Welcome! Jesus Christ is my LORD and Savior! Romans 10:9-10,13; John 3:16

[For EU visitors, I do not personally use cookies, but Google or any clickable link (if you choose to click on it) might. This is in compliance with mandatory EU notification]

I am a Natural Born United States Citizen with NO allegiance or citizenship to any nation but my own, and will use this site as a hobby place of sorts to present my own political and religious viewpoints, as a genuine Constitutional Conservative and a genuine Christian Conservative.

Thank you for coming.
In the Year of our LORD Jesus Christ
-- As of January 20, 2017
A Sigh Of Relief With The Inauguration Of Donald John Trump as President of the United States of America, And Hope For A Prosperous Future For All United States Citizens (we who are a nation called "the melting pot of the world"). We shall be great and exceptionally great again.

It is likely that the entries to this blog will be less frequent than in years past. I do intend to keep this blog active, and to offer insightful information and/or opinion (and sometimes humor and/or entertainment on occasion) when I do post.

Peace and Liberty. Semper Fidelis.

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Lt. Col. challenges Obama


The only error this US Army Lt. Col. Terry Lakin makes is that a Barack Obama Long Form Birth Certificate will clear up the "natural born status" issue. The defense Lt. Col. Larkin MUST USE TO WIN, is to hammer the point home that WITHOUT A US CITIZEN FATHER, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR BARACK OBAMA TO BE A UNITED STATES NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

The Data I posted amounts to some 30-32 pages of material prior to any printing up of supplemental material from the links. This is more than sufficient to not only create reasonable refusal to disobey Obama, but a legal military justification to disobey an illegal executive commander attempting to so order the officer into compliance.

May he use the data I have compiled, and speedily win his defense.

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Pass the Healthcare by illegality, and we have Article III legal standing we need to remove Obama on Constitutional grounds

This extended version on the issue I originally posted on March 17, 2010 in this updated version. Reposted today after removing some HTML errors that were popping up when trying to link to various books at Amazon, etc.

(Updated again on April 4, 2010)
(Updated once more on 08/17/2013 in regard to FDR Jr..  Correction in Green.)
Barack Obama needs to be legally challenged on the basis of being an UNCONSTITUTIONALLY QUALIFIED Putative President, son of a foreign national father and hence a non-Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America under 1961 law.

Barack Obama II, the son of Ann Dunham-Obama and Barack Obama Sr. (a Kenyan National, with no United States Citizenship), is NOT a US Constitutional article 2.1 Natural Born Citizen under US Law WITHOUT a US Citizen Father AND Mother (jus sanguinis) AND a US Soil (jus soli) birth.

Obama admits his father was NEVER anything but a dual Kenyan-British Commonwealth citizen. This Healthcare bill, under Lujan is “an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560.

“‘[A] plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government--claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest IN PROPER APPLICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large--does not state an Article III case or controversy.’” Lujan, 504 U.S. 573-74.

Article III standing is based on “an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560.

Healthcare tax via the (now signed)Healthcare Bill enforced and extorted by the IRS (which is hiring from 16,500 to 180,000 plus new agents, depending on what Congress man or woman is stating it) is a form of forced extortion upon and from employers. Employers, who would rather pay the fine than provide the more expensive plans, is an illegal form of taxation, and an actual legal invasion of one's First Amendment rights, as well as a violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Layoffs too, resulting as a direct consequence of the legislation is also a concrete harm.

Further, because of the scope and reach of the Healthcare legislation, and the questionable language of ambiguities that may allow some dictatorial empowerments, it can be challenged on the basis of needing both a super-majority and a legal United States natural-born citizen President that can sign the bill into lawful legislation. The Heath care bill rises to the level of usurpation of First, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth Amendment rights of both individuals and States as needing to be pass as an amendment to the US Constitution in which a super-majority of both houses of Congress and of the individual states must ratify such or have it thrown out.

Americans who are upset, irate, and wanting their Republic out of the hands of the Communist-Socialists and their evil allies, need to sign up and sue the US government and Obama as plaintiffs while we still have the Courts to put this nation back in balance and in the proper Constitutional checks.

This challenge, via the Healthcare, will only be won truly by combining Obama's lack of Constitutional eligibility to sign ANY law. This very action, I believe, is the very best legal and peaceful remedy to AVERT violence of any type by the peaceful Right and Middle. This action will allow us to tap into the heart and pulse of this pre-election 2010 nation's majority will, in which a US Citizens v. Obama and the Healthcare Bill legislation would quickly ally perhaps tens of millions to sign such a petition, while others should perhaps donate by what amounts they feel led to do, to the correct legal firms and attorneys v. Obama on his lack of Constitutional Authority as a non-US natural born citizen, and via the Healthcare Legislation for the proper litigants suing.

A legal action against the coercion of any signed Healthcare legislation and of Obama on the basis of the lack of a US NBC status will have real Article III legal "teeth" to it that will chomp the pro-Obama opposition arguments to bits before the eyes of Court.

By bypassing the US Constitution's Article 1.7
“Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States. . . .But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively.”
and by bypassing Article 2.1 (in the person of Barack Obama),
and by bypassing the 5th Amendment
“No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...."
and by bypassing the 10th Amendment's "necessary and proper" clause, Article III standing is made because of the UNCONSTITUTIONALITY of the Healthcare Bill and how Speaker Pelosi and others brought it about and the illegal means they used to see its passage (if it succeeds).

Under the Law, and class action actionable to emergency petition to the US Supreme Court, Obama is legally obligated to prove his right to hold office and sign ANY legislation, especially THIS Legislation, or to exercise ANY executive authority under Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640 (1948) @ 653, http://supreme.justia.com/us/333/640/case.html

states: “The burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States or the prohibition of power to the states is upon those making the claim.”
And cf. Blatch v. Archer, 1 Cowper 63, 66, 98 English Reports 969, 970.

A President receives his executive authority “either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself,” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 585 (1952).

Further, Youngstown also states that any Executive Order must be based upon "specific statutory authority," and cannot be "based generally upon all powers vested in the President by the Constitution and laws of the United States and as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces."

The US Supreme Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the challenge to an UNCONSTITUTIONAL "President" such as Obama and over any legislation he signs pursuant to 28 United States Code 1331, 2201, and 2202; and in regard to the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Part of the argument also being, that not only is the Congress refusing to abide by legislation that adheres to the US Constitution's Article 1.7 in procedure, the legislation is being drafted in secret, and members are publicly admonished via media outlet video and taped quotes of the Speaker and the Usurper Obama, to vote carte blanche upon a potentially blank document that can be filled in and released later, and for all we know, could end up being a plagiarized quote of the Soviet Constitution or some other Communist work.

The Healthcare Legislation is a means of imposing a glass ceiling upon the poor of the masses, and of encroaching upon the wages of the Middle Class and driving them into part-time labor via cost status upon their employers (if they are not part of the 30.3% either under or unemployed at the time of this Genocide Bill's passing). The incentive of the Legislation is to only give cost credits to those who kee employeess at wages of less than 26,000 per annum, while the Communist-Socialists drive up the costs and drive down the dollar's value in internal and international currency and value for goods / services exchanges.


On May 21, 2009 Obama solemnly declared before the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence, almost as if pledging after the manner of a legally binding utterance. Therefore, his words should be used against him in unsealing the Court records.


1) "I ran for President promising transparency, and I meant what I said. That is why, whenever possible, we will make information available to the American people so that they can make informed judgments and hold us accountable.”
@ 37:10-37:23 on the C-Span video link

2) “…whenever we cannot release certain information to the public for valid national security reasons, I will insist that there is oversight of my actions - by Congress or by the courts.” @ 37:54-38:07 on the C-Span link

3) “…in our system of checks and balances, someone must always watch over the watchers - especially when it comes to sensitive information.” @ 38:28 – 38:39 on the C-span link

4) I will never hide the truth because it is uncomfortable. I will deal with Congress and the courts as co-equal branches of government. I will tell the American people what I know and don't know, and when I release something publicly or keep something secret, I will tell you why." @ 40:44 - 41:01 on the C-span link

It’s time to take all the information, and submit it as a reasonable cause FOIA (Fredom of Information Act) release of the Long Form BC (Birth Certificate or Birth Certification), and other relevant papers or documentation (such as passports, US school and college transcripts regarding declared citizenship and financial status).


US CONSTITUTION, Article 2, Section 1.
The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows...

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.

In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

...Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation

:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

And yet:
Obama's loyalties do not seem to have America's best interests at heart, but beat to a Communist agenda, and I would argue, falls well within the definition of a Communist subversive.
p. 758 "(2) Subversive is any individual who advocates or teaches:
...(2) The overthrow, by force or violence or other unconstitutional means, of the Government of the United States or of all forms of law..."

Obama's philosophy seems to merge Maoist as well as Marxist-Leninist philosophies. To verify this, one need only check out Mao's quotes:

...one need only check Karl Marx's own writings, and compare Obama's agenda to Communist founder Karl Marx's Critique of the Gotha Programme in 1875: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

...one need only check out the Communist-Socialist Contract that Obama signed with the Democratic Socialist of America as to advocate in any political office he seeks or will hold: http://www.dsausa.org/about/where.html

...and how the Communist newspapers themselves brag that Barack is their "mole": http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/12302/1/405

One need only quote his close friends visiting the White House like the wife of Bill Ayers:
"We support the national liberation struggles of the Vietnamese, the American Blacks and all other colonials. We support all who take up [the] gun against U.S. imperialism. We support the governments of China, Albania, North Viet Nam and North Korea."
Document 4 - http://martinrealm.org/documents/radical/sixties1.html

Or Obama's close friend and advisor Bill Ayers, unrepentant of:
"You Don't Need a Weatherman to Know Which Way the Wind Blows"
Revolutionary Youth Movement, 1969
"...So the very first question people in this country must ask in considering the question of revolution is where they stand in relation to the United States as an oppressor nation, and where they stand in relation to the masses of people throughout the world whom U.S. imperialism is oppressing.

