing to become a United States citizen by adhering to the revolutionary cause rather than chosing to become British subjects by remaining loyal to Great Britain. They could not elect to become “natural born Citizens” because they were born British subjects.

    From these early naturalization statutes, we can see that it is not sufficient to be a born “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment to qualify as a Presidential Article II “natural born Citizen.” While this amendment constitutionally makes those who qualify under its terms to be “citizens,” it does not nor was it ever intended to make these individuals Article II “natural born Citizens.” The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment were well aware that Article II refers to “natural born Citizen” and that Article I and Article IV refer to “Citizen.” By chosing the word “citizen,” they left intact the original meaning of “natural born Citizen” as it existed under the law of nations which the Founders adopted as the national law of the new United States.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    185 Gatzmer Avenue
    Jamesburg NJ 08831
    Email: apuzzo [AT]
    TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906

  19. MarkR

    Aren’t the Obots funny. To be a NBC, you need to be born on US soil, and have two US Citizen parents. Obamas Dad was Brithish Kenyan, so he can never be a NBC. Shame.

  20. Richard L. Kent, Esq.

    Come off of it.

    If he was born on US Soil to a US Citizen he is a US Citizen.

    And he was born in the US. End of story. (You don’t think his parents took out notices in the papers in Hawai’i while taking part in a conspiracy to have him elected President, do you?)

    I can’t abide the man, but there it is.

    Saying he was a “British Subject” if he was born in the United States is to directly invalidate the Declaration of Independence AND the United States Constitution. After all, does British law apply within the United States?

    I think that the answer to that (and I’m quoting the Founding Fathers here) is a rather resounding ‘no’.

Comments are closed.