THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION JUST GOT SERIOIUS ABOUT REFORM: THEY DEREGULATED DAIRY COWS

Top Regulator To Wipe Away Tears Shed Over Spilled Milk

Cass Sunstein is head of something called the "Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs." I've seen enough conspiracy thrillers to know that when someone has so obvious a blandly amorphous federal job description as that, it means he's running some deeply sinister wet-work operation of illegal targeted assassinations in unfriendly nations that the government spooks want to keep off the books and far from prying eyes.

Oh, no, wait. Actually, Covert Operative Sunstein passes his day doing more or less what the sign on the door says: He collects information about regulatory affairs. More specifically, he is charged by the president with "an unprecedented government-wide review of regulations" in order to "improve or remove those that are out-of-date, unnecessary, excessively burdensome or in conflict with other rules."

How many has he got "removed" so far?

Well, last week he took to the pages of the Wall Street Journal to crow that dairy farmers will henceforth be exempted from the burdens of a 1970s EPA-era directive classifying milk as an "oil" and subjecting it, as Professor Sunstein typed with a straight face, "to costly rules designed to prevent oil spills."

But Ol' MacDonald and his crack team of Red Adair-trained milkmaids can henceforth relax, because now, writes Sunstein, Washington is "giving new meaning to the phrase, 'Don't cry over spilled milk.' "

That's a federally licensed joke from Sunstein's colleagues at the Agency of Guffaw and Titter Regulation, so feel free to laugh.

Did you know milk was an oil? It is to the federal government, and, if a Holstein blows in the Gulf of Mexico and beaches from Florida to Louisiana are suddenly threatened by a tide of full-fat crude, they want to know you've got the federally mandated equipment to deal with it.

With hindsight, the president's remark in the early days of the BP oil spill that he was meeting with experts "so I know whose ass to kick" was not just a bit of vulgar braggadocio but the fault of early Department of Energy findings that the spillage was caused by asses' milk from BP (Burros & Poitous, a member of the Big Ass cartel).

"Your ass is on the line!" as the president told BP's Tony Hayward after his donkey was found wandering down the first $38 billion stretch of the federally funded high-speed rail track.

Whoops, sorry, I made the mistake of hiring Cass Sunstein's federally accredited "spilled milk" gag writer. Where was I?

Oh, yeah, federal regulation. So this EPA directive requiring milk to be treated the same as petroleum for the purposes of storage and transportation has been around since the Seventies, and it's only taken the best part of four decades to get it partially suspended even though it's udderly insane? Hallelujah!

At that rate of regulatory reform, we'll be ... well, let Sunstein explain it. Aside from his crowing over spilled milk, he cites other triumphs: The Departments of Commerce and State are "pursuing reforms"; the Department of Health and Human Services "will be reconsidering burdensome regulatory requirements"; and the Department of the Interior will be "reviewing cumbersome, outdated regulations."

Wow! "Pursuing," "reconsidering" and "reviewing"? Meanwhile, back at the Department of Bureaus and Agencies, they're pursuing a review of their reconsideration of reforms. That's great news, isn't it?

I'll take a wild guess and bet that the upshot of this frenzied "pursuit" will be a ton of new regulations about streamlining regulatory oversight and improving regulatory harmonization: The big growth area in America's postmodern Republic of Paperwork is regulations about regulating regulations.

For example, in New York City, applying for the "right" to open a restaurant requires dealing with the conflicting demands of at least 11 municipal agencies, plus submitting to 23 city inspections and applying for 30 different permits and certificates. Not including the state liquor license.

Recognizing that this could all get very complicated, the city set up a new bureaucratic body to help you negotiate your way through all the other bureaucratic bodies.

And, for every little victory, there are a zillion crankings of the government vise elsewhere. Plucked at random from the ObamaCare bill: "The Secretary shall develop oral healthcare components that shall include tooth-level surveillance."

"Tooth-level surveillance"? Has that phrase ever been used before in the entirety of human history? Say what you like about George III, but the redcoats never attempted surveillance of Gen. Washington's dentures. Why not just call it "gum control"?

The hyper-regulatory state is unrepublican. It strikes at one of the most basic pillars of free society: equality before the law. When you replace "law" with "regulation," equality before it is one of the first casualties. In such a world, there is no law, only a hierarchy of privilege more suited to a sultan's court than a self-governing republic.

If you don't want to be subject to "tooth-level surveillance," you'd better know whom to call in Washington. Teamsters Local 522 did, and the United Federation of Teachers, and the Chicago Plastering Institute. And as a result they've all been "granted" ObamaCare "waivers."

Rule, Obama! Obama, waive the rules! If only for his cronies. Americans are being transferred remorselessly from the rule of law to rule by an unaccountable bureaucracy of micro-regulatory preferences, subsidies, entitlements and incentives that determine which of the multiple categories of Unequal-Before-The-Law Second-Class (or Third-Class, or Fourth-Class) Citizenship you happen to fall into.

And yet Americans put up with it. According to the Small Business Administration, the cost to the economy of government regulation is about $1.75 trillion per annum. You and your fellow citizens pay for that — and it's about twice as much as you pay in income tax.

Or, put another way, the regulatory state sucks up about a quarter-trillion dollars more than India's entire GDP. As fast as India's growing its economy, we're growing our regulations faster.

Oh well, you shrug, it would be unreasonable to expect the bloated, somnolent hyperpower to match those wiry little fellows back at the call center in Bangalore. Okay. It's also about a quarter-trillion dollars more than the GDP of Canada. Every year we're dumping the equivalent of a G-7 economy into ever more ludicrous and wasteful regulation.

As my fellow columnists Charles Krauthammer and Victor Davis Hanson like to point out, decline is not inevitable; it is a choice. The voters of New York's 26th District chose it just the other day, presumably on the basis that it will be relatively pleasant, as it has been in certain parts of Continental Europe.

But genteel Franco-Italian decline is not on the menu. As those numbers suggest, the scale of American decay is entirely different: $1.75 trillion in regulatory costs, $1 trillion in college debt, $4.5 billion spent by Washington every single day that we don't have, 70% of which the U.S. government "borrows" from itself because nobody else wants to lend it to us — and a governing party whose Senate leader boasts about not passing a budget and whose Medicare plan is not to have a plan at all and whose crusading regulatory reformer's greatest triumph is getting Daisy the cow moved out of the same federal classification as the Exxon Valdez.

Stand well back, that Holstein's about to blow.

By MARK STEYN Posted 05/27/2011 05:41 PM ET

© Mark Steyn, 2011

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

FRIDAY, 28 MAY 11

COME ON NEWT, LEARN THE LESSONS OF YOUR PERSONAL HISTORY

The good news is that
this is covered by the Ryan Plan!

NEWT GINGRICH IS A HISTORY PROFESSOR.
One of the best known axioms of historical analysis is that those who do not learn the lessons of history are bound to repeat history.
The irony is that Newt, who lost his Speakership of the House of Representatives
because of questions raised about his ethics is now embroiled in a questionable
relationship with the jeweler Tiffany's.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<




Glittering Gingriches Duck Queries

When news broke that Newt Gingrich's wife, Callista, enjoyed a no-interest line of credit ranging from $250,000 to $500,000 at the high-end jeweler Tiffany's, the reaction was mostly tittering at just how much the former House Speaker was spending on bling.

But now it turns out that while Ms. Gingrich enjoyed the extraordinary credit arrangement she was also employed as the chief clerk of the House Agriculture Committee, which has jurisdiction over mining issues. During this time, Tiffany's was spending several hundred thousand dollars a year to influence mining policy in Congress and at federal agencies over which the committee had jurisdiction.

In addition, Christy Evans, a former top staffer for Mr. Gingrich has been a registered lobbyist for Tiffany's since 2000.

Mr. Gingrich has told reporters that he had a "standard, no-interest account" at Tiffany's as part of its "normal way of doing business." But that doesn't seem to check out. The Gingriches were in effect the beneficiary of a minimum $250,000 line of credit at Tiffany's -- essentially an interest-free loan. Tiffany's normally charges customers 21% interest on outstanding balances.

Mr. Gingrich is referring all questions about the arrangement to Tiffany & Company, which isn't providing any answers.

BY JOHN FUND

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL POLITICAL DIARY ONLINE

FRIDAY, 27 MAY 11

WE CAN REPEAL ENTITLEMENTS; REPEALING THE SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT IS THE TRICKY PART

ILIKE to think that upon arrival in this great republic I assimilated pretty quickly. Within four or five months, I was saying “zee” and driving on the right more often than not. But it took me longer to get the hang of the word“entitlement.”


You don’t hear it in political discussions in most of the rest of the West, even in Canada. There’s talk of “social programs” and “benefits” and “welfare,” but not of “entitlements.” I knew the term only in its psychological use—“sense of entitlement”—in discussions of narcissistic personality disorder and whatnot.


Once I’d been apprised of its political definition, I liked it even less. “Entitlements” are unrepublican: They are contemptuous of the most basic principle of responsible govern- ment—that a parliament cannot bind its successor. Which is what entitlements do, to catastrophic effect. Recently, in the London Telegraph, Liam Halligan bemoaned the way com- mentators focus on America’s $14 trillion of debt—i.e., the “debt ceiling” debt—without factoring in the entitlement liabilities of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. That makes America’s real debt some $75 trillion, or five times GDP. Our own Kevin D. Williamson puts the FDR/LBJ entitlement liabilities a little north of $100 trillion. Once you add in state and municipal debt, you need to add a zero to that reassuringly familiar $14 trillion hole. The real hole goes ten times deeper: $140 trillion—or about twice as much as America’s total “worth.


Million, billion, trillion . . . and now we’re going to need a word for the unit that comes after “trillion”? Oh, wait, how about “abyss”? I was struck by reader Dolores Proctor’s observation that, until spendaholic government showed up, 140,000,000,000,000 was the kind of number one would find only in a book about astronomy, and even then it would be pretty cosmic. In other words, our spending has literally burst the bounds of the planet. Ms. Proctor says that if you take $140 trillion and spend a thousand bucks every second from right now going backwards through time, you’ll run out of money in 2400 B.C., just in time for the invention of the abacus, which as a bankrupt time-traveler you happily won’t require. In other other words, we have outspent human history.



It’s certainly true that, if a company were to attempt to keep the bulk of its liabilities off the books the way the United States government does, some showboating jackass prosecutor would have its key execs behind bars in nothing flat, and they’d be legislating another round of Sarbanes- Oxley in Washington. Against that argument is the reassurance that that $75–100 trillion isn’t a “liability” in the sense that your car lease or mortgage is. “Entitlement commit- ments are not debts,” wrote John Hinderaker of the blog Powerline. “Congress can wipe them out simply by repealing Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid.”
That’s technically true in the same sense that it’s technically true Congress can wipe out a lot of our debts—or at any rate our debtors—by nuking Beijing. But is either likely to happen under any scenario this side of total societal meltdown?


In- deed, I find it easier to imagine economic collapse, secession, civil war, Mad Max on I-95, cannibal gangs of the undocumented preying on gated communities of upscale gays, etc., than any combination of House, Senate, and president “repealing Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid.”


Which is where we came in. Whether or not government “entitlements” are debts, they very quickly become a psychological disorder—and a “sense of entitlement” is harder to dis- lodge than almost anything else. Government entitlement breeds psychological entitlement breeds a utopia of myopia. I don’t mean merely in the sense that polls show an overwhelming majority of Americans still feel entitled to their entitlements, but in a more profound way.


I was interested to discover recently that Nathan DeWall of the University of Kentucky has conducted a survey of “linguistic markers of psychological traits and emotions” in popular music from 1980 to 2007, and concluded that we are in (to use the book title of two of his co- authors) a narcissism epidemic. Once upon a time, love songs were about other people: “Me, Myself, and I (Are All in Love with You)”—Billie Holiday, 1937. Seventy-odd years later, Fergie sings in unconscious echo that she needs more time to be with herself; Beyonce sings about how hot she looks when she’s dancing; and, on the increasingly rare occasions when a vocalist directs her attention to an object of her affection other than herself, it sounds more like self-esteem boosterism than a love ballad. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Pink’s current blockbuster hit, “F**kin’ Perfect”:

Pretty, pretty please Don’t you ever, ever feel Like you’re less than F**kin’ Perfect.

Is that really a big problem? Au contraire, large numbers of utter mediocrities seem to regard themselves as f**kin’ perfect—or, at any rate, f**kin’ entitled. Other scolds will deplore the profanity and cheerless hypersexualization of today’s pop ditties, but for me what alarms is the palpable complacency—the indestructible assumption from Pink, Kesha, et al. that, simply by virtue of being born in America, this is how life is, and always will be. “Entitlement” is an ingenious word, a brilliant coinage for both a pampering state’s generosity and the debilitating consequences thereof. The president, a man of whom it can be confidently said that he’s never never felt like he’s less than f**kin’ perfect, and whose response to record-busting debt levels is to assure high-rolling donors never to forget the thrill of electing “a guy named Barack Hussein Obama,” is the ideal sovereign for a State of Entitlement.



John Hinderaker is right. We can, in theory, repeal the entitlements. Repealing the sense of entitlement is the tricky part.


BY MARK STEYN
Happy Warrior/Entitlement Sense
National Review
May 16, 2011

ARE AMERICANS WILLING TO GROW UP - AND FAST ?

‘IT’s Back!” so goes Walmart’s new slogan. What they
mean is the old Walmart is back—“Everyday
low prices!”—and their disastrous attempt to evolve into Goremart—“Every quarter higher losses!”—is over. Five years ago, Walmart hired an Al Gore adviser as PR chief, stripped the stores of déclassé products such as fishing tackle, and filled it up with a lot of stuff that was “green-friendly.” The sierra Club and The New Yorker said nice things about them, and Mr. and Mrs. America stayed away. As former exec Jimmy Wright told the Wall Street Journal, “The basic Walmart customer didn’t leave Walmart. What happened is that Walmart left the cus- tomer.”
Walmart went green into the red, and then realized that they couldn’t afford the Al Gore retail model. There’s a lot of that around. Before the big Gulf spill, BP had spent a decade kissing up to Democrats and eco-progressives. Once upon a time, their initials stood for “British Petroleum,” but some Madison Avenue type thought it would look better to adopt the slogan “Beyond Petroleum” and replace their old logo with a flower. Pansy? Not yet. Just a sunflower. My colleague Jonah Goldberg suggested that, after the Demo-mediacracy effortlessly turned Tony Hayward into an oleaginous snidely Whip- lash, BP ought to own their rep and call themselves “Badass Petroleum.” Exactly: “We love to drill—and it shows!”
Corporations pretending to be social workers is bad enough. But, even in the decadent phase of capitalism, the market still functions well enough to bring Walmart to its senses in a mere half decade. Alas, for Big Government, there are no such corrective mechanisms. The government of the United states is currently borrowing about $4 billion a day. The Republicans recently secured an alleged land- mark victory over Democrats that cut 38-point-something billion dollars from the budget. How many weeks of clenched-teeth high-stakes brinkmanship did it take to negotiate ten days’ worth of cuts?
Did I say ten days’ worth? Oh, wait. That was on Friday night. By the following Tuesday afternoon, over half of the $38.5 billion had been exposed as various meaningless sleights of hand of which government, unlike Walmart, can avail itself very easily—for example, counting money in the Justice Department’s crime victims’ reserve fund that was never scheduled to be spent this year as a “savings” of $4.9 billion. Real savings—that’s to say, the kind that would pass muster according to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles—were around $14 billion—or, in other words, less than the U.s. government borrowed in the four days between the announcing of the “historic cuts” and their exposure as utterly fraudulent.
If it takes four days to agree on two and a half days’ worth of “cuts,” how much time and energy and political capital would the Republicans have to expend to negotiate a budget reduction of, say, $300 billion? Whoa, steady on, man. That’s big bucks, a third of a trillion: We’d be tagged as “extremists.” Whereas borrowing $300 billion isn’t in the least bit “extreme”: It takes two and a half months, and it’s business as usual.
But somehow cutting it is beyond the bounds of politi- cal reality. And so as the ship fills up with water we con- gratulate ourselves on agreeing to pass out the thimbles.
The sheer variety of ingenious accounting wheezes used to dream up that $38.5 billion illustrates what we’re up against. I quote from National Journal:

White House officials said throughout the process that the composition of the cuts was more important than the top- line number, and that including mandatory cuts allowed that top line to grow while limiting the immediate impact of the cuts.
(My italics. Also my rolled eyeballs. And my mirthless guffaw.)