The primary task of revolutionary struggle is to solve this principal contradiction on the side of the people of the world. It is the oppressed peoples of the world who have created the wealth of this empire and it is to them that it belongs… The goals is the destruction of U.S. imperialism and the achievement of a classless world: world communism.
... We have pointed to the vanguard nature of the black struggle in this country as part of the international struggle against American imperialism, and the impossibility of anything but an international strategy for winning…

This will require a cadre organization, effective secrecy, self-reliance among the cadres, and an integrated relationship with the active mass-based [read community organized] movement. To win a war with an enemy as highly organized and centralized as the imperialists will require a [clandestine] organization of revolutionaries, having also a unified "general staff"; that is, combined at some point with discipline under one centralized leadership. Because war is political, political tasks -- the international communist revolution -- must guide it….”
Document 5 - http://martinrealm.org/documents/radical/sixties1.html

At Occidental College, Obama joined the SED...an off-shoot variant of Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn's, and Jeff Jones' Weather Underground SDS; sought out Marxist professors, and became a Soviet (worker's) Communist advocate.

Recently, we have also the testimony of John C. Drew,
who dined and discussed politics with Barack "Christmas break from attending Occidental College" in December 1980.

Barack made an negative and lasting impression, arguing a virulent Marxist-Communist view as if he were of the up and coming vanguard, while rooming and hanging out with somewhat wealthy Pakistani Muslims.

Barack has apparently favored using a Social Security number of a deceased person in Connecticut, possibly obtained for him by his white grandmother in her probate access in Hawaii.



Not to mention Obama's own Czar Ron Bloom's who says "we" hate of the Free Market and the "we" demand to follow Mao Tse-Tung's "power of the gun" persuasion, as if it is part of Obama's own policy...not just Ron Bloom's.

In the Letter of John Jay, first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court:

"The moral or natural law was given by the Sovereign of the universe to all mankind; with them it was co-eval, and with them it will be co-existent. Being rounded by infinite wisdom and goodness on essential right, which never varies, it can require no amendment or alteration."

John Jay states that natural law, as given by G-D, and in Nature itself, cannot be altered by man.

In the 1814 Sermon by Jesse Appleton, D.D., President of Bowdoin College, before the Governor, The Honorable Council, And the Legislature of Massachusetts.

"Every family is a nation in embryo. Civil society originally consisted of families; and so it does still. By forming habits of obedience, intercourse, and beneficence, while under parental government, young persons become qualified to move in a more enlarged sphere, and to discharge duties of more extensive importance."

Natural Law dictated for mankind that the Father was the head of the family...and this was only altered by the rise of modern civilized society, which the US only unlearned this natural law as a society well after Obama was born, even after he had been adopted, called Barry Soetoro by adoption to an Indonesian Army geologist loyal to that nation's dictator, and moved to Indonesia. In effect, even if we disclude the presumption of Barack's self-government upon himself, by Natural Law, Barack (via even the title of his book, "Dreams From My Father") describe his multi-legiences based upon Natural Law, where he essentially describes how he feels he owed loyalty to his biological Communist father and his country. His own wife Michelle is on video record stating that she joined Barack on one trip "when he visited his HOME COUNTRY, KENYA..." @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBJihJBePcs.

Barack also apparently has a loyalty that waxes and wanes with the nation of his Indonesian adoptive father. Barack is multi-national in his immediate nuclear family from which he sprung, he is divided in his life's national loyalties (pledging obeisance to Indonesia as a school-child, as well as to the US via the pledge of allegiance here), he is divided in his personal structure and in his ideals of Communist-Socialism, which he promotes via his Cabinet and Czar picks under him.
This division of National (vis-a- vis State) loyalty could also be argued as publicly manifest in the 1990s by personal political association, when Obama worked extremely closely with, for, and under Alice Palmer: an Illinois politician, who had direct ties with a known Soviet Mole.

And we could go on and on and on with relevant contentions. But it is a matter of law that must be looked to, not simple associations...and the matter of National US law (as via the US Supreme Court and the Constitution of the United States of America) in a generalized overview is what we must focus on.

However, the point is, that no matter what layer we peel back upon the man, he is not a United States Natural Born Citizen, but a Citizen of the World living in a geological location called the United States of America, with reckless disregard and disdain to the US Constitution (as one of his first appointments, to flagrantly and unconstitutionally appoint a sitting US Senator, Hillary Clinton, to the Secretary of State post showed us).


US Constitutional terms:
1. Citizen of the US at the time of the adoption of the US Constitution (archaic, moot)

2. Citizen of the US (three co-equal forms): Born to at least 1 US Citizen legal parent or born in the USA or Naturalized.

Re: 14th Amendment, Section 1. (Second class citizen in relation to only the Presidency, one who is NOT able to aspire to be US President. Senator Feinstein of California, illegally and egregiously cited the 14th Amendment in her 07/09/2009 letter to me as justification for Barack Obama's usurpation. A 14th Amendment “Citizen of the US” is simply inclusive of Anchor birth, such as Obama (since his mother was not of legal age. That is, Barack falls under being born to a maternal citizen / transient alien and foreign national parent only birth (since Barack Sr. was a dual Kenyan/British national at the time of Barack Jr.'s birth and until his death). Also in this category should be listed - the "derivation of Citizenship" by a minor child through his/her US Naturalized guardian/custodial parent(s).

3. Born Citizen as it relates to the 14th Amendment, Section 1 (One or no US Citizen parents, but born on United States soil. Second class citizen in relation to only the Presidency, NOT able to aspire to be US President).

4. Naturalized, not born in USA who by Federal Statutes obtains Citizenship, renounces oaths of allegiances to foreign powers, and falls under the protection of the 14th Amendment, Section 1. (Second class citizen in relation to only the Presidency, NOT able to aspire to be US President).

5. Natural Born Citizen, born in the USA to both parents who are US citizens of any type of US Citizen at the time of the child's birth. (First class citizen, acquisition of an imprimis status of US citizenship, able to aspire to be US President. The natural born status in the US is paternal based until 1934 under US and International Law, but in running for the Presidency, US tradition has almost always seemed to require both parents to be some type of US citizen).

Natural Born Citizen visual aids:






There is no issue about race or ethnicity. There is no issue about a standard (open and honest platform) party affiliation or (open and honest) religious beliefs. The issue is straight forward based on a matter of Law, and the deceptions Obama and others have used to subvert, and break US Laws in order (especially Article 2.1.5 of the US Constitution in particular) to gain the Presidency of the United States. America has been hijacked by allowing Barry Soetoro, aka. Barack Hussein Obama II, a clearly ineligible candidate, to run for and obtain the Presidential Office of the United States of America.



“…at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.” {Emphasis mine]


Thus, even the pro-Obama Annenburg funded anti-Republican and oft Propaganda web-site, “Factcheck.org”, after being corrected by postings (since removed) by New Jersey lawyer Leo Donofrio, and later by NJ lawyer Mario Apuzzo, now admits to Barack not being a 100% US only birth citizen of 2 US Citizen parents, and confess that Barack's citizenship status was also passed through his father until his 23rd birthday. Any duality of citizenship at birth, is an AUTOMATIC DISQUALIFICATION to run for the Presidency of the United States of America.


{Pulled up on 02/04/2010}

{{"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. 4,1984.

Corrected (Sep. 3, 2009): Our original article incorrectly stated that then-Sen. Obama lost his Kenyan citizenship on Aug. 4, 1982. The correct date is Aug. 4, 1984. The Kenyan Constitution required Obama to choose whether to keep either his U.S. or Kenyan citizenship upon his 21st birthday, which was in 1982. But we initially missed that the Constitution provided him a two-year window for making that choice. So Obama did not lose his Kenyan citizenship until his 23rd birthday in 1984. We have updated the item to reflect this.

- Joe Miller
Rocky Mountain News Staff. "Things You Might Not Know About Barack Obama." 6 August 2007. The Rocky Mountain News. 24 August 2008.

Temple, John. "8-word Gaffe Ripples Across Web." 15 August 2007. The Rocky Mountain News. 24 August 2008.

The British Nationality Act, 1948. }}

But in spite of the law, Joe Miller and friends are forced to spin the law into “irrelevance” as it regards to “Barack Obama”.

If Barack ever chooses to go to Kenya, the difficulty arises under
7 FAM 081: U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality:
(e)While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person.

So HYPOTHETICALLY, if Kenya decided to HYPOTHETICALLY arrest Barack Obama while he was in Kenya as an alleged and putative US President, in spite of Department of Treasury protection, the nation of Kenya -- according to 7 FAM 081 under rules governing the US Department of State -- would have a claim upon the legal right to do so...AND be able to easily prove that claim in an International World Court in Belgium, if their government (under this purely hypothetical scenario) isn't bombed back to the Stone Age for having done so by those of the US Government during and after Obama's hypothetical extrication, that is. That is the line of separation...what HYPOTHETICALLY may be legal and justified, isn't necessarily the pragmatic approach. The means of resolving is always best done by the most peaceful and legal measures possible...and that is why we have civil and criminal Courts, in order to resolve our differences and disputes without violence, and there to offer our grievances when wronged -- individually or collectively -- as the Law allows.



In a letter dated July 9, 2009, California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein stated to me that the 14th Amendment qualifies Barack Obama to the Office. In it, Mrs. Feinstein writes:

“Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution specifies the qualifications for this executive office. It states that no person except for a natural born American citizen is eligible to run for President of the United States. Also, the candidate must be at least thirty-five years of age and have resided in the United States for at least fourteen years.

President Obama meets these constitutional requirements. He was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961. According to the Fourteenth Amendment, all persons born in the United States are considered citizens of the United States. Under these criteria, President Obama, a 47-year old US citizen, who has resided in the United States for longer than fourteen years, is eligible for President.”

Senator Feinstein either fallaciously assumes that any 14th Amendment Citizen has the Originalism to mean that such a one is automatically “natural born”, or she simply and intentionally skirted the vast differences that were later part of the debates in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) and Weedin v.Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657 (1927), which clarified and interpreted the 1898 case of US v. Wong...and has moved to the hope that people are either too stupid, naive, rear end kissing or doped up to think in terms of what the Supreme Court and US Law counts, and that the opinion of a senator (even one on the judiciary committee) does not hold legal weight, but merely reflects the mind-set of those serving as legislators. Whether that mind-set is corrupt, senile, or dense, is up to a sanity hearing and the persuasiveness (or the lack thereof) of such reasoning used in Court arguments before the Supreme Court of the Land.

But even before that squirreling in order to cover up the illegality of Obama by Senator Feinstein, the same 14th Amendment argument that Feinstein rationalizes with, was neutralized as far back as the Sep/Oct 1884 issue of the American Law Review, just 16 years after the passing of the 14th Amendment!