Do you know what that means? Hey, don’t bother: The “top line” is growing, while the baseline is also up. As they say in the small ads in the alternative weekly, are you a top or a base? Neither of the above? Don’t worry, I’m sure somewhere in between there’s a mid-line (the waterline?) where various “extremist” “cuts” are being enacted.
The first developed nation to get clobbered by the down- turn was Iceland. It has 300,000 people. America has 300 million. If you have big government in a nation of 300,000 or even 10 million (Portugal), it’s relatively easy to figure out how much money you’re spending and on what. But, as that mythical $38.5 billion “cut” illustrates, in an ever more centralized, de-federalized nation of 300 mil- lion, meaningful oversight is all but impossible.
Meanwhile, USA Today reports that even a third of Republican voters say “the government should not try to control the costs of Medicare.”
Oh. Okay.
Where do this third of Republican voters live? Iowa? New Hampshire? And if you were a second-tier candidate trying to break out from the rest of the also-rans, mightn’t you be tempted to position yourself as their champion?
What happens if the government follows the advice of that third of Republicans and declines to “control the costs of Medicare”? The dollar dies as global currency, followed by inflation, the wiping out of your savings, widespread social unrest, huge increases in crime and violence, Mad Max on I-95 . . .
The question is whether enough Americans are willing to grow up—and fast: That’s to say, will they mature before the debt does? Forget the top line and the baseline: The bottom line is that it’s the end of the line.

BY MARK STEYN
Happy Warrior / Line Items
The National Review
May 2, 2011

OF POSSUM PIE AND CHICKENS IN THE FRONT YARD

At a time when many Americans can barely afford Burger King and a movie, Obama boasts of spending a billion dollars on his re-election campaign. Questioned at a recent appearance about the spiraling fuel costs, Obama said, "Get used to it" – and with an insouciant grin and chortle, he told another person at the event, who complained about the effect high fuel prices were having on his family, to "get a more fuel-efficient car."

The Obamas behave as if they were sharecroppers living in a trailer and hit the Powerball, but instead of getting new tires for their trailer and a new pickup truck, they moved to Washington. And instead of making possum pie, with goats and chickens in the front yard, they're spending and living large at taxpayer expense – opulent vacations, gala balls, resplendent dinners and exclusive command performances at the White House, grand date nights, golf, basketball, more golf, exclusive resorts and still more golf.

Expensive, ill-fitting and ill-chosen wigs and fashions hardly befit the first lady of the United States. The Obamas have behaved in every way but presidential – which is why it's so offensive when we hear Obama say, in order "to restore fiscal responsibility, we all need to share in the sacrifice – but we don't have to sacrifice the America we believe in."

The American people have been sacrificing; it is he and his family who are behaving as if they've never had two nickels to rub together – and now, having hit the mother lode, they're going to spend away their feelings of inadequacy at the taxpayers' expense.

Obama continues to exhibit behavior that, at best, can be described as mobocratic and, at worst, reveals a deeply damaged individual. In a February 2010 column, I asked, "Is Obama unraveling?" I wrote that it was beginning to appear the growing mistrust of him and contempt for his policies was beginning to have a destabilizing effect on him.

At that time, I wrote that not having things go one's way can be a bitter pill, but reasonable people don't behave as he was behaving. He had insulted Republicans at their luncheon, where he had been an invited guest. I had speculated that was, in part, what had led him to falsely accuse Supreme Court justices before Congress, the nation and the world, during the 2010 State of the Union address.

It appeared, at that time, as if he were "fraying around the emotional edges." That behavior has not abated – it has become more pronounced. While addressing the nation, after being forced to explain the validity of his unilateral aggression with Libya, America witnessed a petulant individual scowling and scolding the public for daring to insist he explain his actions.

But during an afternoon speech to address the budget/debt, he took his scornful, unstable despotic behavior to depths that should give the nation cause for concern. Displaying a dark psychopathy more representative of an episode of "The Tudors" television series, he invited Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., to sit in the front row during his speech and then proceeded to berate both Ryan and Ryan's budget-cutting plan. Even liberal Democrats were put off by the act. MSNBC's Joe Scarborough questioned the sanity of Obama's actions.

Today, criticism is coming from all sides. A senior Democrat lawmaker said, "I have been very disappointed in [Obama], to the point where I'm embarrassed that I endorsed him. It's so bad that some of us are thinking, is there some way we can replace him? How do you get rid of this guy?" ("Democrats' Disgust with Obama," The Daily Beast, April 15, 2011)

Steve McCann wrote: Obama's speech "was chock full of lies, deceit and crass fear-mongering. It must be said that [he] is the most dishonest, deceitful and mendacious person in a position of power I have ever witnessed" ("The Mendacity of Barack Obama," AmericanThinker.com, April 15, 2011).

McCann continued: "[His] performance was the culmination of four years of outright lies and narcissism that have been largely ignored by the media, including some in the conservative press and political class who are loath to call [him] what he is in the bluntest of terms: a liar and a fraud. That he relies on his skin color to intimidate, either outright or by insinuation [against] those who oppose his radical agenda only add to his audacity. It is apparent that he has gotten away with his character flaws his entire life, aided and abetted by sycophants around him. …"

With these being among the kinder rebukes being directed at Obama, and with people becoming less intimidated by his willingness to use race as a bludgeon, with falling poll numbers in every meaningful category and an increasingly aggressive tea-party opposition – how much longer before he cracks completely?

The coming months of political life are not going to be pleasant for Obama. Possessed by a self-perceived palatine mindset, that in his mind places him above criticism, how long before he cracks in public? Can America risk a man with a documented track record of lying and misrepresenting truth as a basic way of life, who is becoming increasingly more contumelious?

......................................

Mychal Massie is chairman of the National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives-Project 21 – a conservative black think tank located in Washington, D.C. He was recognized as the 2008 Conservative Man of the Year by the Conservative Party of Suffolk County, N.Y. He is a nationally recognized political activist, pundit and columnist. He has appeared on Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, C-SPAN, NBC, Comcast Cable and talk radio programming nationwide. A former self-employed business owner of more than 30 years, Massie can be followed at mychal-massie.com.

When will Obama crack in public?
Posted: April 19, 2011
by Mychal Massie

Mychal Massie is chairman of the National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives-Project 21 – a conservative black think tank located in Washington, D.C. He was recognized as the 2008 Conservative Man of the Year by the Conservative Party of Suffolk County, N.Y. He is a nationally recognized political activist, pundit and columnist. He has appeared on Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, C-SPAN, NBC, Comcast Cable and talk radio programming nationwide. A former self-employed business owner of more than 30 years, Massie can be followed at mychal-massie.com.

RACISM IN REVERSE; OBAMA FLIPS WOODROW WILSON

The Obama Watch

Woodrow Obama: Jon Stewart Gets Played

By Jeffrey Lord on 5.17.11 @ 6:08AM

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/05/17/woodrow-obama-jon-stewart-gets/

Just how smart is Jon Stewart?

Really.

His reaction to the Common affair and his startling attack on Fox News is… is… well… first the basics.

Let's start with some relevant political history to put Mr. Stewart's recent attack on Fox News, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and other Fox stars in context. Historical context, in this case.

We begin with the famously progressive President of the United States settling in for an evening in the White House to showcase the work of an American artist.

The artist has strong, controversial views on race, using his art to express those views. He also uses his work to express outrage about interracial relationships. And, oh yes, he celebrated those who killed based on race.

No, this was not President Barack Obama using the White House to honor the work of rapper Common in May of 2011.

This was President Woodrow Wilson on the evening of March 21, 1915, using the White House to celebrate filmmaker D.W. Griffith and his hot film of the day, The Birth of a Nation. The film version of novelist Thomas Dixon's novel and play The Clansman, a celebration of the Ku Klux Klan and racism. As Common campaigned for Obama, novelist Dixon was a longtime supporter and friend of Wilson's.

For those who came in late, The Birth of a Nation was a silent film, 1915 being the pre-talk movie days. It became the highest grossing movie of the day. The story concerned the post-Civil War Reconstruction period, and depicted blacks dominating Southern whites, rapaciously forcing themselves on white women and -- well -- you get the idea. The founding of the Ku Klux Klan was dramatized, with the Klan celebrated as a group of heroic saviors fighting off tyranny. (Here's a poster for the film, a "heroic" Klansman in flowing robes and astride a white horse.)

Blacks in the film, portrayed by white actors in black-face, were depicted as racial monsters. Wilson's friend Dixon, it should be mentioned, is said to have developed his antipathy to interracial relations because his father was said to have had an affair with a black woman resulting in a child who was Dixon's half-brother, with Dixon refusing to associate with the sibling he scornfully referred to as "that darky."

In short, the Griffith film -- and the Dixon novel and play on which it was based -- was as rancid and racist as it was possible to get. Here's a scene from the film in which a white damsel is being forced into a marriage with a mulatto -- as the heroes of the Klan ride to her rescue.

Woodrow Wilson, like Obama today, was promoted by his supporters as a superstar progressive, the all-knowing, all-wise academic (before entering politics as Governor of New Jersey in 1910 and the White House in 1912 Wilson had been both college professor and president of Princeton).

Wilson was also something else.

As with progressives then and now, he was a master at tying together issues of race with issues of big government. It was Wilson's legislative program, ironically called the "New Freedom," that created among other things the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Trade Commission, enacted the Clayton Anti-Trust Act, passed child labor laws and more items on the progressive agenda of the day.

But there was, as always, the usual progressive catch when it came to selling big government. Wilson was in fact an old fashioned Southern racist, born in Staunton, Virginia, and raised in the segregationist -- and progressive run -- South. The devil's bargain with his progressive program, (as it was, in fairness, with Democrats and progressives long before Wilson) was his reliance on appeals to race to both win his election to the presidency and his use of it to push through his progressive legislation that expanded the size and scope of the government. There were no passionate appeals for civil rights from Wilson, not in a party in which racism and the Klan itself had and would continue to play such a key role in everything from platforms to policies. Newly elected it was Wilson who segregated the federal government, and it was Wilson who appointed prominent progressive journalist and staunch racist Josephus Daniels as Secretary of the Navy, Daniels promptly segregating the Navy under Wilson's approving eye. There was more, but you get the point.

Take note of the Daniels appointment. Josephus Daniels was the very symbol of what we call today the "mainstream media" -- which is to say the liberal media -- of the day. The publisher of the Raleigh News and Observer was unabashed about using race to promote both his progressive paper and the progressive Wilson. To compare Daniels to NBC's Meet the Press host David Gregory, who in a Sunday interview with GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich tried to say that raising the issue of 47 million Americans on food stamps in the Obama era was racist, would be unfair to Gregory. But does Gregory as a representative of today's liberal mainstream media have the same gut-reflex when it comes to race that Daniels was famous for? Yes indeed, summoning an astonished Gingrich to remark that the fact Gregory even raised the subject was "bizarre." Actually, former history professor Gingrich was wrong. Gregory was channeling a watered down version of the progressive-race connection Daniels epitomized. But it was on display nonetheless.

Thus the idea of honoring D.W. Griffith's racist film version of Wilson friend Dixon's novel and play was, from the progressive point of view, a political no-brainer. Of course there would be an outcry -- and sure enough the NAACP, at that point in time unlike today genuinely committed to a color-blind society as opposed to a left-wing utopia, expressed outrage. But honoring the film would decidedly gin up the Wilson and progressive political base of progressive, racist whites. The election of 1916 looked to be (and was) close. Wilson would need every vote he could get. So the highly racist Griffith film became the first film ever to be screened at the White House by a President of the United States. And quite publicly so.

YEARS LATER, HISTORIAN Arthur Link, in his glowing biography of Wilson as a progressive president, had longtime Wilson spokesman Joseph Tumulty downplaying the Birth of a Nation incident, implying that Wilson was misrepresented. In fact, Tumulty's own memoirs, appearing in 1921 while Wilson was just out of the presidency and still very much alive, said nothing of the kind. Indeed, published in an era when Wilson's relationship (and that of the progressive movement generally) with white supremacists were thought to be an asset, Tumulty's book ignored all of it completely. Much less did Tumulty apologize for or hint at the slightest regret. There was no mention of the film, of Griffith, or of Dixon in Tumulty's book -- none. Much less was the controversy discussed. For that matter, there was not a single mention of Wilson's segregation of the government or Daniels' segregation of the Navy or anything at all with regard to Wilson and his racial policies or beliefs. A mere three years later, Wilson's own son-in-law and ex-Treasury Secretary, William Gibbs McAdoo, would seek the Democratic presidential nomination -- with Klan support.

Presumably Tumulty would recognize exactly the role of Obama White House spokesman Jay Carney as he waltzed out in front of cameras the other day to enthuse over Obama's support for Common because the rapper is "a Grammy award-winning -- multi Grammy-award winning artist." Indeed, just as President Obama was shown happily embracing Common that night so too was Wilson said to wax ecstatically over Griffith's film, supposedly (in the famous quote Tumulty ignored at the time but years later tried to refute) saying after screening the film:

"It is like writing history with lightning, and my only regret is that it is all so terribly true."

And just as the Obama White House tried to defend Common by insisting he was in reality a "socially conscious" rapper, with Jon Stewart obediently expressing similar sentiments, so too did Griffith's supporters try and recoup his reputation from Birth of a Nation by talking up a later Griffith film called Intolerance, designed to illustrate mankind's intolerance through the centuries.

In particular the rallying of Jon Stewart to Common's side recalls Hollywood's persistent celebration of Griffith as a filmmaker. Just as Common is defended as a talented musician and poet, so too was the defense of Griffith that he was a fabulous, ground-breaking artist. The legendary -- and leftist -- actor Charlie Chaplin called Griffith "the teacher of us all." While it would be unfair to say all of Hollywood clamored aboard Griffith's bandwagon, among his celebrated defenders was the iconic director and actor Orson Wells of Citizen Kane fame. In 1953 the Directors Guild of America established the "D.W. Griffith Award" -- the Guild's highest honor. The award named after Griffith was given to such prominent directors as Stanley Kubrick, David Lean, John Huston, Woody Allen, Akira Kurosawa, John Ford, Ingmar Bergman, Alfred Hitchcock, and Cecil B. DeMille.

But finally, in 1999 -- that would be a mere 12 years ago -- the Hollywood left began to rethink Griffith and took his name off the award, renaming it the DGA Lifetime Achievement Award. Why? Said a surely sheepish DGA head 84 years after Wilson had honored Birth of a Nation at the White House, the film had "helped foster intolerable racial stereotypes."

No kidding.

As the controversy over the film erupted riots broke out in Boston and Philadelphia. Six cities refused to show it -- and in one city (Lafayette, Indiana) a white mob murdered a black man.

The point then -- as now -- is not the artist's freedom to write or film or sing. The First Amendment can and should provide absolute freedom both for Griffith and Common. The question is whether such racially insensitive work supporting a film lionizing the Ku Klux Klan or rap music celebrating leftist cop killers (insensitive -- now there's an understatement) should be honored by the President of the United States in the White House.

And since this kind of vividly disgraceful work was honored by the President of the United States -- Jon Stewart is apparently clueless to the obvious question: What is the real reason the Wilson and Obama White House chose to do so?

Appearing on The O'Reilly Factor last night, Stewart was absolutely clueless. "Who gives a crap?" he asked at one point. "This is nothing" he sputtered, again clueless that he was being used as just one more cog in the long running, not to mention shameful, race and politics game for which progressives have earned such an enduringly disgraceful reputation. For raising even the possibility that race was afoot in all of this Stewart dismissed Fox News as "the infection machine."

Wow. The guy is an ardent believer in a point of view that has sold its very soul to racial politics and he thinks of Fox as an "infection machine"????

BOTH WOODROW WILSON and Barack Obama, progressive presidents serving almost a century apart, have exhibited the desperate need for progressives to sell their programs by ginning up attention for those who peddle racial animosity. For Wilson it was his self-identification with D.W. Griffith and his infamous film, for Obama it was the choice to identify with Common and his infamous music, Common in essence the D.W. Griffith of rap music.

So if it took the Directors Guild 46 years to recant their defense of D.W. Griffith, will it take Jon Stewart 46 years to get himself out from under his equally appalling stance? Answer: it won't matter, because having now foolishly committed his defense of Obama and Common to video his blunder will live forever in cyberspace.

Stewart's mistake here is to see the honoring of Common at the White House -- coming as it does with an implicit thumbs up not just for Common's rap music baggage but the singer's admiration for Jeremiah Wright and decidedly disturbing views of interracial relationships (views, along with those of singer Jill Scott, that not so coincidentally precisely fit with the progressive views of the same subject as expressed in 1915 and captured on film in the Birth of a Nation scene linked above) -- as some sort of Fox gotcha moment or a vetting mistake at the Obama White House. And while we're at it, Mediaite's Jon Bershad, who wrote the story above, is clearly asleep at the switch as well, obviously taken in by the White House-progressive-race game.)

For whatever reason Stewart is out to lunch historically on the tie between progressive politics and the politics of race that is a now centuries-old historical reality. The politics of race -- whether supporting slavery, segregation, lynching, the Klan or today's racial quotas and illegal immigration -- are a shameful, inflammatory and disgraceful reality of progressive politics -- but a reality none the less. Every tool in the racial playbook has been used to promote the progressive political agenda, and this is as true today as it was in Wilson's day.

Within 24 hours of Common's White House appearance the President had been in Texas, trying to gin up Hispanics on immigration by scorning Republican demands for border security: "Maybe they'll need a moat. Or alligators in the moat."

And it was only weeks ago that Attorney General Eric Holder informed Congress that he resented allegations from longtime Democratic civil rights activist and ex-Robert Kennedy aide Bartle Bull about captured-on-videotape alleged violations of voting rights law because the Black Panthers involved were "my people." Which is to say Holder simply doesn't see a nation of Americans and view them in a colorblind fashion. No, the Holder view -- thoroughly progressive in its historical roots -- is to divide by race. And if race X is "my people" -- that means Holder was engaging in the old if not-so-subtle attempt to gin up "my people" against "you people" -- the latter defined apparently in this context as anyone who isn't black.

And before that, of course, was the Justice Department refusal to support Arizona's attempt to enforce federal border security law. Trying to gin up the Hispanic vote yet again, as even John McCain sarcastically noted.

Taken together -- Common's White House invite, the President's alligators in the moat comment, Attorney General Holder's actions with illegal immigration and voting rights in Philadelphia -- all of it collectively boils down to employing precisely the disgraceful political formula Wilson used at the beginning of the century. Play off race X against race Y. Honor a racist film or racial and cop-killing lyrics at the White House. Segregate the federal government or refuse to enforce border security or voting rights. Do whatever is needed because without playing the race card, progressive politics restricting individual freedom is a hard-sell if not a no-sale altogether.

This is the same type of strategy model at work with raising the debt ceiling level. On the surface the Obama Administration is issuing stark warnings about default. What they are really about is preventing spending cuts -- cuts that would eat away at their political base just as halting their eternal appeals to race would do the same.

LET'S BE CLEAR. No one is suggesting that Jon Stewart leaves his studio every night and goes home, grabs his hood and white robe from the closet and sits down with a cold one. Stewart is Jewish -- and the Klan hated Jews (and Catholics like Hannity and O'Reilly) every bit as much as it hated blacks.

What is being suggested based on Stewart's dreadful defense of Obama on Common -- a defense stunningly ignorant or willfully blind of the episode with Wilson and D.W. Griffith -- is that he, Stewart, is, if not consciously obfuscating and enabling the singularly immoral progressive-race tie is appallingly unaware of the history behind it all. Stewart is clueless over the possibility that -- ohhhhhhhhh nooooooooo!!! -- President Obama used Common and his controversial music and controversial views on interracial marriage just as President Wilson used D.W. Griffith and Thomas Dixon and their filmed and novelized views on race, racial intermarriage, and the heroism of the Klan.

Which is to say: Jon Stewart got played. By the President of the United States. Big time.

To wit: Obama, like Wilson, threw the political hardball so fast Stewart -- like Charlie Chaplin and the Directors Guild of America, Orson Welles, Woody Allen, and a host of other left-wing entertainers before Stewart -- couldn't or wouldn't read the stitches as it flew by. All those involved becoming, as they say, "useful idiots" in continuing one of history's most disgraceful long-running soap operas:

The alliance between progressive politics and the politics of race.

Should Jon Stewart be ashamed of himself?

Yes. Wow. I'll say.

Will he get around to understanding he's been played here?

Doubtful.

Will Jon Stewart apologize to the Fox people -- all of them -- who said not that Common's free speech should be curbed but that his disturbing music and support for cop killers -- not to mention his views on interracial relationships -- shouldn't be honored at the White House? More doubtful.

Will Stewart play on-air Hannity's repeated defense of Common's right to free speech?

No. Of course he won't. Selectively editing Hannity, Stewart has added looking deceptive to the more serious problem of looking uninformed or being played by a hardball-playing progressive president.

An apology from Jon Stewart for this kind of pernicious business? Is that forthcoming? A hint of recognition that he has, snookered or not, turned himself into a bit player in the now three-centuries old race-and-state political game favored by progressives?

Don't wait for it.

So the question recurs.

Just how smart is Jon Stewart?

Really?

Answer? Not as smart as he thinks he is.

GO HERESY HUNTERS

Here's wishing the Heresy Hunters a good Bish-Ball season!

OBAMA AND THE ALLIGATOR: PLAYING TO THE CROWD

A Further Perspective

Obama and the Alligator

By George Neumayr on 5.12.11 @ 6:08AM

Having hit his stride in the polls, Barack Obama seems to clutch the teleprompter less tightly these days. He looked relaxed as he addressed the subject of "immigration reform" on Tuesday and even attempted a semi-cavalier joke at the expense of those concerned about America's porous borders. "Maybe they'll need a moat," he said, dismissing their calls for more border security. "Maybe they want alligators in the moat."

George W. Bush had broached the idea of de facto amnesty shortly before 9/11, then the subject vanished. A joke about alligators in moats wouldn't have been welcome in the days after Osama bin Laden hit the country. But now that he is gone, Obama can make one and try his hand at the issue of illegal immigration.

In his speech in El Paso, he downplayed concerns about border insecurity while insisting that he has responded to them effectively: "the truth is the measures we've put in place are getting results. Over the past two and a half years, we've seized 31 percent more drugs, 75 percent more currency, 64 percent more weapons than ever before. And even as we have stepped up patrols, apprehensions along the border have been cut by nearly 40 percent from two years ago. That means far fewer people are attempting to cross the border illegally."

Would he have done any of this on his own without the political backlash to open borders? No, but he sounds at times as if he did. He followed, not led, on the issue, yet says those who saw a problem on the borders where he didn't are still crying wolf.

The crowd to whom he was appealing with his moat joke found his listing of border security accomplishments beside the point. As he began to say that he had complied with requests to build a fence, an audience member shouted, "Tear it down." As he referenced those calling for more measures, another audience member shouted, "They're racist."

Later in the speech, Obama invited this audience to "add your voices to this debate" and "sign up to help at whitehouse.gov."

Obama presents himself as a forthright leader of "immigration reform" even as he avoids defining reform in open terms. Still having to follow the public a bit, he has to couch his calls for what amounts to selective amnesty between vaguely reassuring lines about the importance of enforcing the law and the "responsibility" that illegal immigrants bear. This sounds like he wants current laws enforced, but he doesn't, at least not consistently. He considers these laws unjust and wants them discarded. That's what is meant by reform.

Another rhetorical sleight of hand in the speech was to mix the issue of illegal immigration into a safer enthusiasm for America as a nation of immigrants. To oppose "reform" that accommodates illegal immigration is not to deny the benefits of legal immigration. But Obama tries to leave that implication.

"[T]he flow of immigrants has helped make this country stronger and more prosperous. We can point to the genius of Einstein, the designs of I.M. Pei, the stories of Isaac Asimov, the entire industries that were forged by Andrew Carnegie," he said, as if to place the flow of illegal immigrants on the same plane.

One would think a speech in El Paso might have honed in on the flow of illegal immigrants from Mexico, but Obama seemed more interested in talking about immigrants in the high-tech industry, as if the issue under discussion was whether or not to let geniuses from India and Asian countries work at Google.

"We should make it easier for the best and the brightest to not only stay here, but also to start businesses and create jobs here. In recent years, a full 25 percent of high-tech startups in the U.S. were founded by immigrants," he said. "That led to 200,000 jobs here in America. I'm glad those jobs are here. I want to see more of them created in this country. We need to provide them the chance."

Opposition to "comprehensive immigration reform" is hardly stuck on that issue, but it is easier for Obama to push on open doors like that one than to talk about the real problems of an open border.

PROOF THAT OBAMA'S 'BIRTH CERTIFICATE' IS A FRAUD

Citizen Files Complaint of Fraud and Treason Against Barack Obama for Document Forgery WITH ACCOMPANYING AFFIDAVIT PRESENTED TO FEDERAL COURT May 12, 2011 Citizen Files Complaint of Fraud and Treason Against Barack Obama for Document Forgery WITH ACCOMPANYING AFFIDAVIT PRESENTED TO FEDERAL COURT May 12, 2011 Dear Congressman Rohrabacher, Please find on the following pages an affidavit, presented and accepted as evidence in court, attesting to the forgery of the document Mr. Obama has presented to the American people as his authenticated copy of his birth certificate. Based on the expert qualifications of the person submitting this affidavit, this offers evidence of fraud and treason by Mr. Obama.Using the authority to act as outlined below by Representative Walberg, of Michigan, Dear Mr. Ford, Thank you for contacting me about the President. I appreciate hearing from you. As you may know, the U.S. Constitution provides the mechanism of impeachment for removal of the President, Vice President, and other federal officers found to have engaged in “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The House of Representatives is vested with the authority to impeach federal officers and draft articles of impeachment. I share your concern for the current direction of the Administration’s policies. Please know that I will be mindful of your views and continue to monitor the Administration’s actions closely. Sincerely, Tim Walberg Member of Congress I would appreciate you acting on my behalf and the behalf of the American people in initiating an immediate call for impeachment and any other government officials involved in this criminal act. Respectfully, Arnie Rosner Attachment: Affidavits and accompanying analysis of the image presented by the White House on national television on April 27, 2011 which declare it to be a forgery. Complaints can be sent to Congress electronically here. http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/05/12/citizen-files-complaint-of-f... CLICK ON THIS LINK TO SEE THE PROOF FOR YOURSELF: http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/55240893

GO HERESY HUNTERS!

Here's wishing the Heresy Hunters a good Bish-Ball season!

THE OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS A FORGERY

thinkwell Says:
April 27, 2011 at 2:35 PM

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/bon-appetite-birth-certificate/#comments

So Obama just “released” a purported copy of his long form Hawaiian BC.

Leo (Donofrio), you know from my prior posts how strongly I believe that by Obama’s alien father he could never be nbC (does not pass the “blood & dirt” test), but the document he has posted here is a pathetically obvious forgery:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

This appears to be an official government website so that by approving the release of this clearly digitally forged PDF Obama has inescapably painted himself into a prison cell corner.

One can see that most of the print was layered on top of the scanned document by panning or zooming the view in or out slightly while viewing the document at a high zoom level. The bottom layer (background, most of the witness signatures and some of the form text that is still original) clearly pops up and is displayed as a complete layer in its entirety before any of the forged upper layer(s?) begin to display. Check this out for yourself by viewing the document linked above (and be sure to save a copy before it gets fixed). Also, note that all the original document text, original signatures and other document features exhibit multiple levels of intensity and hue when viewed under high zoom. All of the forged upper layer text appears as an even, single dark intensity level. This clean digital characteristic of the upper layer is completely unnatural, even to my untrained eye.

Now I’m reading that others on the web with advanced graphics editors report that the forger of this document clearly left it in layered format and did not bother to flatten it into a single homogenous layer, thereby eliminating the most damning and amateurish sign of digital forgery. Could they be that stupid or arrogant?

Why would Obama release such an obvious forgery? The evidence is so undeniably incriminating. Why is he not worried about going to prison. Is he laughing our faces? Is he that secure in his usurpation?

Maybe he has just been unbelievably careless because he is running scared in damage control mode due Corsi’s new book and the latest poll numbers are showing that most people are finally beginning to catch on that he is a non/un-American fraud.

Read more: http://thehuffingtonriposte.blogspot.com/#ixzz1LyUzbstW

Stephen Says:
April 28, 2011 at 1:09 AM

Leo, Open the pdf in Adobe Illustrator. The forger forgot to turn off the ‘save layers’ when saving it as a pdf. There are dozens of layers that detail exactly how the document is composed. There is a layer with the text and a separate layer with the white halo effect. There are also several clipping layers and so forth. Anyone who has Adobe Illustrator will see how it was done.

Pro Graphics Says:
May 4, 2011 at 2:02 AM

I have over 25 years of graphic/photographic effect/analysis. For different reasons, I, too, say it’s a fake.

The “Birther Report” was nice enough to publish my own graphic analysis here

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/05/comparative-analysis-by-pro-graphics.html

and I come to the same conclusion of fraud but for different reasons. I do not debate the repeated lettering which shows tampering, I agree with it. However, adhering to “Occum’s razor” (keep scientific models simple) the most basic evidence is being missed: the long form Obama submitted is not a copy of an old document. It is a copy of a new document. My impression was that we were not supposed to take Obama or Hawaii’s word for it, and would be given a copy of a legit 50-year-old long form. The document copied is not 50-years-old. Period. Any expert from any number of professional fields will attest to it.

It lacks all signs whatsoever of aging to a degree that the fake is a very amateur forgery. It’s so amateur you can prove it yourself: copy your own “middle-aged” long form birth certificate in every way you can think of: photocopy, scanner, what-have-you. Yours will show signs of age and if you lighten it to the point it does not, it will not be gray-scale sensitive enough to show pencil marks the way Obama’s does (which I suspect were copied handwritten notations imitating the Nordyke BC to create a circumstantial touch to give a sense of legitimacy to the document).

While I agree somewhat with Miss Tickly, my own view is that people are missing the big picture. This document is pathetically not old. Check my analysis, copy your own birth certificate and see for yourselves. There is nothing magic about Hawaii’s “official” original or document copy methods. Sometimes the simple answer is the right one:

What Obama presented is simply not a copy of a document that could have been made in 1961 because it is 100% without any manifestations of aging. It is a fresh copy of a very recently created document. Absolutely. There is no doubt.

ed. Excellent points. Thank you for contributing. – Leo

THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE PROVES NOTHING: HIS FATHER WAS A KENYAN AND SO OBAMA IS A USURPER

Bon Appetit Birth Certificate…

by Leo Donofrio, Esq.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

Posted in Uncategorized on April 27, 2011 by naturalborncitizen

UPDATED: May 1, 2011 9:10 AM – Apologies for my being tardy with comments. I just posted 142 comments. I’ve been away from home since last blogging.