The ALR issue of Sep/Oct 1884 was the same one in which Democratic lawyer George D. Collins stated that in order to be “natural born” of a particular citizenship, such as the United States, “that his father be at the time of the birth of such a person a citizen thereof”.

George D. Collins is the first authority to which I point concerning the 14th Amendment. He asked the question: “are persons born within the United States, whose fathers at the time of birth were aliens, citizens thereof?”

Collins cited Vattell in probing for the answer:

"The native or natural citizens are born in the country of PARENTS who are citizens" [emphasis mine].

"As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers and succeed to all their rights."

"The country of the father is therefore that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent."

His answer at the end of the article:
Birth, therefore, does not ipso facto confer citizenship, and is essential in order that a person be a native or natural born citizen of the United States, that his father be at the time of the birth of such person a citizen thereof, or in the case he be illegitimate, that his mother be a citizen thereof at the time of such birth. – GEORGE D. COLLINS, SAN FRANCISCO, CAL.”

This differed from Senator Bayard's letter just 3 years earlier.
In January 10, 1881 Democratic Senator Bayard of Delaware (in a letter) made an erroneous affirmation of Chester A. Arthur’s right to be President of the United States because Chester’s father naturalized as a US Citizen prior to Chester’s 21st birthday.
A free copy is found at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/18450082/Arthur-Hinman-How-a-British-Subject-Became-President-of-the-United-States

Hear also N.J. lawyer Leo Donofrio on the issue of Chester A. Arthur at:

Constitutional Amendment ARTICLE XII., SUB-DIVISION 3.
" But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of
President, shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the
United States."New York, January 7th, 1881.

Hon. THOS. F. BAYARD, U. S. Senator.
DEAR SIR: - What is the construction of Article II., ~ I,
Clause 5, of the Constitution of the United States-that
.. No person, except a natural-born citizen, etc., shall be
eligible, etc." * * *
Yours respectfully,
Senate of the United States.
City of Washington, January 10th, 1881.
A. P. HINMAN, Esq., New York.
DEAR SIR:-In response to your letter of the 7th instant-
the term" natural-born citizen," as used in the Constitution
and Statutes of the U. S., is held to be a native of the U. S.
The naturalization by law of a father before his child
attains the age of twenty-one, would be naturalization of
such minor. Yours respectfully,

Just 14 years after the 1884 American Law Review clarification on Natural Born Citizen v. the 14th Amendment, Collins was co-chief prosecutor who sought to deny Wong Kim Ark citizenship, and won.

Barack’s father lived and died as a Kenyan national with dual British citizenship and only traveled in the United States as a transient alien and foreign national. Because Barack Sr. was a transient alien foreign national here on a student visa and was NEVER a US Citizen, and NEVER even made application to be one...it is IMPOSSIBLE to declare Barack Obama Jr., EVEN IF WE ALLOW HIM THE CHESTER A. ARTHUR TREATMENT HAVE A US CITIZEN BIOLOGICAL FATHER BY THE AGE OF 21...it is impossible to declare Barack Obama Jr. a UNITED STATES Natural Born Citizen even under Senator Bayard's 1881 wink-and-nudge application, because Barack's Kenyan biological father NEVER become a US citizen of ANY type at ANY point in his life!!!

Brooklyn Eagle June 2, 1884 p.4
In the Interest of Blaine
The circulation of a Book Concerning Arthur’s Birthplace.
[Special to the Eagle.]
Chicago, June 2.

Many hundred volumes of a book entitled “How a British Subject Became President of the United States,” reached here this morning, for distribution among the delegates to-morrow. The author is Arthur P. Hinman, a Brooklyn lawyer. The book opens with an extract from the Constitution of the United States providing that “no person except a natural born citizen” shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States. The author then states that when Chester A. Arthur was nominated for the vice presidency he was at first unable to name his birth-place and that, when the party managers insisted that he should name a spot before he wrote his letter of acceptance, he went off on an alleged fishing excursion with Robert G. Dun, the real object being to secure time to search the records in the province of Quebec, Canada, to see whether anything existed to show that he was born a British subject.

The main charge in the book is that William Chester Alan Arthur was born at Dunham Flats, Canada, on March, 1828, and that he represented himself to have ben born at North Fairfield, Vermont, the birthplace of a younger brother, Chester Abell Arthur, who was born in 1830, and died a year later. It is stated that in 1834 when another son was born he received the name of William Arthur, Jr., and then the name William was dropped by William Chester Alan Arthur, and he was thenceforth known as Chester Alan Arthur. The records, copies of which are given, show that in 1845 Chester Alan Arthur entered Union College, stating his age to be 16.

Several letters and copies of records are included in the book, going to substantiate the statement that President Arthur is a British subject, but there is nothing so far as the general reader can discover, that could establish the allegation in any competent court. Still, there is sufficient to raise a doubt in the minds of those who read the numerous letters from various aged persons who knew the Arthur family as to President Arthur’s being a natural born citizen of the United States.

The principal facts were printed in the newspapers some time ago. It is supposed that the book is circulated in the interest of Blaine. P.D.

My comments in regard to Blaine:
The reporter refers to former Secretary of State James G. Blaine of Maine, who was successfully making his bid to be the Republican nominee for President in 1884. He was paired up with Senator John A. Logan of Illinois.

My Questions in regard to Arthur's "fishing excursions" for records in Quebec, Canada.

Question: Did Obama do the same kind of fishing when he took Robert Gibbs (now White House Press Secretary) and J. Scott Gration (now a Czar to Sudan and de facto Kenya) to Kenya with him in 2006, campaigning for Odinga, and seeing birth records sealed from light of day if they do exist there?

Question, was Gration paid off by appointment, and promises?

Czar of Sudan, J. Scott Gration: His assigned role is to help prevent massacres in Sudan Africa and provide aid to those in need. It is a United Nations role, because of the social and humanitarian nature. But for someone born to missionaries in the Republic of Congo and reared in Africa, his agenda appears more in line for Obama family history and birth challenges "damage control". J. Scott Gration is fluent in Swahili

He traveled with and advised Barack Obama in 2006 on tour of Africa to South Africa, Kenya, Djibouti and Chad (including Obama’s campaigning two days for Odinga, a relative, in Kenya).


In 2008 Gration switched from Republican to the DNC party. Since his duties in Sudan have him extensively communicate with Kenya, Scott Gration is more of an Ambassador to Kenya without Portfolio, than a Czar to Sudan relief efforts. Media information suppression on any Obama related data is likely tracked back to this Czar, whose efforts on behalf of the United States are yet to be disclosed.



Concerning the 14th Amendment by a second authority, Rep –Ohio, John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)), who states:
“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [Bill S-61], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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…” [Emphasis mine]

In other words, Barack Obama's father, by owing allegiences to Kenya and Britain, and never to the USA, is NOT a "natural born citizen" according to those who helped draft and WROTE the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 [14 Stat. 27]
concurs to that very intent: to be US "natural born" or a true (2 years later) 14th Amendment citizen, you must be born in the US, and not subject to or owing any legience to any foreign power at birth (or since).

Barack's Kenyan father, owing allegiances to both Kenya and Britain, disqualified Barack Jr. from a "natural born US status" -- e.g. U.S. v. Kuhn, 49 F.Supp.407, 414 (D.C.N.Y) in which Obama owed allegiance to his father at birth, and no other nation is supposed to be able to lay claim upon Barack (other than his father's country). This set the stage for a clear violation not just in New York Law, but in US National Law in which Barack, at best, had a NON-United States Natural Born second class status of a dual citizenship US anchor birth that disqualified Barack from ever being President of the United States. Only the Presidency would be beyond his reach if his INS passports and birth registry and residential papers and credentials were in order...unless he broke the Law to get it, that is.


Punishment Clause under the United States Code...i.e., the Law, not by a person or persons, but the current US CODE!

Title 18, United States Code, Section 242:
>[w]hoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States * * * shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, * * *, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Also see an excellent pre-November 2008 Edwin Viera article citing this and many other fine points at:

Under US CODE, Obama is liable to life imprisonment because as a usurper, That is what the Law allows.

Obama has cost lives in his executive role of amending Afghanistan troop practices (think McChrystal) and via his Afghanistan/Pakistan et al. "don't offend the Muslims" policies. Lives of soldiers, lives of CIA operatives, etc. were directly lost because of Obama being in the Presidency as a Usurper in Chief...and he owns his own albatross to answer before the proper Judicial authorities, etc. The US Code...in ITS words, not mine...tells us that Obama has bet his life in usurping the Presidency; though, to me, Obama's life imprisonment without visitors, without possibility of pardon or parole, and in total isolation would be enough.



Justice Gray.

In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162 (1874) -- “At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents

[i.e., of two parents having the same national citizen identity -- ]

who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

Of the 14th Amendment, Justice Gray writes:
"The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393;) and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 306."

In Elk v. Milkin, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), Justice Gray states:

“Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien, though dependent, power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, ‘born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ within the meaning are no more ‘born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ within the meaning of the first section of the fourteenth amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or the public ministers of foreign nations.”


Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657 (1927)

Page 274 U. S. 664

"...in the citizenship of the second generation of children of citizens of the United States born abroad, and nothing in this article was directed to the question of the meaning of the words contained in the Act of 1802, "provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the United States."

The Act of February 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604 ...read as follows:
"That persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States whose fathers were or shall be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States shall be deemed and considered and are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided, however, that the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States."

Page 274 U. S. 670

to the language of Mr. Justice Gray in delivering the majority opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649. The majority in that case, as already said, held that the fundamental principle of the common law with regard to nationality was birth within the [father's] allegiance of the government, and that one born in the United States, although of a race and of a parentage denied naturalization under the law, was nevertheless, under the language of the Fourteenth Amendment, a citizen of the United States by virtue of the jus soli embodied in the amendment. The attitude of Chief Justice Fulley and Mr. Justice Harlan was that, at common law, the children of our citizens born abroad were always natural-born citizens from the standpoint of this government, and that, to that extent, the jus sanguinis obtained here; that the Fourteenth Amendment did not exclude from citizenship by birth children born in the United States of parents permanently located here who might themselves become citizens, nor, on the other hand, did it arbitrarily make citizens of children born in the United States of adults who, according to the will of their native government and of this government, are and must remain aliens."