I predicted multiple times that President Obama would produce the original long form birth certificate when it best served him to do so. Today that prophecy was fulfilled. I have always maintained that the birth certificate issue was a red herring smoke screen protecting Obama from facing the true issue of his ineligibility – dual nationality.

Like Chester Arthur before him, Obama was protected from genuine questions regarding his birth status having been governed, as he admits, by the United Kingdom via the faux BC issue until October 27, 2008 when I instituted my law suit against the New Jersey Secretary of State alleging that neither Obama nor McCain were eligible.

I predicted over and again that when it served Obama best, he would feed you an original birth certificate on national TV. Bon appetit to those who allowed this conspiracy theory to take precedence over the genuine legal issue: how a person born owing certain allegiance to a foreign nation can be a natural born citizen of the United States?. Since the BC was played so perfectly by the Obama team, the genuine legal issue will now be more marginalized than ever.

They simply played a better game of chess. And due to this sick game, Obama now sets a precedent that anyone who hates this country, from Osama Bin Laden to Kim Jong Il, can have a child with an American woman and that child can be President. Obama’s defeat of the dual nationality issue, in both the courts and the media, means that the President’s parents do not have to be US citizens. If that is true, then the natural born citizen requirement in Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution is basically rendered meaningless.

If a person born with dual allegiance can be President, then I don’t see the difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen. To become naturalized as a US citizen, one must at least swear an oath of allegiance to the US by renouncing all other allegiances. But a person such as Obama, who was born with dual allegiance is apparently not even required to renounce all previous allegiances under oath.

The BC was a conspiracy theory. The dual nationality issue is a legal question. Obama always controlled the issue of whether or not he would produce the BC. But the legal issue was never under his control. So he exercised as much control over it as possible by allowing the birth certificate to fester casting a huge shadow over his dual allegiance. Well played, sir.

by Leo Donofrio, Esq.

203 Comments »

1. 

   slcraig Says:
   April 27, 2011 at 12:00 PM

   Well, now you see the ‘end-game’ the ’0′ has had in his back pocket all along.

   He HAS A BC…!!!

   NOW WHAT…?

   Natural born Citizen has just been defined down by a sitting POTUS…!!!

   Article II Section I Clause V no longer has ANY effect…!!!

   I have also been pushed to the ‘fringes’ of extremists that insist that the Constitution IS the Supreme Law of the Land…!!!

   Well, all of those that wanted the BC to be the issue I hope you are happy.

   I am not, and neither am I going to cease and desist.

   While I wait for the response from the USCA 10th Circuit on the Petition for Panel Rehearing En Banc the following is going out to the Political Parties and Secretaries of State………

   Dear American;

   I have been advised by the Federal Election Commission that they have no jurisdiction in the matter of confirming a potential Executive Office Candidates conformity to the Constitutional prerequisite imperative of being an American natural born Citizen to be Constitutionally eligible for either office of POTUS and or V-POTUS.

   I have been seeking “Certification” as being an American natural born Citizen, insofar as Citizenship is concerned, for the past 2 1/2/ years through various Federal Departments and their sub-divisions and within the Federal Courts.

   Now that I have learned that it is the province of the POLITICAL PARTIES and various State Officials, (third parties), to make such a determination I am requesting that you provide me with the “legal” definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen by which you make the determination that a potential Executive Office Candidate conforms in order to be “Certified” as eligible by your Party/State.

   Also, please provide me with the process by which your Party/State might “Certify” a private individual as being an American natural born Citizen, insofar as Citizenship is concerned.

   Your prompt response will be greatly appreciated and aid me in determining whether further actions in the Federal Courts are necessary.

   The information will also aid in being an informed constituent, which is the obligation of every American Citizen.

   Email response is preferred.

   Respectfully,

   Steven Lee Craig
2. 

   Dianna Says:
   April 27, 2011 at 12:08 PM

   Leo, I understand your sentiments and agree to a significant degree. I have already been in a long debate this morning over these various issues. However, as you also predicted, we would never be able to get to the real issue of Dual nationality and its relevance if precluding Natural Born Status until it HAD been dealt with.

   Now we KNOW, Obama was indeed born British. Now we have the opportunity to speak to the issues of Dual nationality and Natural Born Citizenship! The birth certificate is out of the way, and we have 18 months to educate the American public to history.

   You may be right in that this will kill the momentum of the issue, however, it also clears the irrelevant out of the way leaving only the relevant to discuss. You yourself said we could not bring the issue up publicly until the COLB had been dealt with. Now it has, and Obama had to do it far earlier than he wanted to I am certain. If this had been just a month or two before the 2012 election, it would have worked. Instead we have 18 months to work with.

   This is a victory, the game is not over, the chess match isn’t even at check mate. In poker terms, we have a darned good idea what cards Obama isn’t holding. That is significant because his hand can’t be that good, too many cards are face up on the table.
3. 

   elspeth Says:
   April 27, 2011 at 12:09 PM

   Leo,

   Is it really as hopeless as you make it sound? Do you not expect to ever get an answer to the NBC issue?
4. 

   Eve Says:
   April 27, 2011 at 12:09 PM

   hasn’t he essentially trapped himself? by admitting he was governed by the British nationality act wouldn’t releasing this birth certificate simply confirm what you’ve been telling us all along? If he forges papers for his father that he naturalized before his birth doesn’t that admission still stand? Please please correct me if i’m wrong.
5. 

   Tom Says:
   April 27, 2011 at 12:11 PM

   Leo,

   I just wanted to say thanks for the effort. You nailed it from the beginning. I have told many people that this day would come, but I have no joy in saying told you so.

   A very anti-climatic day indeed.
6. 

   jd Says:
   April 27, 2011 at 12:19 PM

   It has always been the NBC issue.

   It was the media who kept misrepresenting the issue. We said natural born they said US citizen. The media is squarely responsible for this.

   Unfortunately we will have to see what Donald Trump does depending what his handlers let him know. Hopefully he will wait a few days and come out with the NBC issue and this time the media will not be able to spin it about citizenship.
7. 

   Conservatarian Says:
   April 27, 2011 at 12:21 PM

   As I think about that, especially considering how our society has changed from the days when births out-of-wedlock were rare, I have the following questions in analyzing the legal issue:

   1. If the child is born of a single mother, does it matter the citizenship of the father?
   2. As to 1, what if the mother does not know who the father is? What if that is impossible to determine?
   3. If the mother had no relationship with the father at the time of birth or after, why should the father’s citizenship matter?
   4. It is said in the case of Barack Obama that his parents were married, but since the father had another wife in Kenya, was the Hawaii marriage legal? Does that matter as to the natural born citizen determination?

   I think the Supreme Court would have to consider questions such as these in addressing the natural born citizen issue if parentage is a factor.
8. 

   juriggs Says:
   April 27, 2011 at 12:26 PM

   I think what will be most interesting from here on out is to see how the media reacts. It was interesting to watch Obama scold the MSM this morning, treating them like they were naughty little children. Either he wakened a sleeping giant by doing so, or the MSM will go back to their corner and whimper like little puppies.

   Either way, today’s events are interesting. My personal opinion is that the President just created more of a problem for himself, because if he’s going to release this record than why won’t he release the others that he’s kept under lock and key (especially since this one ended up being so benign)?

   In the end, I do agree with you, Leo. The right hand has kept the attention of the masses while the left performs the trick. Unfortunately, I don’t think the general public is capable of thinking critically about this issue.
9. 

   hillbilly Says:
   April 27, 2011 at 12:26 PM

   You have said this all along and those of us who read this blog know what the real issue is. This makes me sick to my stomach! Is there any recourse left?
10. 

    M Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 12:27 PM

    I have read the constitution and the term “natural born” DOES NOT have a requirement that the parents also be natural born.

    If you want to disagree with the president on policy or ideology please do there certainly are enough of those on which we can have a debate.

    If you want to amend the consitution to include a requirement that parents of eligible candidates should also be citizens of the U.S. or Natural Born citizen, go ahead and raise that issue.

    The current preseident of the U.S. is a natural born citizen who meet all CURRENT constitutional requirements to hold the office.
    
    ed. the Constitution doesnt define nbc, it’s meaning is deduced from other evidence. the US supreme Court stated so in Minor v. Happersett where they also discussed the two parent definition. – leo
11. 

    Sally Hill Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 12:28 PM

    While I agree with you, it seemed a more difficult task to try and start with the issue of dual-citizenship. However, now that it is there, in black and white (Kenya, East Africa) it’s a little bit easier to start rolling with the real issue.

    It’s like we couldn’t get to point B when point A was still so obscure.

    Trump is taking credit for the BC release, so I’m not sure Obama will be seen as being totally in control of the issue.

    I think it will be interesting to see how things play out now.
12. 

    Stacy Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 12:36 PM

    He only produced a certificate of live birth. He produced nothing.
13. 

    Mr Sinclair Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 12:36 PM

    I absolutely agree with you as to the Natural Born issue. I watched Trump with great frustration, the man should have access to the best information and yet he ignored the most important and obvious issue, Barack Sr.’s nationality.
    But let me ask, why have all his opponents both Democrat and Republican avoided this key issue. Are they stupid, cowed or something else?
14. 

    Tychicus Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 12:38 PM

    Leo,
    With all due respect, aren’t you jumping the gun a bit?

    As much as I agree that the BC is only part of the story, it is a required Bona Fide for any certification of eligibility. He should produce in any case. Until he does no one can be sure he was even born in this country.

    Secondly, the BC does not end the issue of his eligibility. As you and others have said, he must have two citizen parents AND be born under United States jurisdiction. However, the clear and certain definition of “natural born citizen” must be pronounced by the SCOTUS (not in dikta). Until that happens, his dual citizenship (really, British by birth, US Citizen by law at a later date) will not render his legally ineligible.

    Finally, we don’t even know if this is real. It is after all only an image. Posting an image on the internet does not get you a passport, or a driver’s license, etc.

    However, you point is well made and I agree. Those that considered the revelation of his BC to establish his eligibility, don’t have a complete picture of the eligibility issue.

    I refer readers to your excellent research on Chester Authur.
15. 

    paul Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 12:43 PM

    I have been saying the same all along. I’m glad I’m not the only one.
    The only way to “fix” the issue is to convene an Article V Convention and clarify the issue by amendment.
    So many amendments need to be proposed and debated we could be in convention for years.
16. 

    Hugh Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 12:46 PM

    Leo:

    I understand what you are saying. How can illegality truly be precedent? How can fraud and deception give rise to precedent that would be incapable of being reversed? I understand that it is very easy to look on the negative side of this situation.

    I have seen the just released certificate on the Internet. It has no seal of the State of Hawaii affixed to the docoument that I can see.

    I am adopted, and my adopted “certified photostatic copy of Record of Birth” has the seal of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The seal is also on my original birth certificate that shows my birth name and my birth mother’s name.

    Lack of a seal affixed to the birth certificate is a major Red Flag!!! This fight is not over. Obama must give a document with a seal and proper time signature.
17. 

    sandstone Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 12:47 PM

    Like you, I have been trying to get people to focus on the real issue, BHO’s British father. They’ve won this round…predictable…but the fat lady isn’t singing yet. This isn’t over by a long shot.
18. 

    constitutionallyspeaking Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 12:50 PM

    I finally received a reply back from Sen Thune, SD on birthright citizenship yesterday. Here is the one paragraph explaination of US citizenship I received back from his office:

    Both the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act grant U.S. citizenship to anyone born in the United States, regardless of their race, ethnicity, or parent’s citizenship. The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this right in an 1898 case titled United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Although legislation has been introduced that would limit this automatic citizenship, none has been acted upon by the full Senate.

    He ended the letter with, please be assured he will keep my concerns in mind should legislation advance. Yeah, right, when hell freezes over & it is conclusively determined that the moon is made of green cheese.
19. 

    Robert Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 12:54 PM

    Leo, you’ve done a tremendous service to this country. I’ve read this blog since early 2009 and you have been objective and fair. Further, you spotted this rope a dope long ago. Lets gird ourselves for challenges at the state level.
20. 

    Publius Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 12:54 PM

    Well played, indeed!

    Now that his game is done, one might ask, why was it so important to him to string the country along in such a fashion?

    From what the president said today after releasing his LFBC, he only released it now because the issue was becoming too large for him to accomplish his political agenda. But the fact that it is an issue at all is due to his intransigence in releasing it in the first place!

    What makes the president so special that he can have, and openly express, such contempt? Ordinary Americans who respect the U.S. Constitution are determined to ensure that our political leaders are eligible for the offices they hold. Since when is this controversial?

    Today marks the first time that President Obama has offered factual proof that his name is Barack Hussein Obama, II; that his mother (Stanley) Ann Dunham Obama was married at the time he was born; and that the man his mother was married to was a foreign national who owed allegiance to the U.K. and Kenya. Logically, the next question becomes, can a person in this condition run for or hold the office of POTUS? Based on Leo’s work and that of many other patriots in the past two and a half years, I am satisfied that the answer is unequivocal: “No.”

    The definition of Natural Born Citizen is one who was born in the United States to parents owing no allegiance to any foreign country. Barack Hussein Obama, II does not fall in this category of U.S. citizens due to his father’s allegiance to the U.K. and Kenya. He is not and never was eligible to run for or hold the office of POTUS.

    Leo had an equal beef with Barack Hussein Obama and John Sidney McCain before the 2008 presidential election and timely brought suit to obtain a redress of his grievance. Thank God he did, because nobody can deny that his outrage is “equal opportunity” in nature and not based on any one person’s race or politics. With any luck, this fact will help a sufficient number of other people conclude that Barack Hussein Obama, II needs to be denied the Democratic Nomination for president in 2012 and removed from office, not necessarily in that order.

    Well done, Leo, and thank you for your service to this country.

    Publius
21. 

    da verg Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 12:55 PM

    “Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital and according to the information there, the name of the hospital at the time of his birth should have been Kauikeolani Children’s Hospital. According to the web site the name didn’t change to Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until Kauikeolani Children’s Hospital merged with Kapi‘olani Maternity Home in 1978. So how could his official long form birth certificate that was generated in 1961 have the name of the hospital that wasn’t created until 1978?”
22. 

    Robert Laity Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 12:57 PM

    THERE IS NO ‘PRESIDENT’OBAMA:
    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/08/17/there-is-no-president-obama/

    Obama is a TRAITOR and is further encumbered from being POTUS by 18USC,Part 1,Chapter 115,Sec.2381
23. 

    da verg Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 12:57 PM

    copied from wikipedia today

    Kapiʻolani Medical Center for Women and Children is part of Hawaii Pacific Health’s network of hospitals. It is located in Honolulu, Hawaii, within the residential inner city district of Makiki. Kapiʻolani Medical Center is Hawaii’s only children’s hospital with a team of physicians and nurses and specialized technology trained specifically to care for children, from infants to young adults. It is the state’s only 24-hour pediatric emergency room, pediatric intensive care unit and adolescent unit.
    The facility was originally founded by Queen Kapiʻolani as the Kapiʻolani Maternity Home in 1890 for which she held bazaars and luaus to raise $8,000 needed to start the Home. Kauikeolani Children’s Hospital opened in 1909 named for Emma Kauikeolani Napoleon Mahelona (1862–1931), the wife of Albert Spencer Wilcox (1844–1919).[1] In 1978, it merged with Kapiʻolani Maternity Home to become Kapiʻolani Medical Center for Women and Children
24. 

    robertlaity Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 12:59 PM

    Obama is NOT the President:
    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/08/17/there-is-no-president-obama/
25. 