1934 Act of May 24, 1934, Section 1, 48 Stat. 797.

"Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States: but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child. In cases where one of the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship shall not descend unless the child comes to the United States and resides therein for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday,
and unless, within six months after the child's twenty-first birthday, he or she shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America as prescribed by the Bureau of Naturalization."

Because Barack Obama's father was a transient alien and a visiting foreign national from Kenya, US Law expects Barack to have taken an oath of allegiance, that of an equivalence to a "naturalization" to the United States of America, no later than with 6 months of his 21st birthday to just even be a "citizen" of the United States, instead of being a type of alien or foreign national.

This oath of allegiance with 6 months of his 21st birthday Barack never did, and if he did, the admission still demonstrates he is not a "natural born citizen" of the US anyway.

1961 Montana v. Kennedy (366 U.S. 308 (1961), the US Supreme court ruled within 3 months of Barack's alleged birth date, that a child born abroad prior to May 25, 1934, to an American citizen mother did automatically not acquire American citizenship at birth, since at that time citizenship at birth was transmitted only by a citizen father.

Until May 24, 1934, throughout United States history, the “Natural Born” status legally followed the father, the paternal lineage in US Law, NOT the mother.

Since May 25, 1934, in US Law, the “Natural Born” status cannot apply unless the child receiving such status is born to both a US Citizen father and a US Citizen mother.

The only exception is when the child’s father is “presumed” to be a US Citizen, but is unknown; and in that case, the citizenship of the mother is intact, with the baby born on either US soil or in a recognized US Sovereign territory.

Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980), includes that conduct that intends to relinquish claim to US Citizenship. The corroboration to this will be if Barack obtained an Indonesian Passport after the age of 18 years old, and then used the same to visit Pakistan, India, Britain, or Kenya at any time past his 18th birthday, having obtained the same past his 18th birthday...though some would argue it would need to be reissued last at or past his 21st birthday. Even so, Obama hides all his documentation, including all his passports (that he might hide his true alien citizenship, it seems to me).

In looking at the Immigration Laws, we observe three essential recognitions: Anchor, Natural Born, Naturalized.
Anchor birth in the United States or its territories
Natural born birth to two U.S. citizen parents (through the citizens of father and mother, called "acquisition" of citizenship.)
Naturalization (obtaining citizenship after an application and exam), or
Naturalization of a minor though through one's parents (called "derivation" of citizenship).

By the definition given us by US Immigration Laws, in the very best case scenario, Barack Obama would have obtained a derivation of citizenship by the mother in the category of a Naturalization by anchor birth. He did NOT obtain a NATIVE or Natural Born Status, because his father was a foreign national, subject to the Laws of a Nation by which we were bound by Treaty to: Great Britain (via Obama Sr.’s Commonwealth citizenship to that nation).

The Department of State was rocked by a scandal in the first 3 months of 2008. Instead of just "looking at" the "passport data" of Barack Obama only, the files regarding Barack Obama allegedly went missing in March of 2008, and there has been a virtual blackout on the news data since.

We know the factual data that pro-Obama private contractors breached State Department security on January 9, February 21 and March 14 of 2008,



before a final theft of all Obama’s documents was “alleged” to have happened by pro-Obama supporters on March 21, 2008. The CEO of Analysis Corp., the primary Passport breaching firm was John Brennan


"the three contract employees worked in three offices in the Washington area. One office does consular work and visas on evenings, holidays, weekends and overnights; another office issues passports; the third office scans and files materials." The likely suspect of the theft of the Obama Department of State files and passports, was the Analysis Corp. employee, "who has "extensive" experience"..and has always worked under a State Department contract."

In at least the appearances of a Quid Pro Quo for stealing the Obama documents, the pro-Muslim Brennan

was made chief counter-terrorism expert at the White House and given an ethics waiver.


One of the other two who breached Department of State security, and was aware of what was in the Obama documents that were on file, worked for Stanley Inc.; and was not long after shot dead in 2008 while allegedly “cooperating with authorities” over this very issue.





In 1946, even with two citizen parents, the NY Times stated that FDR Jr. was investigated and ruled that he could “never can carry that great name back into the White House”, because he was born in Canada, despite being born to two natural-born US Citizens themselves. This FDR Jr. was the second so named, born in 1914. Because of a Treaty with Canada, FDR Jr. was never to have anything near a "natural born" status, no matter how liberals abuse and manipulated the wordings of naturalized with native-born ( NY Times, May 26, 1946).

[[[Correction:  08/17/ 2013

N. Y. Times, May 26, 1949, p. 26, columns 3 - 4, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr., third son of the late President, “never can carry that great name back into the White House.” … his birth on August 17, 1914, was at Campobello Island, New Brunswick, Canada, home of a Roosevelt Canadian summer estate.
Sorry for the mistaken citation.

Because of Treaties with Great Britain, there must be a legal distinction made in regard to Barack Obama's multi-national status. He was born a natural born citizen of Kenya in 1961, with an "anchor birth" second class US citizen status IF: 1) his mother was of age 19 under 1961 US Law (which she wasn't); and, 2) no foreign power could lay claim sole nationality upon him.

A Partial Listing of Relevant Material Involved in stating the Illegality of Obama, focusing on the Natural Born Status and related material including historicity, interpretation, and quo warranto…a listing of the Supreme Court Cases that would be cited:

1. THE UNITED STATES v. VILLATO, 2 U.S. 370 (1797)
2. Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)
3. The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814)
4. Jackson ex Dem. People of State of New York v. Clarke 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 1 (1818)
5. McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US 316 (1819)
6. Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 (1830)
7. Dred Scott 60 U.S. 19 How. 393 (1856)
8. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 162 (1874)
9. Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
10. Rector, etc. of HolyTrinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892)
11. Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893)
12. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
13. Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9 (1913)
14. Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915)
15. Weedin v.Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657 (1927)
16. United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644 (1929)
17. Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665 (1944)
18. Knauer v. United States, 328 U.S. 654 (1946)
19. Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640, 653 (1948)
20. McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950)
21. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 585 (1952).
22. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
23. Nishikawa v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 129 (1958)
24. Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958)
25. Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958)
26. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961)
27. School Dist. of Abington TP. v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203 (1963)
28. Kennedy v .Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963)
29. Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964)
30. Afroyim v. Rusk 387 U.S. 253 (1967)
31. Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, (1969), dissent
32. Rogers v. Bellei 401 US 815, 826 (1971)
33. Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980)
34. Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 307 (1981)
35. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)
36. Steel Co. v. Citizens, 523 US 83 (1998)
37. Nguyen ET AL. v. INS, 533 US 53 (2001)
38. Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005)
39. District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

District Case

Documents that would be cited:
1. Charter of Georgia: 1732
2. Resolutions of the Continental Congress October 19, 1765
3. Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress OCTOBER 14, 1774
4. Constitution of Vermont - July 8, 1777
5. Letter of John Jay to George Washington July 25, 1787
6. Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York; July 26, 1788
7. Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, January 28, 1839 p. 398
8. 113 Congressional Record 15,880 (1967) (Brief of the Hon. Pinckney G. McElwee): note 15
9. DoD 5220.22-M, "National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual," 2/28/2006
10. Dunham /Obama divorce decree (missing Barack's Birth Certificate on p.11)

Acts and Codes:
1. US Constitution, Article 2
2. US Constitution Article 5
3. US Constitution, Article 14
4. The Logan Act (est. 1799)
5. Hawaiian Act 96 (effective 1911-1972)
6. The Act of May 24, 1934, ch. 344, 48 Stat. 797
7. 11CFR 9036, Campaign laws
8. 2 USC 437, Campaign laws
9. 2 USC 438, Campaign laws
10. 8 USC 1401(a)(7) {repealed in 1972}
11. 8 USC 1401 (a)(1)
12. 8 USC 1481(a)(2)
13. Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 @ 301
14. 28 USC. 1331
15. 28 USC 2201
16. 28 USC 2202


Charges that could now be levied, even without specific Legislation Challenges:

1. Perjury (18 USC. @ 1621)

2. Conspiracy to Commit Offense or to Defraud United States (18 USC @ 371)

3. False Personation of an Officer or Employee of the USA (18 USC @ 912)

4. Activities Affecting Armed Forces During War (18 USC @ 2388(a))

5. False Statement in Application and Use of Passport (18 USC @ 1542)

6. False Personation of Citizen of the United States (18 USC. @ 911). as regards his NBC Status

In other words, there are serious legal issues here, and the challenge to Barack Obama over the birth certificate has so much correct US Law behind it, that it is a very intelligent person that recognizes this fact intellectually, and a very mature person who is able to set aside their emotion and not viciously go off on a tirade to dismiss or not hear or not even patiently and meticulously examine the proposed evidence in an unbiased fashion, and then make a determinant decision based on the facts.

Previous laws governing Immigration Status as it affects Citizenship Laws are currently confined to their respective time periods:
• prior to and including May 24, 1934
• May 25, 1934 to January 12, 1941 (under which McCain fell)
• January 13, 1941 to December 23, 1952
December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986, (under which Obama falls)
• November 14, 1986 to present.



In the defense of Barack Obama, his defense team and the Federal Government can only genuinely hook their wagon to one DC District Court case : Liacakos v. Kennedy, 195 F. Supp. 630 - US: Dist. Court, Dist. of Columbia 1961, (June 29, 1961) that the US Supreme Court in the years after had basically thrown under the bus as not persuasive, bad, or in a that which was to be ignored category in their Natural Born Citizen considerations.

Notice that in regard to the Natural Born Citizen issue, legal journals do NOT rely on it, and neither did relevant post-1961 US Supreme Court Cases such as:
Kennedy v .Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963)
Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964)
Afroyim v. Rusk 387 U.S. 253 (1967)
Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, (1969), dissent
Rogers v. Bellei 401 US 815, 826 (1971)
Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980)

So when even various Law School Reviews and Journals ( Yale, Michigan, etc.) work on the NBC issue

The Natural-Born Citizen Clause etc. by Jill A. Pryor (Yale Law Journal)

Volume 107, No. 1 Senator John McCain and Natural Born Citizenship September 2008 (Michigan Law Review)

-- note this especially --even when they wouldn't give all or any serious weight to the DC Circuit's Liacakos v. Kennedy, the resulting answer must be that it is because it was not a sustainable decision, nor was it based on any legal standing, even though they cited Perkins v. Elg as justification.



On the "Questionnaire for National Security Positions", "Standard Form 86 revised July 2008",

On page 1 question 3, Obama was required to disclose the city, county, state and country of birth. They did not require him to name a hospital or clinic. At question 5, Obama was required to disclose if he had ever used any other names, and the month/year to month/year he used them.

On p. 2, question 10, Obama would have lied on the question "Do you now hold or have you EVER held multiple citizenships?"

Page 11, question 18 - identify "each relative and give their full name and other requested information...for each of your relatives, living and deceased, specified below.
1-Mother, 2-Father, 3-Stepmother, 4-Stepfather, 5-Foster parent, 6-Child (incl. adopted and foster), 7-Stepchild, 8-Brother, 9-Sister, 10-Stepbrother, 11-Stepsister, 12-Half-brother, 13-Half-sister, 14-Father-in-law, 15-Mother-in-law, 16-Guardian.

Code, Full Name, Deceased box, Date of birth, Place of birth, Country(ies) of citizenship, Current address (Street, City, and State, include Country if outside the U.S.), If relative was born outside the U.S. indicate documentation that he or she possesses...(FS 240 or 245, Citizenship certificate, DS 1350, Naturalization certificate, Alien registration, US Passport, other / Document number)."

All Barack's siblings, except for the one living in a Kenyan shack, are living in either Great Britain or the US. Obama's step-mother Kezia Aoko, lives in Bracknell UK.

To date, Bracknell appears to be an undiscovered past in Barack's layovers to London in 1987 and 1992. Clearly, Barack has siblings who are both British and Kenyan nationals, beside his sister Maya, who may or may not be a naturalized US Citizen serving in the White House through nepotism.

The writers of the Nairobi’s News Media are convinced, along with momma Sara (Barack’s Step-grandmother) and the Kenyan Ambassador to the United States that Barack was born in Kenya, and is a jus soli jus sanguinis (native son birth on Kenyan soil) Natural Born Citizen of Kenya. They are upset that advantage over his -- Barack Obama Jr.'s -- birth site isn’t made for a tourist attraction.

On page 12, question 19, "Foreign Contacts" for the last 7 years, including associates. Did Obama list the foreign nationals he had either a business or personal contact with? Did he fail to list ex-PLO Terrorist Rashid Khalidi, or that of his cousin Odinga in Kenya whom he campaigned for in 2006?

On pp.12-13, Question 20, Obama was required to disclose any foreign assets and under 20B, "Foreign Business, Professional Activities, and Foreign Government Contacts". Did he disclose these associations? I doubt it. What about where 20B in sub-question 6 asks "Have you EVER held or do you now hold a passport that was issued by a foreign government?"
"If "Yes," provide the name(s) in which your foreign passport(s) was issued, the issuing country(ies), the passport number(s), the date(s)issued, the expiration date(s), and the status of each."


Security Directive 63

The security check only extended backwards for 10 years from his announcing to run, to 1997.
They check his bank and criminal records, they ask the neighbors if the subject has behaved or said anything of note in the last 5 years to them, they check the medical records and 4 submitted references who are going to say nothing but good for the subject anyway, and then they can refer to 2 others who also would say something good or 2 others not listed (depending on the investigator, it could be just about anyone, including the neighbor across the street who might see the subject come and go quietly but a couple dozen times a year and not even wave to the guy). The background check will then verify the employment record in the last 10 years, and whatever the LAST collegiate or university record states. In other words, they would have checked the University of Chicago, talked to two or three Obama selected people, and stopped.



The March 16, 2006 directive from the United States Office of Personnel Management, Notice No. 06-02, states that if a Birth Certificate is stamped "delayed", wherein a birth not attended by a physician or mid-wife can be made by a parent or grand-parent and have be applied for and filed up at any time up to the child's first birthday (Territorial Public Health Statistics Act, Hawaii, 1955, Revised, Section 57- 9, 18, 19 & 20) that essentially, is no big deal, and one can accept it (if received or declared as so from the State office that way) at face value and move on. In other words, the delayed certificate means that the child could have been born anywhere on the planet, even in a hospital; but the one making the declaration states that the child was not so born under an official certification process as via a medical facility and administration. If an habitual liar, that alleged person's testimony is accepted as if it were fact under the above OPM directive.
By the wording, if Obama simply produced a birth certification on file stamped delayed, even if he was known to be born in Mombosa Kenya by witnesses unable to produce such a document, a sympathetic investigator would simply note that a birth document was present (though stamped "delayed"), accept the fakery at face value, and move on.


As per Executive Order of 08/04/1995 12868- 1.2(e) 1a,b,c only relevant financial institution records and consumer reporting records would be checked, as well as only those travel records maintained by employers to that employee traveling on company business to locations outside the USA (but only if that company was a US Commercial entity within the USA).
(A) relevant financial records that are maintained by a financial institution as defined in 31 U.S.C. 5312(a) or by a holding company as defined in section 1101(6) of the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3401);
(B) consumer reports pertaining to the employee under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a); and
(C) records maintained by commercial entities within the United States pertaining to any travel by the employee outside the United States.



CNN’s Lou Dobbs reported on 07/15/2009 to his viewers of the fact that there is NO VETTING OF CITIZENSHIP in running for Illinois State Representative or State Senator, or Federal Representative or Federal Senator in Illinois. The Federal Elections Commission does NOT vet for citizenship by candidates running for President of the USA. That is left up as an option for the states. Illinois chose NOT to do so.

Obama did not receive matching FEC monies, because under 11CFR 9036, 2 USC 437 & 438 Campaign laws, he then would have had to produce his Long Form birth certificate in return for taxpayer dollars. (CF. 2 USC 431-455; 26 USC 9001-9013, 26 USC 9031-9042). That means, he and his advisors knew before-hand that he did NOT qualify.

Democrat Communist-Socialist and Treasoness Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi vetted Obama for the DNC Convention, and signed photocopies of her vetting is posted by WorldNetDaily at: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=109363

Yet, never once has House Speaker Pelosi appeared with any lawyers or others, and made the statement that she personally viewed Barack's Long Form Birth Certificate, has a personal knowledge of what they contain and that the father and mother on the birth certificate with witnesses is under law proof that Obama qualifies as a United States Natural Born Citizen.

Pelosi viewed NO documentation validating Obama, she assumed others, such as the FEC or the Department of Treasury would have done that.

In South Carolina, the Democratic Party’s own Carol Fowler broad brushed that: The South Carolina Democratic Party certifies that each candidate meets, OR WILL MEET BY THE TIME OF THE GENERAL ELECTION, or as otherwise required by law, the qualifications for the office for which he/she has filed.” (emphasis mine -- see page 2 of the pdf, dated August 14, 2008, and received 11:43 AM by the South Carolina Election Commission on August 15, 2008.)

Fowler, it seems to me, went on promises and lies from Democratic Party Leaders and top Obama Campaign handlers, instead of having before her a de facto legal documentation. The "we'll have it for you later" excuse is, to me, that which either equals fraud or the possible intent to defraud.

Connecticut’s Secretary of State, Susan Bysicwicz, claimed they had NO right to even ask Obama for verification to prove he was eligible to run!


"As Secretary of the State of Connecticut, I do not have the statutory authority to remove a candidate from the ballot unless that candidate officially withdraws...Likewise, neither the Connecticut General Statutes nor the Constitution of the State of Connecticut authorizes me to investigate a Presidential candidate's eligibility to run for the office of President of the United States." Secretary of State, Susan Bysicwicz (Connecticut).

She further went on to say that Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal presented the Connecticut State Supreme Court Justice, Chase T. Rogers, that he made a phone call to Hawaii's Department of Health and was told to the effect, "Yeah, we got A birth certificate on Barack Obama". Vaguery. It is a fact that Foreign Births and Foreign Duplicate State of Hawaii Birth Certifications are known to be acceptable documents in and as part of Hawaii's Official State of Hawaii Birth Registry.

When asked if Obama was born there, the answer was to the effect of "Yeah". No details as to where. Both Obama and his sister originally stated Barack was born at Queens hospital until 2006, and flip-flopped between Queens and Kapi'olani as late as 2008, Kapi'olani 1.6 miles away from Queens and a totally separate hospital and Healthcare network.

The Attorney General of the State of Connecticut never asked if or not Barack was a "Natural Born Citizen", nor inquired to his parents, and if any Treaty with another nation had claim on Barack.

How do we know Barack was born in Hawaii...by official documentation? No. The hearsay of what someone in Connecticut said another person on the phone told him.

This is legally inadmissible in the context it was presented as, and the Chief Justice of Connecticut accepted the here-say contrary to the rules of admissibility and evidence as the prima facie for what can or cannot throw out a case.

The Court received no photo-copy of the original, and hence, there were NO documents that could be requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

For the Election of 2008, the fact of the matter is, Barack never submitted any crucial proof citizen documents for review, even to the Courts, in order to run for President.

In California and now in Washington D.C., the legal briefs of Orly Taitz have stated the same has occurred in regard to the Secretary of State seeing no need to vet Barack Obama. If he says he is a citizen, that is good enough to take him at his word. The Obama and US Government et al. defense has never accused Taitz of making a false statement in this, hence concurring to its accuracy:

“5. Taitz has written to the CA secretary of State Debra Bowen, asking which documents she checked to ascertain Obama‟s eligibility.

6. Bowen responded by stating that she did not check anything, but rather relied on Obama‟s statement that he is eligible.”

WAS NOT EVEN A SINGLE pertinent document of Obama's origin checked on Obama for Presidential eligibility? This is a National Security meltdown!



1) The controversial Hawaiian newspaper announcement carried an address of a friend of the family, an educator at the University of Hawaii, which was not lived at by either of Barack’s parents at or near the time of his birth, nor afterwards.


Michelle Obama in July of 2008, publicly and specifically declared Obama as being born by a single parent. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114259

So Barack's parents did not live at the Hawaii announced address, where were they? Apparently, Ann was on her own, and Barack's father wanted almost nothing to do with him, other than the minimal commitments he was obligated to do. But that family stuff is his private business...his citizenship status, because of the office he now holds and has usurped, is NOT a private affair.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) @ 705
"...A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States”.