    Slade Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 1:00 PM

    This should be reversed on Obama with the new headline…Thanks Mr. Obama for proving you are NOT a natural born citizen.
26. 

    robertlaity Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 1:01 PM

    Obama is a traitor and is encumbered further from being POTUS by 18USC,Part 1,Chapter 115,Sec.2381
27. 

    sDee Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 1:06 PM

    You did Leo, you did. I remember you trying to tell America this even before the election.

    We have been played.

    Obama and his cult have the trolls out in force today cutting down any one trying to expose the con and explain NBC.
28. 

    Carrie Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 1:08 PM

    I’m so happy to see you “live” again…at least to post this one post. I’ve been out of the media loop for so long…I gave up on watching TV and listening to the radio over a year ago. But when I saw someone post on Facebook about Obama’s BC being released, I immediately thought of you. YES! Your prophecy has been fulfilled. I find the whole thing revolting. I’m so glad I walked away from this issue when I did…I’ve been able to enjoy my life the past year or so without sleepless nights over this. While I’m always hopeful, I certainly understand why you walked away when you did, came back and then walked away again. As far as I’m concerned the whole thing is in God’s hands. I’ve done my due diligence. I’ll still stand for the truth, but I’m not devoting any more of my time and energy to pushing for justice to be served among men. I’ve totally handed it over to my God. Leo, I am so proud of the work you have done on this whole issue and I pray that God continues to bless you for it. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.
29. 

    Piker Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 1:20 PM

    At the very least it clears up the possibility that Frank Marshal Davis was listed as his father on the long form… a possibility that would indeed make him NBC, a bastard none the less but still eligible to be POTUS.
    Now at last the NBC/ Dual Citizenship issue should be the main thrust of the argument since the punters in the media are satisfied that he was indeed born in Hawaii… I see this as clearing the decks for a full on assault on that issue.
30. 

    Gary Peters Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 1:25 PM

    Dual nationality still exist! Barack Obama is still our Alberto Fujumori the imprisoned Former President of Peru. He only won this game of poker with a pair of Kings. Perhaps now I can get my son’s and daughter’s certified copy of their certificate of live birth from Hawaii instead of an abstract which by the way HRS 338-18 does not recognize. I have followed your deliberations from the onset. Thank you for guiding me through our Constitution and the historical case law that supports “natural born citizenship.” S/F GAry
31. 

    b Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 1:27 PM

    Now that the smokescreen is out of the picture, what happens next? Doesn’t it clear the way for the actual issue to be debated and addressed?
32. 

    Jean Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 1:34 PM

    There IS a reason the long form birth certificate was released today. And the BC is funky. Why does he want us dissecting this NOW? What are we being distracted from?

    I am no document examiner, but I noticed a doctor’s signature was not on the form. I pulled up the Nordyke twins to compare. (They are the twins born the following day in the same facility yet have earlier registration numbers than Obama and a registration number format different than on Obama’s short form – this new one conforms to theirs but is still higher, not lower.) And what is this funky thing where it is “cut and curled” on the left? And the hand written numbers on the right of the form that repeat on the left of the form? And, look at the bottom of the Nordyke twins – “This certifies” yada yada yada. Mine has this statement, the spouse’s has this statement, our kids’ have this statement… bet your certified copy does as well – go look. And below that there are 2 sigs on the twins -the Director of Health and the Registrar General. Now they did get theirs in 1966 and MAYBE the format has changed, but it’s yet another oddity associated with Obama. And, why is it the green crosshatched paper and not white on black like the Nordykes (or mine, or the spouse’s)? And, okay, it’s on the green, looked at the sharpness of the crosshatching from the edges to the interior…

    As I said, I am no document examiner, but…

    I expected a much more “perfect” document if it was ever released – they had long enough.
33. 

    Lani Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 1:37 PM

    I am sickened, even though I saw this coming. The LSM were both complicit and astute in making the issue all about the birth certificate. Obama’s statements that “some people will never be satisfied” also plays into the squashing of the real issue. I wonder if these state “birther” laws requiring candidates to prove their eligibility will now disappear. If not, what will they use to gauge eligibility if the definition of natural born hasn’t been clearly spelled out?
34. 

    TheBurren Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 1:41 PM

    You were right on the money from the get-go Sir… I wish I could have you come to our NY office and educate some of my Harvard and Yale bosses…
35. 

    C.J. Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 1:43 PM

    Agreed. You called it. A sad day for the United States of America.
36. 

    Joseph Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 1:51 PM

    Leo,

    The “birthers” essential argument has been destroyed, cannot overcome obummer’s “brilliant” stategy of hiding and then showing his long form BC at the beginning of presidential Campaign 2012! Trump was “trumped”, stuck his foot in it and now appears to be cut off at the political knees with egg on his face. The US Constitution has been compromised and now any foreigner with savvy can do the same. God help us!
37. 

    Philip N. Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 1:55 PM

    Obama created the birth certificate conspiracy to ultimatly define natural born citizen as anyone born in the United States.

    The Certificate of Live Birth is the only document that will prove Obama is a native born citizen.

    Notice I said native born citizen because Obama can never be defined as a natural born citizen.

    Obama’s father was Kenyan a Subject of Great Britain he never became a U.S. citizen.

    At birth Obama was a Dual National.

    The U.S. State Dept. defines a Dual National as a person who has Divided Allegiance.

    At birth is the keyword here, you only acquire natural born citizen status at birth.

    A Dual National at birth cannot be defined as a natural born citizen.

    The Framers of the U.S. Constitution feared people with Divided Allegiance and did not want such a person to become President hence the natural born citizen clause.

    Leo,

    I’ve been there with you this whole time. What a shame…

    Lord have mercy on our Country.
38. 

    Kevin Jullion Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 1:58 PM

    Leo,
    You nailed it as usual. Obama and Co. played the media like a book. And Trump et al helped them do it. Now, can we all please get back to the real constitutional requirements for being POTUS? Apparently not…

    CNN (Suzanne Malvo maybe? I dunno) has just now said the following:

    “President Obama responding to critics who question whether he is really a natural born AMERICAN. Why, he says, he decided to release copies of his original birth certificate. “…(emphasis mine)

    You see, you just can’t make this stuff up!!! Has she ever read the Constitution has NO ONE at CNN EVER read the Constitution? They are all shills: ABC, CNN, CBS, NBC, FoxNews, you name it.
39. 

    wayne Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 1:59 PM

    What was released was not the BC but the COLB, and even there, there is something odd about the copy posted at whitehouse.gov. Go to the post and look at the COLB, note the dark band on the left. Then make it full screen. Go to the top of the dark band and you’ll note the paper curls down, you can even see some concealed writing. Then look at the top edge of the black spot and follow it to the right. You can see the superimposition. I’m beginning to think this was all a head fake.
40. 

    Bobby G. Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 2:01 PM

    The long form released by the WH lacks the raised seal of the Registrar. Thus, Mr. Obama is not eligible to receive a US passport under current State Dept. standards.
41. 

    kingskid Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 2:07 PM

    Hi Leo,

    I just knew you would have a response to the news, because you did state over and again that obama would do just what he has done. However, since the courts have refused, and will probably continue to refuse, to adjudicate the dual citizenship issue, we have nothing left. Or do we?
42. 

    borderraven Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 2:09 PM

    Well timed to cutoff Orly Taitz just days before Oral Arguments in 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, on Monday May 2, 2011 after 9AM.

    Now she has to scramble to regroup and adjust her strategy and tactics.

    But, we have a discovery, and it is official and cannot be retracted.

    Questions arise for the courts to ponder.

    Hawaii DOH might answer as to the weight and length of the child, and this will verify with the Lucas Smith bc.

    If his father was a foreign born student, then he was on a non-immigrant student visa (8USC1101(a)(15)(F)(i)), under British consular jurisdiction, per 1952 British Treaty. When did Barack H Obama Sr. naturalize?

    Do we have a proof of naturalization?

    If Barack H Obama II, was born in the Hawaii, then per (circa 1961 law) 8USC1401(a)(1), he would have been born a US citizen, and under consular jurisdiction of the 1952 British Treaty and the under jurisdiction of British Nationality Act of 1948, Part II(5)(1)(a) he was born a British Citizen, thus a dual-citizen, and not a natural born citizen, and not constitutionally eligible for the 2008 Presidential election.

    If Obama had his birth certificate he found in his grandpaents book, then why didn’t Pelosi certify him eligible in all 50 states?

    If Barack H Obama Sr. did not naturalize before the birth, then Barack H Obama II, was a native born dual-citizen, not a natural born citizen.
43. 

    borderraven Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 2:11 PM

    See this
    http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2011/04/26/adverse-inference/#comments
44. 

    js Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 2:29 PM

    Im with you.

    If this stands, it effectively means that any tyrant (ie..saddam hussein…kadaffi…even Putin) can have a child with a US Citizen (even a prostitute) and that child can become POTUS. Hitlers child could be born in Dallas Texas, and that child could become our President.

    Dancing with words is a never ending game with the progressive socialists.
45. 

    thinkwell Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 2:35 PM

    So Obama just “released” a purported copy of his long form Hawaiian BC.

    Leo, you know from my prior posts how strongly I believe that by Obama’s alien father he could never be nbC (does not pass the “blood & dirt” test), but the document he has posted here is a pathetically obvious forgery:
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

    This appears to be an official government website so that by approving the release of this clearly digitally forged PDF Obama has inescapably painted himself into a prison cell corner.

    One can see that most of the print was layered on top of the scanned document by panning or zooming the view in or out slightly while viewing the document at a high zoom level. The bottom layer (background, most of the witness signatures and some of the form text that is still original) clearly pops up and is displayed as a complete layer in its entirety before any of the forged upper layer(s?) begin to display. Check this out for yourself by viewing the document linked above (and be sure to save a copy before it gets fixed). Also, note that all the original document text, original signatures and other document features exhibit multiple levels of intensity and hue when viewed under high zoom. All of the forged upper layer text appears as an even, single dark intensity level. This clean digital characteristic of the upper layer is completely unnatural, even to my untrained eye.

    Now I’m reading that others on the web with advanced graphics editors report that the forger of this document clearly left it in layered format and did not bother to flatten it into a single homogenous layer, thereby eliminating the most damning and amateurish sign of digital forgery. Could they be that stupid or arrogant?

    Why would Obama release such an obvious forgery? The evidence is so undeniably incriminating. Why is he not worried about going to prison. Is he laughing our faces? Is he that secure in his usurpation?

    Maybe he has just been unbelievably careless because he is running scared in damage control mode due Corsi’s new book and the latest poll numbers are showing that most people are finally beginning to catch on that he is a non/un-American fraud.
46. 

    Jimmy Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 2:41 PM

    But he is still not a natural born citizen, and this document, whether authentic or not clearly shows his father was “african”, which we already knew. So, how does he “skate” with only one parent a US citizen? Does this document not “prove” he’s not a NBC?
47. 

    Starbeau Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 2:53 PM

    Leo,

    You have been “spot on” and your advice has always been as you have described it so well. I have fought the “birther” issue every time I have seen it and I warned in every one of my posts and emails that when Obama released his BC, the real issue would be lost.

    Starbeau
48. 

    Ted Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 3:04 PM

    What about the issue of Obama having become an Indonesian citizen and entering Occidental College as such?
49. 

    Neville Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 3:10 PM

    I most definitely agree. It was never a question of whether he would produce something, the question was how big would he let the issue grow before he decided to “show up” all the frothing-at-the-mouth birthers. I often listen to conservative talk radio when the much higher quality reporting at NPR goes off too far left for me to stomach it. Predictably, even these “conservative” pundits are now backpedaling and agreeing with Mr. Obama that his BC production settles all questions of his eligibility. I have often written and called these people over the last couple of years when I would hear them ranting about some Obama BC news or suit or article. They wouldn’t even listen when I tried to explain that they were ignoring the real issue and playing into Obama’s hands with their mindless pursuit of this BC issue. Obama built this straw man, and kicked it over at the time of his own choosing.

    Perhaps it is time to publish a book picking up where Arthur Hinman [should not have] left off, and document the truth about Chester Arther, the abundant evidence you have collected re. historical legal analysis of the NBC requirement, and maybe tracking down any US-citizen-children of foreign despots for a list of potential future presidents. It would probably sell, but maybe just to the choir. Would you write it, or at least collaborate?
50. 

    anonymouse Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 3:11 PM

    NBC=Born in-country of parents who are its citizens.

    And Obama is just stringing along again with this BC, because it has no seal, is not certified as true and correct, and admits it’s just an “abstract”…the name of the hospital is wrong, race is still African, the home address is provably false…the photoshopping is absolutely horrible…it’s been such a successful red herring, might as well make it really audacious and give us lots to pick over.
51. 

    Johnny Daniel Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 3:20 PM

    Why do we continue to focus in his birthplace. The real issue is and the only question that needs to be answered is his status as a “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”. The facts are clear and cannot be disputed that based on the interpretation of the 14th ammendment of the U.S. Constitution, Barack Hussein Obama Jr IS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. That renders his ability to be President of the United States a moot point. The U.S. Constitution clearly states that only those who are Natural Born Citizens can hold the office of president of the USA. Period end of discussion.
52. 

    John Burns Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 3:36 PM

    I do not know to what extent James Madison wrote the final draft of the Constitution but I am sure some scholar knows this information. I do know that he was a highly intelligent and very well educated man, and the idea that he put “vague phrases” and other ambiguities into the Constitution or allowed them to be place there is absurd. He and others wanted the Constitution they had composed to be ratified. Surely there are law professors in this country who are smart enough to figure this out and who must know the actual meaning of the phrase “natural born citizen”–but to date you are the sole person who has gone to the trouble to pursue this publicly. I would think it would make an excellent dissertation topic. Imagine having full time to research for a couple of years. What might one find? But then given the recent interpretations of the Executive Branch perhaps it has simply become the custom now to do these informal amendments to the Constitution treating what is uncomfortable rather like blue laws. In any case thanks for the most useful and clarifying information you have provided.
53. 

    BBS Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 3:39 PM

    You are absolutely correct in your analysis. While being born in the US is an important question to answer, in the end it doesn’t matter if Obama can’t prove that he was born without allegiance to a country other than the US. According to British Law at the time of his birth, Obama would have been a subject to the British Crown. Unless Obama can prove that his father renounced his allegiance to Britain, with enough time to elapse, prior to his birth, Obama was born a dual citizen. There’s nothing wrong with being a dual-citizen, but this does make him ineligible for the Presidency.

    ed. Then he would have been a citizen of Kenya at birth and not eligible as well for much the same reason. The point is that his father was never and American citizen. – Leo
54. 

    stand up and fight Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 3:39 PM

    The mere fact that his race is stated as African proves this birth certificate is a fake.There is no way African would appear on any birth certificate in any state.Notice on his mothers race it does not state American.Find one real birth certificate of any legally born person in this country that has African as a race.
55. 

    David Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 3:54 PM

    Thank you, Leo! It is because of your hard work and those of your researcher(s) that Article 2 Section 1 may have a chance of surviving this administration and those that deem themselves journalists and “watchdogs” of the Constitution.

    Maybe now we can focus on recovering a nation that is ruled by laws, not men. I read in WND today that Aaron Klein has echoed much of what you have shown us through this wonderful blog. I do believe it was for the Constitution that they pursued the BC but they placed the cart before the horse.

    For me, one of the issues around the BC had to do with the Hawaii Statute which allowed those born outside of the state/country to apply for a COLB which would state you were born in Hawaii. Because of that, he was either born in Hawaii or born somewhere else. This is why I wanted him to release the BC.