The child becomes "A citizen", he is NOT a native nor natural born, but what we now call an “anchor” baby. If that baby grows up in the US and marries another US Citizen, then that NEXT generation child may become a US Natural Born or Native Citizen, if born on US Soil or in US Territory also.

Kelly v. Owen, 74 U.S. 7 Wall. 496 (1868) and the Act of 10 February 1855, tells us that a woman, not a man, can automatically became a US Citizen if she marries a US Citizen male of age, or if she should join her foreign husband’s United States naturalization. In 1922, the “Cable Act”, also listed as the “Married Woman’s Act” in historical references, closed the loophole on marriage to a naturalizing male conferring like naturalizing upon the wife. She must undergo the same naturalization processes for citizenship also. The foreign male who marries a US female does NOT become a US Citizen, but rather as in prior US Supreme Court Cases, the woman’s national identity becomes that of the husband’s. If he is Kenyan, she becomes Kenyan…if he is Indonesian, she marries into Indonesian nationality and society, etc.

2) Was Barack Jr. a de facto British Commonwealth or de facto Kenyan Born Citizen?

At: http://www.eastandard.net/InsidePage.php?id=1143998528&catid=556&a=1
The Weekly Standard reported: “Barack Obama Snr fathered six other sons and a daughter [besides Barack]. All but one live in Britain or the US.”

A) Barack’s Kenyan grandmother insisted that Barack was born in Kenya, at
Mombosa, and is therefore a son of her village and of the soil (of Kenya).

B) 6 African Media outlets have allegedly stated publicly to their readers

that there is no doubt to them of the fact that then US Senator Barack
Obama was born in Kenya.

(1) The Nairobi Kenyan Eastern Standard is the primary one of
concern. It states clearly in the headline that Senator Barack Obama is Kenyan born...hence, born in Kenya. http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm

On 03/11/2008, 10 month's before Barack published his open letter to Kenya, the Weekly Standard lamented:
“On the road from Kisumu to Busia, there isn’t a single sign indicating the real hometown of Senator Obama. Yet billions of shillings are reportedly spent every year by bigwigs pretending to promote tourism!” http://www.eastandard.net/InsidePage.php?id=1143998423&catid=501&a=1

Mind you, we must remember, that Barack accepts the authenticity of this Nairobi Media, and in his open letter to Kenya, appearing in the 01/18/2009 issue

On November 6, 2008; Kenyan Ambassador to the United States, Peter N.R.O. Ogego, with Detroit radio talk-show hosts Mike Clark, Trudi Daniels, and Marc Fellhauer on WRIF's "Mike In the Morning."
Ambassador Ogego repeats what is already known as fact by the Nairobi, Kenya Eastern Standard

Clark: “We want to congratulate you on Barack Obama, our new president, and you must be very proud.”
Ogego: “We are. We are. We are also proud of the U.S. for having made history as well.”
Fellhauer: “One more quick question, President-elect Obama’s birthplace over in Kenya, is that going to be a national spot to go visit, where he was born?”
Ogego: “It’s already an attraction. His paternal grandmother is still alive.”
Fellhauer: “His birthplace, they’ll put up a marker there?”
Ogego: “It would depend on the government. It’s already well known.”



(2) Followed by Uganda's "all africa" reaffirming then Senator Barack's birth in Kenya. http://allafrica.com/stories/200802180051.html

C) Obama hinted at it in his book:
"...but for me that only underscored my own uneasy status: a Westerner not entirely at home in the West, an African on his way to a land full of strangers." Barack Obama, Dreams of My Father, Pg 301.

Barack, himself, labels "Barack Obama" as an "African" as if "African-born and Kenyan National". There is nothing wrong with that, as we have many fine and law-abiding patriotic Africans who have legally naturalized to the USA...again, there is nothing wrong with being an "African-born and Kenyan National", UNLESS you wish to attain the office of POTUS (President of the United States). The phrasing of "African", and "not being entirely at home in the West" speaks NOT to home sickness only...but identity and allegiance.

According to Kenya's own embassy in Brussels, Kenya recognizes only the Kenyan Citizen father as having the exclusive right to pass on “Natural Born Citizenship”. And this would apply not only to Brussels, but with any country to which it does not hold a treaty with to say otherwise. From Kenya’s point of view, in its official document for public consumption…the nationality of the child must follow the nationality of the child’s FATHER, even if the mother were Kenyan. http://www.kenyabrussels.com/docs/nationality_of_child_born_abroad.pdf

The US has no treaty with Kenya to say that Obama Sr. (Obama I) did NOT make Obama Jr. (Obama II) a “Kenyan Natural Born Citizen” at birth, regardless where Barack Obama II was born. By obligation to Great Britain, as with the example of FDR JR. cited earlier, we are bound to deny Barack Hussein Obama II a United States Natural Born Citizenship because of his father's Natural Born Commonwealth Status with Britain.

Matthew Bacon in 1736 defined the English Common Law from 1736 ff. on the "natural born" status as:
"All those are natural-born Subjects whose Parents, at the Time of their Birth, were under the actual Obedience of our King, and whose Place of Birth was within his dominions." Bacon, Mathew: A New Abridgement of the Law, By a Gentleman of the Middle Temple, Vol 1, p.77 [On the 48 MB pdf, p. 77 is at 105.]

But..."The common law of England is not the common law of these states". says George Mason, one of the authors of the USA's "Bill of Rights."

"Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays de parents citoyens,” says Vattel. Translated: The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

"The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. 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. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country." Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 212 (1797 ff. English Translation editions)
Le Droit Des Gens. Ou Principes De La Loi Naturelle
The Law of Nations or Principles of the Law of Nature (1758)
Par M. De Vattel

Letter of John Jay, first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court
The moral or natural law was given by the Sovereign of the universe to all mankind; with them it was co-eval, and with them it will be co-existent. Being rounded by infinite wisdom and goodness on essential right, which never varies, it can require no amendment or alteration.

"That provision in the Constitution which requires that the President shall be a native-born citizen...is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague." St. George Tucker, Treatise on the Constitution (1803).

Therefore, the notion of being born of 100% US allegiance via one's parents, for those not alive prior to July 4, 1776, is an absolute requirement for the Office of the President of the United States of America. Obama's Kenyan National father disqualifies Obama, not matter where he was born...it is THAT clear-cut.

3) Then we have Obama's boast to his friend that he was born in Indonesia.

On Sunday, January 8, 2006, in "Duckworth working to win", we find that Honolulu Advertiser staff writer Will Hoover reported:
“ Illinois Army National Guard Maj. L. Tammy Duckworth …is happy to point out that she and Hawai'i-raised Punahou graduate Obama have 'a kama'aina connection.' Both were born outside the country — Obama in Indonesia, Duckworth in Thailand — and graduated from high school in Honolulu — Punahou and McKinley, respectively.”

Why would Barack have seemingly told Duckworth that he was born in Indonesia, and not just reared for a few years there? There is no repudiation to the birthplace claims of Barack as being foreign born, either from Senator Barack or Robert Gibbs; for Gibbs in 2006 was in the employ of Senator Barack in some form of a Press Information Control capacity, and accompanied Barack in his visit to Kenya in 2006.

On Wednesday April 22, 2009, that “kama'aina connection” was confirmed in the Congressional records of the Senate Daily Digest in the Senate Confirmation of her on page D426.
“Nomination Confirmed: Senate confirmed the following nomination: Ladda Tammy Duckworth, of Illinois, to be an Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Public and Intergovernmental Affairs).”

4) On 9-28-2005, at a Harvard University Q&A: US Supreme Court Justice Breyer described the Supreme Court’s role as “100 percent law interpretation” and “much more mechanical than you might think.” http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=508682

In the majority opinion of 2001’s Nguyen et al. v. INS http://supreme.justia.com/us/533/53/ ,
one of the criteria of proving one's birth location and birth citizenship is through the 100% mechanical means of hospital records and witnesses. 533 US 53, NGUYEN ET AL. v. INS. (2001)
@ 54 :“The mother's relation is verifiable from the birth itself and is documented by the birth certificate or hospital records and the witnesses to the birth.” And
@62:” In the case of the mother, the relation is verifiable from the birth itself. The mother's status is documented in most instances by the birth certificate or hospital records and the witnesses who attest to her having given birth.”

Supreme Court Law therefore states that the disclosure of witnesses “TO THE BIRTH” must also demonstrate the veracity to the birth certificate or hospital records. A claim by the DoH health director is NOT legally sufficient under Nguyen.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the US Supreme Court, took to itself the task of offering a careful and detailed support as to interpreting a US Constitutional provision based on original intent and original public meaning. Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court in DC v. Heller, heavily documenting justifications toward an “originalist” view.

In June 2008, the then Illegal Candidate for President, Barack Obama, was quoted even by multiple lap-dog media sources stating that he was then supporting the DC v. Heller decision:

"I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms…the Supreme Court has now endorsed that view… Today's ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country. … We can work together to enact common-sense laws … Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe." For example, see:


In other words, a clear and distinctive legal analysis of a Constitutional Article is “much needed guidance” , even according to illegal “Candidate” Barack Obama. What his views are now, are expected to be in contrariness, as he fights through both Perkinscoie and now chief White House counsel (on tax-payer's dime) Robert Bauer and the US Attorney’s Office to hold onto what he has gained by fraud, deceit, and felonious activities.

In Originalism: The Lesser Evil, Justice Antonin Scalia writes that despite a myriad of legal opinions given to the contrary of the “originalist” view, Scalia examines the historical context of a separate part of Article 2.1 of the Constitution than we discuss and debate upon, and examines why an original intent is the more proper view.

In the instance of the legal definition of who and what is a “natural born citizen” qualified to run for the Presidency, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts – - as in the example of DC v. Heller -- can give an “Originalist” and long cited response to justify, once and for all, who and what a natural born citizen is. Since Barack was all for Heller’s “first clear statement” and “much needed guidance” on another Amendment issue, why not also the same standard for Article 2.1.5. and the “natural Born Citizen” clause?.

I say, give us the access and venue of the United States Supreme Court (by emergency injunction) to prove by legal and peaceful and rational means that Barack Obama II is illegal, so that we may not only legally and peacefully lame duck his administration, but entirely dump every law passed by Congress since January 20, 2009. The issue of John McCain's illegality will also have to be addressed, in spite of the US Senate officially calling McCain a "natural-born citizen" eligible to run...Barack never was so confirmed by any legislative or legal body...leaving open the possibility of a reversed Executive Branch with no powers to make any new laws post January 19, 2009...and to only run business "as is" until the appointment by the Courts and the US Senate...possibly awarding the Presidency to Sarah Palin, and the Vice-Presidency to the next legal and non-complicit candidate, Ralph Nader?

Yet, in spite that the Originalist view of Supreme Court Law that tells us that the FATHER passes on the national "Natural BORN" citizenship to the child, Obama still refuses to acknowledge the rule of law. He pretends it evolves to whatever rule he -- not the courts --seeks to define it as.

Hence, Barack Obama Jr. illegally occupies the office of President of the United States and needs to be legally and peacefully removed from office (or resign) immediately.



Obama in a radio interview in December 2009 stated:

"My hope is that with the health care debate winding down, we get that done. The people, everybody takes a deep breath and remembers that everybody’s an American. I’ve got my birth certificate to prove it. We are all just trying to do what’s best for the country."

Obama's Certification of Live Birth

was proved a fraud by Ron Palarik, by WND, Atlas Shrugs, and now a TEA Party Oklahoma nominee for Congress


"Miki Booth, originally from Hawaii, is running for the U.S. House of Representatives in Oklahoma's second district".Miki made her appearance on C-Span on Friday, 02/06/2010, the day after Joseph Farah spoke.
at 38 minutes ff.

Do you know what Miki Booth presented? The kind of evidence that blasts the MSNBC anthropologists into orbit in hysterical twitches, screams, weepings, and gnashings of teeth.

On C-Span 02/06/2009, at the end of an earlier session than Sarah Palin's finalizing the TEA Party event, Miki Booth presented a Certificate of Live Birth from 1949, in which her husband was born at Kapi-olani Hospital, 12 years before Obama's alleged birth -- in Kenya, in Indonesia, in Queen's, and finally at Kapi'olani -- showing that the state of Hawaii issued LONG FORM CERTIFICATE'S OF LIVE BIRTH in 1949.

In 1949, Kapi'olani was listed on the Certificate of Live Birth as Kapi'olani Mat. & Gyn. Hospital at 1929 Vancouver Drive.

The previous Kapi-olani address in existence when Barack was allegedly born in 1961, was not quite a mile to the East of the current Kapi'olani Hospital built in the 1970s, and further away from the Queen's hospital than the 70's Kapi'olani facility was. Yet, Obama and his sister Maya conflictingly and at different times, released that Barack was born in Queen's between 2004-2008, and which is now in evidence as part of Philip Berg's lawsuit in Philadelphia against Obama on behalf of his client.

In a separate story last summer, World Net Daily broke the story of Obama's forged / out of sequence Birth Certification Numbers abbreviated by 2 numbers from what an original would be...and using TWO BIRTH CERTIFICATES from Kapi'olani Hospital in 1961, declaring tow back-to-back births born after Obama's alleged birth, but both having lower numbers of issue to prove Obama's Birth Certificate is fraudulent.


The Nordykes birth at Kapi-olani were given 151 – 61 – 10637 and 151 - 61 - 10638 both being born on August 05, 1961.

Obama's forgery claims Barack was born with the number 151 - 1961 - 10641 being born on August 04, 1961.

Obama has claimed being born in Indonesia to Tammy Duckworth, being born in Queen's, and has rested his political career in the claim to Kapi'olani. However, while the 1963 Certificate of Live Birth as issued by the US ARMY Tripler General Hospital in Hawaii


appears to be consistent with what Miki Booth's husband of 1949 and the Nordyke twins of 1961 over at Kapi'olani were issued, the Obama forgery is a "piece of junk" in the words of Miki Booth on 02/06/2010 at the Nashville TEA Party.

For further corroboration, Miki Booth produced her son's 1981 Kapi'olani Hospital Certificate of Live Birth,

which shows that in 1981, Kapi'olani had not changed or altered their issuance by any extreme, and show that the Obama Campaign "Certification of Live Birth" is NOT a UNITED STATES birth...as claimed by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, but for the foreign born.

Again, the proof is that Obama is Foreign Born in the absence of any release of proof per Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640, see 653 (1948), and 533 US 53 see 54,62; NGUYEN ET AL. v. INS.

It is the goal of the Communist-Socialists (aka. "Progressives") who have joined Obama to overthrow the US Constitution from within the Government to work like mobsters irrespective of the Constitutional Law...in order to re-make the future to whatever way they want it, and by any means necessary.

All the above cited births -- EXCEPT for Obama -- can show they were born in Honolulu based on the evidence.

For more Obama Birth Certificate forgery information, see Pamela Geller's commendable collection of articles at:





Dred Scott 60 U.S. 19 How. 393 (1856
) is a really long-winded affair...but it addresses many of the citizenship issues that could help America, even though it was effectively overturned through the 1865 and 1868 13th and 14 Amendments to the US Constitution.

60 US 393
Since the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, no State can by any subsequent law make a foreigner or any other description of persons citizens of
Page 60 U. S. 394
the United States, nor entitle them to the rights and privileges secured to citizens by that instrument.

In effect, by the same token that foreign terrorists have NO right to a United States Criminal trial, nor to be Mirandized, nor treated as US citizens...so also the States cannot amend or "redefine" "Natural Born" to someone not born by Caesarian section or "test-tube" created or inserted by needle into the mother's womb, etc., as the DOH of Hawaii infers.

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.” July 27, 2009 Press Release.

I concur that Obama's mother was naturally impregnated and Obama was likely born like any other human being, by a human mother. That does not make Director Fukino's Press Release as having any legal weight to Obama's Citizenship Status, so as to define what KIND of Citizen Barack may or may not be. She never discloses that there were any attending physicians or administrator signatories(even without releasing their names) or if Obama was born in what city, and if in a hospital or at home or what. Because of the specific and intentionally deceptive language she used, someone needs to ask her, "Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Socialist or Communist Parties of any nationality, or a member of one of its satellite or affiliate off-shoots?" And then investigate to see if she was or was not, and if there are any ties to Obama via his grandparents or the specific Unitarian Church (which specific congregation was partial to Communists and Vietnam War fringe radicals) that Obama attended with his grandparents. Is there that kama'aina connection with Fukino as there was with Duckworth?


In the Madison Debates, on September 7, 1787, it was then that it was entered that "the President should be a natural- born Citizen," of which he bore no allegiance or citizenship to any other nation than that of the United States of America.

In the ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York; July 26, 1788
That no Persons except natural born Citizens, or such as were Citizens on or before the fourth day of July one thousand seven hundred and seventy six, or such as held Commissions under the United States during the War, and have at any time since the fourth day of July one thousand seven hundred and seventy six become Citizens of one or other of the United States, and who shall be Freeholders, shall be eligible to the Places of President, Vice President, or Members of either House of the Congress of the United States.”

“That the Court for the Trial of Impeachments shall consist of the Senate, the Judges of the Supreme Court of the United States….”

Because of the precariousness of the times, there was in the early days of our Republic, a demand for 100% allegiance and citizenship to the United States of America. You were either "all in" or you were to be excluded out. In the case of Barack Obama, for 2 years past his 21st birthday, he had split citizenship with Kenya and Great Britain (at the very least). Under Immigration Law, he needed to declare his oath of allegiance at age 21 to a United States Department of State official. Barack never took an oath to the United States until he was elected as an Illinois State Senator...and even then, they were just "muttering words" not unlike the Christian prayers he despised from that "parched nun" in Indonesia he remembered from his childhood, "muttering words" without substance to Barack, "words" bandied about that came with accepting the office.

US Constitution, Article 2, officially ratified on March 4, 1789 -- would therefore, in part, read:
"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."

In 1833, in Justice Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. § 1473

“It is indispensable too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for 14 years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen
[to speak of those to who fought the Revolutionary War]
to become President is an exception
[read: "the only exception" ]
from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honors in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits and painful to their sensibilities.

But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source.”

Obama's biological father was never a US Citizen, even by Barack's own auto-biographical admission: Barack Obama Sr. was a Kenyan National and a dual British Commonwealth citizen who studied in the USA under a transient / student visa. Hence, even by that fact alone, this makes Obama unconstitutional and a usurper of the Office of the Presidency by fraud. This is in NO WAY "hate speech", it is an informed opinion and belief based upon US Law.


By way of TRADITION, what is natural born in American Law? In America, I would argue that this is understood as an archaic Christian term. Natural Born is a status term, as far as the US Legal definition is concerned, that is rooted in our nation's founding history and Protestant Christianity.

This nation was founded through Christian pilgrims, Christian migration, and Christian refugees more than on any other in the first century of its founding. Perhaps the first mass migrations beginning after King Charles dissolved Parliament in 1629, sparking an exodus pioneered by the Puritans in 1630 with another 1200 vessels of people and ships that soon followed after.

In 1632, taxes first began to appear in Watertown, and with it, began the rise of American colonists to demand to be represented in all matters, with the implementation starting in 1634. Roger Williams taught that civil government has not the power over man’s conscious duty to G-D or to his relationship with the Deity, or words to this effect. The only difference between Church and State was that worship should not be “forced”…because “forced worship stincks”, he wrote. By 1639, the lands of Connecticut were being settled, and the formation of local government quickly organized the inhabitants of recognized towns into voting 4 town representatives to meet and represent their interests at the general assembly of the Commonwealth, now already having their own constitution.

The representatives were to be those who lived among and would intimately know and represent the interests of the town they were sent from. The representation was to be a natural representation from the view of wilderness survival, which is what Connecticut still essentially was at the time.

Because these were extremely Biblically literate societies being raised up, mixing Christianity in their Government until well after the 1790s, they would have used a Biblical over a Civic or Secular definition of ”natural born” as it has been idiotically agnosticated in our day.

The natural born definition as opposed to unnatural born, is derived from the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ. In Genesis 3:15, we find that Christ is born supernaturally, of a virgin…of a woman. A natural born child then receives his origin from the seed of his father.

The theology then points to a coming Christ or Anointed One in the Bible, who is a natural born descendant of the fathers of a particular lineage until the supernatural or unnatural birth through a final daughter whose fathers were of such a lineage. Religiously, then, “natural born” follows the lineage of the fathers, even as Jesus Christ was able to claim to be of the seed of David through his natural born mother, He himself was NOT natural born but supernaturally born.