    This country NEEDS to have this debate regarding Article 2 Section 1 and what it means to be a “natural born citizen”. We only have to go as far as this blog to see behind its meaning. Again, thank you!
56. 

    kingskid Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 4:05 PM

    Leo, you have got to check this gal out!
    http://barnhardt.biz/
57. 

    DixHistory or Linecreek Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 4:08 PM

    Leo, I agree and I still post that NBC is the real issue. I just made a few posts April 26 2011 like this one trying to get the word out.

    From: “Disqus”
    To:
    Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 12:13 AM
    Subject: [realclearpolitics] Re: RealClearPolitics – Video – Pat Buchanan: MSNBC, Media Helping Obama “Conceal” Records

    NICKinNOVA wrote, in response to linecreek:

    Holy HELL you are living in an alternate universe. A severely paranoid alternate reality.

    Link to comment: http://disq.us/1snzw2

    linecreek wrote:

    I know for a fact that obama is not President of the United States because he is legally not eligible to be president of the United States. He was born a dual citizen and at best is native born as he says but not Natural born as required by law and as stated by the SCOTUS. What most are talking about on the BC, is he legally in this country? If you think other wise you are ignorant or a traitor to the United States constitution as is most of the media and Congress.

    —–
    Options: Respond in the body to post a reply comment.

    To turn off notifications, go to: http://disqus.com/account/
58. 

    David Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 4:13 PM

    Yes, you did say this all along. Thanks for incredible education Leo, at least all your hard work served to educate an incredible number of people, like myself, who never thought twice about this issue.
59. 

    Steven Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 4:16 PM

    Are you still involved with any active NBC suits? If so, what is the status?

    ed. no.
60. 

    Jennifer Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 4:16 PM

    So frustrating. I actually heard a news report on the radio saying something to the extent that “President Obama released his birth certificate today, proving that he is a natural born citizen of the United States”. Both sides are to blame for the real issue being buried–too many powerful conservatives have tried to wash their hands of the whole thing to “focus on the real issues”. The only real issue here is that we have a usurper as president, and any of the other “issues” created by his policy-making are therefore a moot point. Too many people are ignorant of the constitution and they don’t want to do the little bit of work required to properly understand it. Either that, or they don’t want to admit that some of their favorites with non-citizen parents are also ineligible.
61. 

    Kay Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 4:20 PM

    How can we so easily believe THIS one is the real thing? And why did Grandma Kenya lie about his place of birth?
62. 

    Stig Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 4:23 PM

    You were absolutely right! If Trump had been genuinely concerned about Obama being a natural born citizen, he would have been raising the question of his parentage — not the location of his birthplace.
63. 

    Max Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 4:30 PM

    Leo did you know this about Trump????

    Trump’s father was born in America & his mother was born in Scotland. However, Trump’s mother became a Naturalized citizen a few years before Trump was born, thus no question of him being a Natural Born Citizen. So Trump would be the perfect one to raise this issue. Instead he has not. In fact, he has stated if you are born in the United States you are eligbile to run for President. Trump is a smart guy, if he were serious he would raise this … but why not??? … Food for thought
64. 

    Lawyer Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 4:32 PM

    Leo, I disagree. The long form bc looks like a fake. Where is the seal, why is his father nationality is called “African” when the correct nationality for that time period was “Negro.”

    What it really does is point out your issue, NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. So, i guess the truth has a way of coming out. The Usurper is about to get a huge awakening due to the true issue: NATURAL BORN CITIZEN STATUS.
65. 

    anonymouse Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 4:35 PM

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=292213
    Obama Blinked: Now Game Begins

    Corsi predicts Obama presidency will not last after his book.
66. 

    anonymouse Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 4:46 PM

    Obama in Kenya, says, “I am proud to be back home in Kenya”
    
67. 

    Rob S. Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 4:53 PM

    I guess the word “african” to describe his father’s race seems normal to you on an official document from 1961.

    It appears on many levels to be a forgery Leo.
68. 

    Dan Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 5:15 PM

    Most of the Citizen’s of the USA could care less if Barack Hussein Obama Jr is a dual Citizen…they acknowledge that his dad is absolutely, positively Kenyan. If Hitler had a favorite son run for US President and was born in the USA to an American Citizen mother, would the people vote for him (Hitler Jr.)? No…they would probably at their insistence interpret the words “Natural Born Citizen” for the purpose the Framer’s originally intended . The bottom line…people only care about issues based on their emotional shock value of a subject and how it will affect their immediate life. Instant gratification is what people want; empty promises are easier to handle than blatant truths.
69. 

    natrual born citizen party Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 5:25 PM

    – for the matters of dual citizenship — suggest everyone intervene/ or at least check-out (CES) Strunk v NYS-BOE Kings Cty NYSSC 6500-2011

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/48978571/SUMMONS-and-VERIFIED-COMPLAINT-for-Strunk-v-NYS-BOE-et-al-NYS-6500-2011

    related active case 29642-2008 — Justice Schmidt
70. 

    Bill Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 5:37 PM

    Interesting question, and certainly if one born into a family of dual nationality, as you assert, were to first demonstrate allegiance to a foreign country, then I agree. BUT, if the person is raised in the US and never claims allegiance to a foreign nation, then you purporting that a person is guilty of same without trial. Further, one could also ask how many generations it takes to separate “foreign allegiance”, and as an extension to that, does ANY child born in the US but with illegal alien parent fit the “natural born citizen” criteria WITHOUT any bloodline connection?

    The bottom line is once congress needs to close this gap. We are a nation of growing diversity and that we spent 2 minutes debating this is ridiculous. It’s the intellectual equivalent of “fiddling while Rome burns”.
71. 

    natrual born citizen party Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 5:41 PM

    also, additional CES related active appeal original proceding at SCOTUS special writ for recusals and quo warranto of Holder and USSG

    see “Re: Strunk” petition for a writ of prohibition

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/52438246/CES-Petition-w-SCOTUS-Rule-20-w-Exhibits-in-re-SCOTUS-10-1170-040511
72. 

    borderraven Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 6:20 PM

    Leo,

    The Obama Sr file

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/27/970491/-Wow,-1961-Memo-From-Immigration-File-On-Obamas-Father
73. 

    Mary Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 6:38 PM

    Nothing changed today with President Obama’s presentation of his long form birth certificate which names the hospital in Hawaii where he was born. Why didn’t he present this birth certificate three years ago to settle this matter. It looks like he loves controversy. It looks as if he wanted to focus on a birth certificate in order to antagonize people who questioned his eligibility and his loyalty. The questions of truthfulness and loyalty did not go away with the presentation of this birth certificate. Americans have been told a bunch of lies about why Obama couldn’t or wouldn’t present the real birth certificate:
    1. It was against Hawaii’s law for Hawaii to release the long form of a birth certificate.
    2. The governor could not find the President’s long form birth certificate. It was missing.
    3. All the long form birth certificates in Hawaii are in a book and they cannot be taken out of the book, even to make a photo copy.

    It appears that Barack Obama wanted to make it look as if he has been victimized by racists who will go to any length to discredit a black president. OBAMA HAS HAD AN ACE UP HIS SLEEVE AND THE ACE WAS THE RACE CARD.

    Pay close attention to the spin the media is putting on this issue. Barack Obama had one parent who was not an American citizen, but watch out — Liberal reporters are trying to change the accepted meaning of “Natural born Citizen” so that a child with two parents born in a foreign country can become president of the USA. Liberals would even love to relax the qualifications for president so that a foreigner born to foreign parents in a foreign country could become president of the USA. This is where this controversy is headed!

    This birth certificate the president found today after searching for three years does not answer other eligibility questions. Americans have been ignored as they have pointed out those inconsistencies over and over. The office of the president combined with a sympathetic media and court system and a big portion of Congress have unbelievable power to suppress information they do not want to be made public.

    However, there are other legitimate issues (other than the Natural born citizenship issue) which will haunt this president throughout the campaign: Obamacare, distribution of wealth (nationally and globally), misused and mismanaged bail out and stimulus money, subsidies for ethanol and the president’s pets, Cap and Trade, dependence on foreign oil, refusal to allow American companies to drill for oil, refusal to secure the border, refusal to enforce federal immigration laws, executive orders which over-ride laws passed by Congress, radical czars and federal agencies which pass regulations which ignore Congressional law, buying union votes with favors, punishing states which did not vote for Obama, and finally his wishy-washy foreign policies which cause foreign countries to disrespect and distrust America.

    Americans have plenty issues to talk about other than this president’s not being eligible for the office he holds. That is just one of the many issues which will be popping up from time to time.
74. 

    kingskid Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 6:38 PM

    Mr. Tonchen’s primer (your two lawsuit cases are mentioned also)
    http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm
75. 

    Dave K Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 6:57 PM

    Everyone keeps saying that this issue is over now. I like to think that it is just beginning. Yes, finally providing a birth certificate( for the third time) was a bold move to make Trump look like a fool, which it really didn’t do, but it now shows definitive prove that Obama does not meet the qualifications provided to be president. I am trying to be hopeful here.
76. 

    witch_wyzwurd Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 7:00 PM

    Yep. I appreciate your blog greatly and refer to it in a lot of my youtube comments. You were dead on so long ago, all the way at the beginning. I’ve been posting the “natural born Citizen” aspect of the argument in reply to people concerned with just the long-form birth certificate, following in your footsteps. Thank you for opening up my eyes.

    Maybe the true eligibility issue will take over now that the bullshit is out of the way, or at least appears to be out of the way.

    Or maybe the true eligibility issue will come to light if his fraudulent social security number is put in the forefront. It’s sad that it would have to be appended to another issue to be cared about, but its survival should be maintained at all means necessary.
77. 

    Eric Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 7:17 PM

    Leo,
    I too am disappointed that the real issue has probably been buried forever. Donald Trump did not help the cause by pounding away at the birth certificate. I emailed him (his office wouldn’t let me talk to anyone), and tried to educate him about Vattel and the dual citizenship issue. Sent copies of the fight the smears web site stating that he was a dual citizen at birth and governed by the same law as his father, the British Nationality Act of 1949. Also told him that his mother was not old enough, by Federal Statute, to convery citizenship.

    Also sent him a copy of a page from Patrick Leahy’s web site where Leahy indirectly confirmed that Obama is not a natural born citizen.

    What a shame indeed.
    Eric
    Reading PA
78. 

    Bob Farrell Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 7:21 PM

    Congrats Leo, Dead on with your predictions. One Question for you sir, although I have been reading you since the start, I do not recall any words of wisdom regarding a Quo Warranto action regarding a deceased usurper, or an out of office usurper ? If some presidential action that was signed off by Chester Arthur for instance, was found to be harmful to the nation, could that action, along with all other actions attributed to that administration, be found to be void ? All desirable actions could then be raised for approval by the then current administration.
79. 

    TooMuchTime Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 7:42 PM

    To me, this just released document proves that Obama is not a natural born citizen. So, Obama has just admitted that he is not constitutionally eligible to be president. I don’t see how he can get around that.

    Question – look at the signature in the registrar’s box. Does that look like “U K La Lee” to anyone else but me?
80. 

    Mike Ernest Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 7:59 PM

    I realize that the long form has only just been released, but at first look does it really answer anything? The “attendant” MD signed this certificate of live birth 4 days after the date of birth while the mother signed it a day earlier than that. How can the “attendant” certify the details of a birth that is one of many he attended over the course of 4 days. Is it reasonably to assume that he remembers the time of the birth, the sex of the child and so forth? I thought BC’s were signed by the attendant the day of the birth – right?
81. 

    An American Story Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 8:09 PM

    Actually, I am hopeful now that the red herring chase is over for those that chose that path. A clear understanding should finally come to the forefront that that the real issue has always been allegiance . Any rational person that is open minded and willing to seek the truth can find the intent and meaning of those well understood three words: natural born Citizen. Inspiration comes in all forms, I hope others have been enlightened as to how precious our freedoms and the Republic really are.

    Eternal vigilance, a nobel cause deserves a worthy effort
    Au Revoir
82. 

    keymanjim Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 8:12 PM

    Check this out, Leo. This guy pulls apart obama’s LFBC with Adobe Illustrator.
83. 

    Spew King Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 9:24 PM

    when he took the oath of POTUS, didn’t he declare his allegiance?
84. 

    kittycat77 Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 9:27 PM

    Leo,

    I remember you saying this, yes, a long time ago, and you’re correct, he truly did produce a long-form of something. There’s some weird things about it, though, which make no difference right now.

    My husband and I were having a discussion about being an NBC. I said that you have to be born by two parents who were at least US citizens.

    Then he stated, well, hypothetically, let’s say that we were young again, and we wanted to go to Mexico and buy diapers because they were cheaper there. You were 8 months pregnant when we went across the border, but once we got over the border, you start to have the baby.

    Well, this is hypothetical because I wouldn’t go to Mexico anyway. But let’s say that I did, and not long after we crossed the border, I went into labor. So if I had the baby in Mexico, then the child wouldn’t be an NBC? He’s asking, and I thought to tell him that, no, the child can’t be an NBC. Then he said, well, look at how fair it is, the women from over there are coming over here and having their babies, and they are citizens. Of course, they aren’t NBC.

    But can you answer our hypothetical for me, please. I don’t think the child could be an NBC. I may be incorrect on that one.

    Thanks
85. 

    Mark Delmotte Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 10:13 PM

    You have always been on the mark. We have lost are country to American Idol…
86. 

    Liz Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 10:16 PM

    We really need to get the media to get this portion of the issue. I see that he has already revised the fightthesmears.com website. I’m hoping that someone has kept screen shots of the “old” page.
87. 

    Mark Delmotte Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 10:16 PM

    I new you would post today because this tragedy is playing out just as you had said 2+ years ago.
88. 

    Charles H Irwin Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 10:23 PM

    I agree. I’ve been following you from the beginning, and I’ve put some stuff out on Wikipedia on your behalf.

    All I will say is now is not the time the to give up. Now that the birth certificate question is off the table, the real issue can come to the surface.

    I’ve heard the phrase “Natural Born Citizen” numerous times in the media today. I never heard it much before. Byron York got it wrong on the Laura Ingraham show. He said you only need one citizen parent to be a natural born citizen. He even went out of his way to explain that those who think otherwise “don’t understand the law”. How long can it be before the truth comes out. I have a feeling that time is near. Don’t lose heart.

    ed. Byron York would get trashed in a true debate on this issue. He’s simply ignorant. – Leo
89. 

    Andy Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 10:52 PM

    What’s pathetic is that the Obama administration have gone out of there way to make this document look forged. Notice I say “make this document look forged”. Every one of the rubber stamps on this document is a separate cut and pasted object and the whole document has basically two layers, one contains just about everything but the signatures and the final digit in the birth certificate number, the other layer contains the final digit and the official signatures at the bottom.

    Basically what we have is a fake fake. They’ve taken a real birth certificate and cut and pasted it so that hardcore “birthers” will continue to claim he still hasn’t shown his birth certificate. If a large number of people start claiming this is fake ( and why wouldn’t they, it obviously looks fake) the media will have a field day picking at them that they will never be satisfied. The media has always claimed that if Obama released his long form, the birthers would just declare it was a forgery.

    When you congratulate Obama for his cleverness, you don’t know the half of it. He’s just buried the birthers. And because the COLB has been made such a huge issue, the issue of citizenship of his father will be belittled as well.

    Congratulations Barry, you’ve won.
90. 

    motownmutt Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 11:11 PM

    Glad I’m not the only one seeing things this way. Thanks for a commiserating voice, even if it’s only an echo of my own thoughts.
91. 

    bob strauss Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 11:16 PM

    Another photoshop fraud.

    http://barnhardt.biz/index.cfm
92. 

    Joseph C. Lausier Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 11:30 PM

    Well, now we have proof, or convincing evidence at least, that Obama is the son of a subject of the British Empire. Previously, all we had were verbal assertions, vague rumors, and the like. Now the Court can act, they have a document signed by a dead physician, the epitome of proof, upon which to act. Maybe this is what they were waiting for. Go ahead, Leo, file your case. You have the evidence now. The Court will have to act.
93. 

    mahreetm Greenlaw Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 11:32 PM

    Leo,
    in light of Obama’s producing his BC today and everyone ignoring (the real issue) his dual citizenship, Where does this leave the US document directly defining the “Natural born citizenship” according to Emerich de Vattel .
    The Framers in their correspondence, explicitly wished to “exclude dual loyalty”, and explicitly required that the US citizenship of the president be deeper than ordinary citizenship, such as that of their contemporaries. No dought you know all this.

    (Art. 2,Sec.1 has NOT been repealed, the 14th Amendment certainly did not act to do so.,the President is still required to have been born on US Soil AND have Parents who were BOTH American citizens at the time of his/her birth. I’m I wrong in my thinking that ”We the People” to have a “Natural-Born Citizen” as the President cannot be Abrogated by legislation,,because that right is constitutionally secured.

    If this 14 amendment Art 2 sec 1 has not changed, where does this leave the constitutional law as it is known to us today

    I am not a Law nor a student, just an American born citizen / sign maker, trying to figure out how in the hell, our Constitution was disrespected by so many.
    Sincerely
    M
94. 

    trunk Says:
    April 27, 2011 at 11:59 PM

    I knew it was coming, and I have been dreading this day.
    Those that refused to listen, learn, and understand the
    true issue have caused our country great harm. Some of these individual(s) had a following and pushed the BC issue, mainly because it was profitable. They have assisted in the trashing of a very important Article in our Constitution, and they did it for chump change. When I speak of the individual(s) that did this, I exclude Mario and his client. God Bless America and God help us.
95. 

    Paul Smith Says:
    April 28, 2011 at 12:06 AM

    Leo,
    Casual observation leads me to believe that the document is a forgery. I believe (pray) that Trump has only warmed up and will turn up the heat soon.
    How does this turn of events affect your suit? As I recall, court convenes on 2 May?
96. 

    Bruce Says:
    April 28, 2011 at 12:32 AM

    All day long I listened to radio commentators spread misinformation in just the way you describe above. I don’t know if they are lazy, genuinely ignorant, part of an anti-American cabal, or simply ridden with white guilt. Over and over I heard ‘well this release of his birth certificate proves he’s an American and now all the crazy “birthers” will have to conjure up more conspiracies or simply crawl back under a rock’. I heard so-called right wing radio people saying things like ‘if we are going to hold Obama to a higher standard for presidential eligibility then we must do so for other citizens who currently are or in the past held high federal govt. positions but their parents came from foreign lands. Examples were John Bolton, Bill Richardson, Madeline Allbright,etc. The point being missed is that these people had no constitutional requirement to be “natural born”, merely citizens. Yet the buffoons in the media simply can’t or won’t see the written, well reasoned distinction for the founders use of the term “natural born”. As you stated above, well played Mr. Obama! I would just ask, “Why now? And to those 9 black robed paycheck cashers on the Supreme Court I say shame on you for the cowardice you have shown to a nation that used to be the home of the brave. The disservice you have done to your nation and its people will be a legacy that will fill volumes of American history books if and when the nation survives your cowardice,avarice or ineptitude.
97. 

    Stephen Says:
    April 28, 2011 at 1:09 AM

    Leo, Open the pdf in Adobe Illustrator. The forger forgot to turn off the ‘save layers’ when saving it as a pdf. There are dozens of layers that detail exactly how the document is composed. There is a layer with the text and a separate layer with the white halo effect. There are also several clipping layers and so forth. Anyone who has Adobe Illustrator will see how it was done.
98. 

    markcon Says:
    April 28, 2011 at 1:49 AM

    Glad to see that you was right! Don’t know if trump is working for obama or not but I think he released it prematurely. hopefully people will start to look into the dueler issue even though all the news are saying its over and settled. sheesh even glen beck is equating citizen with natural born citizen to the point of even saying an anchor baby is a nbc. I couldn’t believe it!
    still along time till 2012 and what ever is swept under the rug can and will creep back out by then.
99. 

    Larry Weisenthal Says:
    April 28, 2011 at 5:31 AM

    I think that your comment may illustrate to others about the dangers of turning a possible White House conspiracy story line into an anti-White House persecution story line.

    Basically, you’d agree that he was born in the USA to a certifiable American mother who, along with her American mother (Obama’s grandmother) raised him from infancy — the British subject father departing the scene long before Obama reached the age of reason.

    Obama wouldn’t be the first (e.g. that would be Chester A Arthur). There’s a precedent and there’s zero percent chance that any court will ever agree with the tortured “natural born citizen” arguments which are so prevalent in the birther universe.

    His father contributed a sperm and then basically abandoned him.

    Some day we’ll probably have a Presidential candidate who was born in America of a certifiably American mother, artificially inseminated (either in vitro or in vivo) with an anonymous donor sperm. Let’s say that said candidate is the true Tea Party messiah. Will it then be incumbent upon the government to search through the sperm donor records to establish the citizenship of the anonymous donor?

    That’s how silly these arguments really are. Maybe they make perfect sense to the birthers, but I strongly predict that, if pursued, this will trigger an anti-birther backlash, which will, to some extent, lessen the acceptance of all anti-Obama rhetoric.

    Americans really don’t like witch hunts.
    
    ed. Chester Arthur lied through his teeth to cover it up. Read the articles at this blog and educate yourself. Arthur was a proven fraud. Lies are not precedent….except or liars they certainly are. Every other President was either eligible due to grandfather clause or was born in the US to citizen parents. Get educated by actually reading the research provided for you here. – Leo
100. 

     Voco Indubium Says:
     April 28, 2011 at 6:16 AM

     Leo, you were right in 2008 and right at the present. Yes, they played a better chess. Farah said (on a local radio show) that they (WND and Corsi) are not surprised – they expected this kind of reaction. But it sure took the wind out of Corsi’s new book to be released in a couple of weeks.

     However, is it possible that the newly presented bc is not genuine? It will probably take a week or two to confirm that by experts. And what if the experts disagree? The courts will not hear any suit on merit that would attempt discovery for the purpose of verification.

     Therefore, we are back to square one. The doubts will still exist while the media and most GOP politicians are accepting it on face value. Most likely, as you predicted for the COLB, the Secretary of States, with the new bc-checking legislation will accept the new BC as well.

     It is obvious that the Dualer-claim is a more solid path, but it seems to be complicated for the legally-trained politicians, the well-educated media and most voters. While in reality, it is more complex than the bc issue but not rocket-science. Furthermore, all attempts to get definition by SCOTUS (directly or indirectly) have failed. So, we are back on square one on that also. Even Trump is reluctant to use that issue. Instead, now they start to talk about the college issue (Trump and Buchanan). Unless Trump picks up that issue eventually, it will stay in the background at least until the election. If O wins his second term, no judge will touch it. Somehow, Trump should be motivated to use it.
101. 

     Michael Porter Says:
     April 28, 2011 at 6:31 AM

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Born_Citizen_Clause
102. 

     Dave Says:
     April 28, 2011 at 9:05 AM

     This is the same one they trotted out before – it still identifies itself as what it is a COLB and not a long form Birth Certificate with the attending physician’s name, Hospital logo/insignia, prints (hand,thumb,foot) etc. WHY IS EVERYBODY ACCEPTING THE SAME when it was shown long ago??!! I have both documents for myself and they’re NOT the same – I still agree with his now dead grandmother – he was born in Kenya and as a Kenyan citizen able to go to school in Indonesia becoming a Muslim! We’re little better than Egypt, Libya, and Syria only in reverse with a “Christian” population and an Islamic head??
     Now you can say it – WOE is US!!
103. 

     Wes Says:
     April 28, 2011 at 10:54 AM

     You don’t see the difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen? Easy: A citizen is anyone who is legally eligible for a US passport. A natural born citizen became a citizen by being born in this country.

     I suppose in theory, yes, Kim Jong Il somehow sneek to this country, have a child who is born here and obtains a legal birth certificate, and then have that child be eligible to become president. Of course, that child would have to be elected by the people. It’s such an absurd, farfetched plan that I, personally, I would love for the man to spend his time trying to do that than bringing misery to his people.
     
     ed. Kim Jong Il wouldnt have to be in this country at all. He would simply have to impregnate an American citizen woman and send her back here to give birth. Then you would have a child born in US to an American mother and a foreign father just like Obama. But this isn’t my idea. I didn’t make up the research here. Educate yourself, read this blog. – Leo
104. 

     Joe Loleczek Says:
     April 28, 2011 at 11:17 AM

     Leo, the endgame is not over.

     http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/04/obamas_long_form_colb_may_be_f.html

     “The notion that the White House would release a fraudulent document boggles the mind. Unless one is dealing with a student of Saul Alinsky. Having watched the Rathergate computer-based debunking of a fake document, Obama knew that his long form COLB would be similarly analyzed.”

     Great insight IMO. Everyone is being baited.
     Keep the hamster spinning.
     The real issue is, of course, the NBC.
105. 

     Nezumi Says:
     April 28, 2011 at 12:41 PM

     If that’s your complaint, it was rendered even more meaningless than Obama has almost exactly 182 years ago. Both of Andrew Jackson’s parents were immigrants. Funny that no-one’s arguing that Andrew Jackson wasn’t a natural-born citizen and wasn’t eligible for his presidency. And that’s ignoring the fact that Obama isn’t the first president to have a single parent who wasn’t American or wasn’t originally American. Thomas Jefferson’s mother was British. Strictly speaking, both his parents were, as although his father was born in Virginia, there was no United States for it to be part of at the time.

     ed. Every President we’ve ever had has been eligible

     1. due to the grandfather clause of A2 S1
     2. was born in US to parents who were citizens

     one exception – Chester Arthur lied about his parents heritage and nobody found out until 2008 at this blog. Lies are not precedent for anyone other than liars. – Leo
106. 

     Dee Bee Says:
     April 28, 2011 at 1:01 PM

     Nice try, but you are wrong. People are not born with allegiances. No one can be expected to have any allegicances until they have attained sufficient intelligence to have an allegiance to anything. Allegiance is not instintive.

     ed. According to the US State Department and multiple other legal examples… you are simply wrong. Your homework assignment is to read this blog, pick a post and discuss legalities cited therein. – Leo
107. 

     tommyboy Says:
     April 28, 2011 at 2:58 PM

     Except Obama did not hold dual citizenship at the time he was elected President, since Kenya’s constitution does not allow dual citizenship in adults (Kenyan Constitution, Chapter 6, Section 97). He hasn’t had dual citizenship since he was 21 years old, which somewhat makes the need to even interpret US law on the matter irrelevant.
     
     ed. It’s whether the candidate owed allegiance at the time of the election. The Constitution requires a “Natural born citizen”. Therefore, it is the status of the candidate at the time they are “born” that determines eligibility. Either you are eligible at birth or you never will be eligible according to the direct wording of the Document. -Leo
108. 

     BC Says:
     April 28, 2011 at 3:09 PM

     You’ve confused natural born with naturalized. A natural born citizen, is just that a citizen at birth. No naturalized citizen is a citizen at birth.

     ed. There are more than one type of citizen at birth… nbc, 14th amendment, and citizen by statute. Only nbc is eligible for POTUS according to the greater weight of legal authority cited throughout this blog. – Leo
109. 

     Stock Says:
     April 28, 2011 at 5:44 PM

     Whatever the BC was or is-now it is out of the way and the true deficiency of not being an NBC can be brought forward-as he has now completely owned (regardless of the actual validity of this document)the story of his Kenyan father and the question of whether a person claiming to be a “citizen” of the soil who has a Kenyan father may be President under the Constitution may clearly be stated and answered in the negative.
110. 

     Philip N. Says:
     April 28, 2011 at 6:20 PM

     Changes in Espionage by Americans: 1947-2007

     http://www.fbiic.gov/public/2008/apr/espionage_by_Americans.pdf

     Spying for divided loyalties is the motive that demonstrates the most significant change of all motives since 1990, with 57% spying solely as a result of divided loyalties.

     Obama created the birth certificate conspiracy to ultimatly define natural born citizen as anyone born in the United States.

     The Certificate of Live Birth is the only document that will prove Obama is a native born citizen.

     Notice I said native born citizen because Obama can never be defined as a natural born citizen.

     Obama’s father was Kenyan a Subject of Great Britain he never became a U.S. citizen.

     At birth Obama was a Dual National.

     The U.S. State Dept. defines a Dual National as a person who has Divided Allegiance.

     At birth is the keyword here, you only acquire natural born citizen status at birth.

     A Dual National at birth cannot be defined as a natural born citizen.

     The Framers of the U.S. Constitution feared people with Divided Allegiance and did not want such a person to become President hence the natural born citizen clause.
111. 

     Constantine Says:
     April 28, 2011 at 6:30 PM

     Leo, the reality is that BOTH were, and still are, LEGAL questions. Since there is no legal/election authority that checks for NBC status, the offering of a birth certificate is clearly very important.

     I was one of the people that thought he was hiding something. He still may be. An image on the internet means nothing. If he produces an authorized (certified) hard copy of that document on the web, I’m satisfied. Till then I can’t show up with a laptop to prove who I am, so I’m uncertain why other people immediately think it’s legitimate.

     Again, I’m not saying it isn’t, I’m just saying there should be a protocol in place to check our governmental leaders because transparency and the Constitution ARE that important.

     As for your NBC definition, I agree with you, you have a convincing argument. Unfortunately, I am pessimistic about others agreeing to it. But that fits what is happening in our country, which is slow decline and generalized lack of education/respect for our great tradition and constitutional system.
112. 

     Julie Krauss Says:
     April 28, 2011 at 7:50 PM

     Leo,

     Please don’t be so downcast. You have done more than anybody else to get this issue out before the public, and your efforts are succeeding. People are becoming more and more aware of this as an issue of great importance to our Constitutional Republic (such as it is nowadays); and we are even making some headway in persuading people that the foreign-citizenship-at-birth issue is one of supreme importance to whether we honor our Constitution in the observance rather than the breach, which means, whether we have a meaningful Constitution at all.

     You and the many, many people who have helped with research and comments have done a great good. Anybody who’s halfway awake knows that, and is grateful beyond words.

     As to the B.C. issue, it’s going to be like the Kennedy assassination…no matter whether it’s ultimately “proven” genuine or a fake, there will be those who remain unpersuaded…I among them, as the waters are far too muddy and I lack expertise to know which experts’ findings to trust.

     But the foreign-subject birth is real, the facts are undisputed, and we will continue to work to persuade people that what is important is to apply to those facts the Constitution as it is written.

     So once again, thank you.

     Julie
113. 

     Brian Dodge Says:
     April 28, 2011 at 8:18 PM

     “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”

     “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

     “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.”

     Does the Constitution delegate the power to decide what constitutes proof of natural born citizenship to the United States? Nope. Nothing in the Constitution about that, That power is reserved to the State of Hawaii.
     
     ed. That’s hilarious. Obviously, the Constitution has been interpreted by the SCOTUS for a gazillion ideas and theories not found directly defined in the C. Hawaii does not decide what the def of nbc is. But thank you for making me smile.

     Hawaii says that the short form birth certificate is proof of “natural born” citizenship. The rest of the country is Constitutionally bound to give “full faith and credit” to Hawaii’s determination that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen. Congress could require that presidential candidates produce a valid short form birth certificate, and each state could do so, but they cannot make law for Hawaii that the short form certificate is inadequate.

     The Constitution is likewise silent on the issue of dual citizenship. If dual citizenship, particularly that which was inherited or bestowed but not sought out by the person, automatically disqualified one from the presidency, then any foreign nation could award citizenship to a candidate they didn’t like, and prevent them from becoming president.