If Israel had a Constitution that declared only a “natural born” citizen of the tribes of Israel had the right to be President or Prime Minister, Christ would be disqualified by that language from that office. He was born supernaturally by only the mother, and had no citizen father, or the seed of one in Him. Since Christ is theologically the rightful King of Israel, he wouldn't need to be its President or Prime Minister anyway. So on the America’s time period of 1609 to 1790, Congress issuing Christian Bibles to read and study in school, the Ivy Universities being mostly untainted seminaries and the like, natural born is an easily understood term by those NOT Biblically unknowing or illiterate.

Barack Obama’s father was not a civic leader or representative of Honolulu, Hawaii or anywhere in the United States or of one of its territories. He did not vote; he did not own land; he did not file papers to in anyway attach himself to the United States or any part of it. Barack Sr. had NO natural attachments to the US or any part of it.

Any offspring Barack Obama Sr. had, would never be “natural born” in regard to a US citizenship in 18th Century American or US Constitutional interpretation, regardless of the race or ethnic aspect.

In Romans 13:1-3, we find that the Scriptures allow us to challenge Obama peacefully and legally within the Law of Ordinances, the "diatage", that have been given us. We therefore, when faced with someone who has atained power by unlawful means - conspiracy - and deception, are called to take legal and peaceful recourse, and are allowed by US Law and (if it please Him) by Almighty G-D to challenge Obama in such a manner. We show respect to the Office and extend the proper courtesy, but we...like Hananiah, Azariah, and Mishael in ancient Babylon in Daniel chapter 3... will not bow to Satan's ambassador nor sing his praises, while peaceably obeying G-D.

Again, Obama, according to Kenya's own embassy in Brussels, was born as what Vattel's Law of Nations would have called a natural born citizen of Kenya, via his father,

and as stated through Kenya's Constitution Section 95(1) and the Kenyan Independence Act of 1963 2 (1)(a).

And even 100 years before Obama's alleged existence as a newborn:
when the Confederate States of America were formed, in their Constitution for the Provisional Government on March 2, 1861, they specifically followed the same formula in imitating the US Constitution:
"Article 2.3
No person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of one of the States of this Confederacy 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 the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident of one of the States of this Confederacy."

When the South revised the language of their Confederate Constitution on March 11, 1861 they amended and moved the NBC clause to read:
"Article 2.7
No person except a natural-born citizen of the Confederate States
, or a citizen thereof at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, or a citizen thereof born in the United States prior to the 20th of December, 1860, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the limits of the Confederate States, as they may exist at the time of his election." http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp

And almost 22 years earlier than that, the "Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 1838-1839" on MONDAY, January 28, 1839.
• Page 398 |
Mr. Heman Allen submitted the following resolution; which was read, and debate arising, it was laid over, under the rule, viz:
Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to inquire into the expediency of so amending the law on the subject of naturalization, as to exclude those from the privileges of natural-born citizens who are or shall be born of parents who have been removed, or shall remove, from the United States, and have taken or shall take the oath of allegiance to the Government in which they so reside, until such person shall become naturalized like other foreigners, agreeably to the laws that now do or hereafter may exist on that subject.


Parents, plural who are citizens of the United States...not just "a parent" singular, but BOTH parents (plural), now extends back into the interpretation as found amongst those in the House of Representatives in 1839.

In Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640 (1948) @ 653,

states: The burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States or the prohibition of power to the states is upon those making the claim.”

Since Obama claims to be a United States Natural Born Citizen...it is Obama's obligation to prove that his father was a United States Citizen of any type AT THE TIME OF HIS ALLEGED BIRTH IN 1961 in order to hold the office.

United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644 @ 649 (1929)

Page 279 U. S. 649
...Except for eligibility to the Presidency, naturalized citizens stand on the same footing as do native-born citizens. ...And, in order to safeguard against admission of those who are unworthy, or who for any reason fail to measure up to required standards, the law puts the burden upon every applicant to show by satisfactory evidence that he has the specified qualifications. Tutun v. United States, 270 U. S. 568, 270 U. S. 578. And see United States v. Ginsberg, 243 U. S. 472, 243 U. S. 475.
..."Citizenship is a high privilege, and when doubts exist concerning a grant of it, generally at least,
Page 279 U. S. 650
they should be resolved in favor of the United States and against the claimant."

If this is so with those seeking to come to America, should it be for those seeking to rule in America...prove you are a fully legitimate citizen of the United States, or abdicate your office.

Under 1961 US Law, Ann Dunham-Obama had not lived in the US 5 years past her 14th birthday to confer on Barack the citizenship Obama supporters so claim for him.

Since US Law relevant to the birth year of John McCain is relevant to John McCain's lack of standing also, by that same standard, all other arguments to change the NBC definition since 1961 are moot.

In a Quid Pro Quo...or at very least the strong appearance of the same, Barack Obama joined his name to a non-binding resolution that declared McCain a United States Natural Born Citizen...but did he read it?

Apr 30, 2008 - Agreed to Senate. This is the latest version of the bill currently available on GovTrack.

2d Session
S. RES. 511
Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
April 10, 2008
Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. COBURN, Mrs. CLINTON, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
April 24, 2008
Reported by Mr. LEAHY, without amendment
April 30, 2008
Considered and agreed to
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 John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

Even though this has NOT the force of a Supreme Court Ruling, at least John McCain released his Long Form Birth Certificate:

From that Long Form Birth Certificate, we find that John McCain’s Birth Physician was R F Annis, and the Birth Hospital Superintendent was John Wallace.

Even McCain’s short form is signed off by a Registrar, E. Durfee

But with Barack Obama…zilch…because (as his own biography and advisors weather vane and indicate for us, it seems to me that by all informed appearances) Barack Obama is a second-generation Communist alien infiltrator (via his father, and reared allowed to be reared in that capacity, whether by intent or neglect by his parents and maternal grandparents); hence, the man Barack Obama II is as the Communist Party of America and what Barack Obama says in "Dreams From My Father" what he is, a Communist “mole”, and a “spy behind enemy lines”…hence a de facto enemy of these United States of America who needs to be legally and peacefully removed via the US Supreme Court as soon as possible, via the system of the Republic of the United Staes of America we still (perhaps barely) have in place.

All arguments to change the NBC definition since 1961 are moot, because it is the birth year and the US Law in effect at the time that governs the Natural Born Citizen Status, in spite of the corrupt in the US Senate to redefine it as otherwise as a conscious subversive act against the Constitution of the United States and its republic Government.

I say this especially in regard to those who regularly cite re-definitions NOT according to United States Supreme Court Case Law, but seek out their justifications via the ill-informed and Progressive and corrupted "opinions" of the last decade, seeking to reinvent the NBC definition from that known since the Colonial days and the founding years of the Republic, on through to 1961.

It is the FATHER that passes on the "natural born status" and "primary citizenship" of the child. The mother's nationality cannot contradict or over-ride the Father's passing on the "natural born status" to the child. Period!

Only in the case that the child has no "known" father, and only then, can the mother pass on NBC status. Again, it is the father by which "natural law" recognizes the passage of "natural born" citizenship, and Barack's father was an alien of two foreign nationalities.

In the Albany Law Journal Vol. 66 (1904-1905,"NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES: ELIGIBILITY FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT"): Alexander P. Morse argues:
"In respect to the citizenship of children of American parentage, wherever born, the principle of ius sanguinis seems to be the American principle; that is to say, the law of hereditary, rather than territorial allegiance, is recognized, which is modern, as distinguished from the ancient, and at one time, common-law principle of jus soli. If the provision was as sometimes inaccurately cited, namely, that the president must be “a native-born citizen,” there might be no question as to its meaning. But the framers generally used precise language; and the etymology actually employed makes the meaning definite. Its correspondent in English law, “natural-born subject,” appears in constitutional history and parliamentary enactments; and there it includes all children born out of the king’s allegiance whose fathers were natural-born subjects; and the children of such children (i. e., children whose grandfathers by the father’s side were natural-born subjects), though their mothers were aliens, are now deemed to be natural-born subjects themselves to all intents and purposes, unless their said ancestors were attainted or banished beyond sea for high treason, or were at the birth of such children in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.

...If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, "no person, except a native-born citizen"; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth. It may be observed in passing that the current phrase "native-born citizen" is well understood; but it is pleonasm and should be discarded; and the correct designation, "native citizen" should be substituted in all constitutional and statutory enactments, in judicial decisions and in legal discussions where accuracy and precise language are essential to intelligent discussion.
...A natural-born citizen has been defined as one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country.

Our conclusion is that the child of citizens of the United States, wherever born, is “a natural-born citizen of the United States,” within the constitutional requirement..."

Again, the PARENTS (plural) being CITIZENS (plural) of the United States, pass on the NBC Status according to ALEXANDER PORTER MORSE and the ALBANY LAW JOURNAL, VOL. 66 (1904-1905)

The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) - Chief Justice John Marshall: “Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says ‘The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.’”

In regard to the "not of age" mother -- by 1961 US Laws on Citizenship -- Ann Dunham-Obama was MOST CERTAINLY UNABLE to legally confer on Barack a United States Citizenship of an NBC status...clearly, that is settled Law!

The only thing lacking, until this year, and until the illegality in pushing through this UNCONSTITUTIONAL grab for power via Healthcare Legislation, was the claim by the Government that we lacked Article III Legal Standing. Well, that may prove to be the case NO LONGER.

The Healthcare Legislation, by being unconstitutional in its drafting, passage, signing, gives us ARTICLE III legal standing to evict Obama and his entire Administration, and see Obama and Pelosi and other jailed for their acts of Fraud and Treason upon and against the United States of America.

G-D can grant us the victory, if it is His will (as easily as but having a passing thought to Him) no matter how embedded in Satan's Power Obama and Pelosi wish to hide and threaten from. May the L-RD G-D grant us the victory, and grant and restore Liberty to the United States of America, and fulfill the verse from Isaiah in the Hebrew: "When the comes in the foe / enemy like a Flood, the Spirit of the L-RD shall cause them to flee" (Isaiah 59:19b).

Congress and the Executive Branch is flooded with Communists, Socialists, and enemies of Liberty. I am trusting, if it is His will, He will grant us a like miracle, and a fulfillment of that verse in Isaiah; that might be fulfilled also the first part of that verse:
So shall they fear the name of the L-RD from the west, and His glory from the rising of the sun.. Amen.