     Furthermore, the Oath of Office that the president-elect takes before entering the execution of his office as President supersedes any prior allegiance, just like the oath given by naturalized citizens
114. 

     J.J. Says:
     April 28, 2011 at 9:23 PM

     I tell everyone I know about your theories Leo. History will prove you right . You are brave and I respect you.
115. 

     Karen Says:
     April 28, 2011 at 10:11 PM

     Personally, I don’t think Obama “played it well” because it would be impossible for him to do what he’s done to Article II (5) unless, shockingly, everyone permitted him to get away with it . . .and they all did. Why?
116. 

     John Giles Says:
     April 28, 2011 at 10:25 PM

     Leo, a number of photo shop experts have since claimed that the long-form BC offered up by Obama is a forgery. In fact, they say that it’s so crude that it implies that there may have been intent for people to spot it. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s9StxsFllY. Interesting thing here.
117. 

     jms Says:
     April 28, 2011 at 11:44 PM

     I don’t know, Leo. I think that a lot of people thought they were acting in good faith by giving Obama the benefit of the doubt, figuring that there must be something embarrassing in his birth certificate that he didn’t want to expose to the public. Lots of people were dutifully carrying water for him.

     Now it appears out that no, he had his birth certificate in his pocket all along, and really he was just jerking the public around for no reason but the sheer malevolent joy of it. He just treated the entire country like a bunch of stupid rubes for two years, then held a mocking “press conference” and went off to Oprah to have a laugh at the public’s expense.

     Watch his approval rating in the next few weeks. I wouldn’t bet on it going up.
118. 

     Haole Boy Says:
     April 29, 2011 at 12:03 AM

     Right you are my friend. Sad but the real issue , the legal issue will never be addressed in a timely fashion…well unless the Donald gets with the program.

     Thank you for all your effort put forth for the people, the constitution, and the country.

     Wishing you good cards and good luck at the tables. Aloha.
119. 

     Janet Says:
     April 29, 2011 at 12:21 AM

     Who will come forward to challenge the “natural born citizen” issue? There is precidence with the Chester Arthur fiasco in thoroughly defining what the founders meant by it and why. It’s important to remove this character from office soon.

     Thank heaven that many states are planning to thoroughly vet this guy in the Presidential 2012 election to prove “natural born” — states understand the issue well. Let’s follow our beloved Constitution… what’s left of it.
120. 

     Isabella Says:
     April 29, 2011 at 1:09 AM

     Mr. Donofrio, I always had a pleasure reading your articles. Serious, professional and straight to the point. Never stoped to remaind everybody, what you always said. that, we should refer 0bamas Dual-citizenship not his BC. Can Dr.Latkin, who was sentenced for 6 Mo. in jail, because he was asking if 0bama is eligible to be president, to sue the Military Tribunal ? He can prove , having 0bamas BC, that he has dual citizenship.
     Thank you, again. I checked your side every week, hoping your return to your webside.
121. 

     DEE Says:
     April 29, 2011 at 1:51 AM

     SO this is it? after all this time we are suppose to accept a cheap copy? Not too mention, His father ‘s loyalty to another country …It’s not over by any stretch of the word. The Birth certificate is A fake, like barack.
     And this was tossed out there to be yet one more distraction.
122. 

     Beelzebub Says:
     April 29, 2011 at 5:47 AM

     Sorry to burst your bubble, but the nightmare scenario you posited has been common law since the country’s inception and in England before that.

     According to title 8 of the United States Code:

     “The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
     (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;”

     It is clearly ridiculous to demand all infants renounce all allegiances to any foreign countries their parents may owe allegiance to.

     To your other example (People who hate America knocking up American women), what a clearly impossible claim! Are you suggesting Kim Jong Il or Bin Laden actually coming on American soil staying long enough to impregnate a citizen, stick around 9 months , sign the Birth Certificate…and then what? Raise the child in the U.S. subject to U.S. law? Anything else would disqualify the child. Not to mention the disqualifications for enemy combatants and foreign diplomats….

     ed. That statute only grants citizenship. It does not use the words natural born. Furthermore, as to a child’s natural fealty to his father’s country, the US State Department disagrees with you. Your homework assignment is to find where on this blog your theory was aso argued by a Senator and thwarted by the Secretary of State. Discuss… – Leo
123. 

     Paul Says:
     April 29, 2011 at 11:58 AM

     http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2011/04/out-of-order-obamas-non-sequential.html
124. 

     SR Says:
     April 29, 2011 at 12:48 PM

     Leo, if you scan in a document, you have 1 layer, the scanned document! If you want to change the document, you do it in layers. Please open this hoax Obama released in a professional editor. It has many layers and there is no attempt to hide the fact it is a hoax. It is a fake. A fabrication. And Deliberate.

     When a President lies about something like this to the face of the American people, what can the people do? I’m sick of listening to his lies.

     What is this distraction trying to distract us from? It has to be big and he wants to keep the issue of the BC alive. Question is why?
125. 

     Frank95054 Says:
     April 29, 2011 at 2:27 PM

     Photo shop sites abound with evidence that the birth certificate released by Obama was fabricated. In fact, photo shop professionals are dumbfounded by the amateurish compilation of the document. So, what now? Why would Obama release a bc document that was so easily determined by the photo shop community to be fraudulent? Perhaps one only needs to review the definition of narcissistic personality disorder for answers.
126. 

     NeilBJ Says:
     April 29, 2011 at 4:28 PM

     I assume you have heard or read that the White House PDF document showing Obama’s birth certificate has been doctored. I have downloaded the file and have been able to duplicate and discover some of the anomalies others have pointed out.

     The simplest thing to do is to frame the actual certificate and copy it in a Word document. Almost all of the boxes will be blank in the copy. Using extreme magnifcation in the PDF image itself will also reveal the white areas under the text.

     If Obama is playing a cruel joke, it’s not funny.
127. 

     Stephen Says:
     April 29, 2011 at 5:04 PM

     I’m very aware of how the BC conspiracy clouded the real issue. People still can’t believe that the Founding Fathers would use “natural born citizen” to mean anything other than “citizen at birth”.

     I’ve read all of your discussions on this subject and I can’t recall if you discussed the case Ankeny v Governor of Indiana

     It supposedly defines someone born on U.S. soil as a natural born citizen, but will not make that distinction for those born abroad to citizen parents as the question was not properly addressed to the court.

     “We reiterate that we do not address the question of natural born citizen status for persons who became United States citizens at birth by virtue of being born of United States citizen parents, despite the fact that they were born abroad. That question was not properly presented to this court. Without addressing the question, however, we note that nothing in our opinion today should be understood to hold that being born within the fifty United States is the only way one can receive natural born citizen status.”

     A found link to another case Diaz-Salazar v. I.N.S., that some website claims that it definitively defines children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens natural born citizens.

     Since, the natural born citizenship of the children were not in question, but was really about Diaz-Salazar being deported I don’t think it really has much legal weight.

     ed. It’s a circuit court case which did not deal with Presidential eligibility. The case does not discuss the dual fealty of the children. But it is the best point scored for those who believe Obama is eligible. Still. the strongest word on the issue comes from the US Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett which discusses the two parent definition. – Leo
128. 

     PatriotNY Says:
     April 29, 2011 at 5:54 PM

     Leo, your argument may still end up bringing him down. If this new BC is considered valid it shows his father as Barack Sr who is NOT a U.S. citizen. There’s another thing happening, more & more people in this country are getting tired of the drama with this guy, on top of which his policies are killing us (as planned). Joe & Jane citizen have enough problems just paying the bills, they dont want or need the circus that this administration has become with its smoke & mirrors and O’ doing TV spots every chance he gets. He’s getting cocky and when you get cocky you can tend to let your guard down.m This BC release could be his Waterloo or it could be his Watergate.
129. 

     PatriotNY Says:
     April 29, 2011 at 6:37 PM

     First of all I’m NO legal expert so please humor me with my question. If the BC of 04/27/11 is considered to be official and his father is listed as not being a U.S. citizen, isn’t that enough to get the courts involved? Before, the world didn’t have anything to base the dual nationality argument on. Now we have it. Do we now have a silver bullet or no silver bullet?

     ed. No. – Leo
130. 

     da verg Says:
     April 29, 2011 at 6:59 PM

     born a brit
     not legit

     born a brit
     not legit

     born a brit
     not legit
131. 

     ShadowOTR Says:
     April 29, 2011 at 7:58 PM

     Heartbreaking piece, Leo, just heartbreaking. I have been following your writing throughout (including your temporary stepping out into bitter satire, which was painful to watch), and have found your precision and persistence inspiring. I continue to hold out hope, however far-fetched it may be. Please stay on target, and perhaps one day, a spotlight may fall upon that target and illuminate it for the nation to see, and there shall be no escape for those hiding behind it. Do not underestimate the historical magnitude of your (presently) lonely work. None of your loyal readers do.
132. 

     borderraven Says:
     April 29, 2011 at 11:47 PM

     Leo, you were mentioned.
     http://www.examiner.com/essex-county-conservative-in-newark/nj-activist-says-obama-has-disqualified-himself
133. 

     Wade Says:
     April 30, 2011 at 2:53 AM

     Look at the positive. You now have proof of who his father is, a African. Find someone that has a chance of winning the Presidency, and convince them to file suit. If they are running against him, they must have Standing. Would Trump file such papers? What would it take, to get standing, just run for president, or get the Republican Nomination?
134. 

     CBS1955 Says:
     April 30, 2011 at 2:57 AM

     And just think. The “BC” is a layered document, not even a scan of a genuine document from Hawaii. This proves what Governor Abercrombie said…there is no original BC. This also proves what Michelle Soetoro said…her husband’s “home country” is “Kenya.”

     Instead of Frank Marshal Davis being the father, we have a citizen of British East Africa as father, so officially the puppetmasters declare that Barry Soetroro is not a natural born citizen. How is that “well played?”

     Why were nearly three years and millions of dollars spent to cover this up?

     Why is Barry Soetoro using a Social Security number issued to someone else?

     The evidence is that Barry Soetoro is or was an Indonesian citizen. But proof of U.S. naturalization was never released – Barry Soetoro is an illegal alien.

     So we have Barry Soetoro, aka Barrack Hussein Obama…
     1-A dual citizen at birth, not eligible for POTUS; and
     2-Born outside the United States, apparently not naturalized (illegal alien); and
     3-Adopted in Indonesia with a record showing Indonesian citizenship apparently not naturalized again (illegal alien – again); and
     4-Using a Social Security number belonging to another person (identity theft)

     Isn’t it amazing how many obots and lamestream news channels insisted that:
     The certification of birth was the original BC
     OR that
     The certification of birth wasn’t the BC, but Hawaii had destroyed all of the original birth certificates (an absolute lie and proven to be a lie many times)

     With the release of the putative BC (well, honestly, poorly forged BC), it would appear that all obots and all lamestream news media were 100% wrong! And it wasn’t a little error, it was a dooooozy. The original BC WASN’T SUPPOSED TO EXIST! Poorly played. Reminds me of a virtually unknown incident last year: A very little plane hit a very large, and very temporarily unoccupied building in Austin Texas in 2010, completely incinerating the inside of the building and partiality collapsing it … even though that’s impossible using the laws of physics. That too was poorly played and it was forced down the memory hole. No one remembers this incident even though it was a major building and just a year ago!!

     It’s too bad that having a usurper isn’t the only problem going on. In fact, it’s extremely minor compared to many other problems. The Obama hoax is by no means the biggest hoax pulled off recently. There are many others that are much worse. Certainly, you know this is true Leo.
135. 

     Albert W. L. Moore, Jr. Says:
     April 30, 2011 at 5:09 AM

     What makes people think Barry released his birth certificate, a contemporaneous record of birth showing birth parents?

     When a child is adopted at birth, an original birth certificate is created showing birth parents.

     An amended birth certificate is created showing the adoptive parents.

     I suspect the latest proffered “birth certificate” from the Great Pretender is the latter, an amended birth certificate showing adoptive parents. Sophisticated forensic document analysis aside, it looks to me like the latest “birth certificate” is folded back at the top to obscure the printed or, more likely, typed word “AMENDED”.

     A key test of the document’s validity is not the document itself, but an analysis of Obama’s DNA. If, as I suspect, an analysis of his DNA shows it’s biologically impossible for him to be the child of a Negro father and a Caucasian mother, the latest proffered “birth certificate” can not be accepted as valid. Either it is somebody else’s birth certificate, or, much more likely, it is Barry’s amended birth certificate reflecting his adoption by Stanley Ann Dunham and Obama the alien black Luo tribesman.

     Congress and the state legislatures should investigate the Obama matter, starting with subpoenae of Obama’s DNA and Hawai’i’s vital records of him. In view of Obama’s clandestine M.O., all officials with jurisdiction or on whom jurisdiction can be conferred by law are duty bound to investigate.
     It is utterly unacceptable for America to be unable to identify the pretender to the Office of President. The failure to ascertain Mr. Obama’s biological identity lends great weight to the proposition that he claims his adoptive parents as his birth parents in order to maintain the hoax that he is half Negro, so that he can make a fraudulent racial appeal for votes and denigrate opponents as racists.

     Every state’s Secretary of State should require verified DNA samples from Obama to determine whether his past and future applications for ballot positions were and will be honest and in good faith, or fraudulent in light of his latest claimed “birth certificate”.

     If genetic analysis disproves the latest proffered “birth certificate”, Barry’s applications for ballot placement should be rejected until he finally produces for all the world to see, at long last, his true, original, birth certificate, a contemporaneous record of birth showing actual birth parents consistent with his DNA. I would bet Obama’s birth mother was Polynesian, from whom he inherits his warm mahogany complexion, and his birth father was Caucasian, not an alien black Luo tribesman who made it with a white chick.

     Of course, there still remains the question whether Barry lost U.S. citizenship in the course of acquiring and exercising Indonesian citizenship as a lad and as an adult. This too must be the subject of official investigations.
136. 

     Dr. B Says:
     April 30, 2011 at 10:13 AM

     Don’t think it is over. This is becoming a major issue
     with the electorate…it was not ended with the long form.
     Even if 3% of the voters refuse to vote for him because of this issue….that causes him to lose the election.
137. 

     Kim Shaffer Says:
     April 30, 2011 at 11:24 AM

     Hi Leo,
     I have an old newspaper clipping book from 1870-1890′s that was my great Aunts and it has so much stuff about Grant, Cleveland and Chester. It also has an article that I thought you might enjoy reading about natural born and naturalized citizenship with regard to being on the side of the US or the side of their mother country and states giving their own citizenship but not being a part of the Federal citizenship. I took pictures of the articles and if you are interested, I would like to email the pics to you. Let me know.
138. 

     Leslie Simmons Says:
     April 30, 2011 at 1:41 PM

     Hopefully court on Monday will produce something and the Judge will lhonor our constitution…
139. 

     Dave Galdur Says:
     April 30, 2011 at 2:15 PM

     Leo, can you comment on the recent news by a lot of folks who are trained in PhotoShop? We are collectively saying that the electronic document is not a scan of an original document. We are saying it is made up. It’s fake.

     ed. My comment is that everyone will remain distracted as intended… from the real issue. Leo
140. 

     Pete Says:
     April 30, 2011 at 2:42 PM

     Leo,
     It really isn’t that simple. The ‘simple’ left when the SCOTUS refused to hear a case.
     Pete
141. 

     Couriouser Says:
     April 30, 2011 at 3:07 PM

     The Certificate of Live Birth is prima facie evidence that BHO has dual nationality and is ineligible for president.
     Now on to the job of educating the American people that a “Citizen” is not a “natural born Citizen,” even conservative talk show hosts and pundits. And to emphasize that it takes two (2) American parents – not one – for the child born on American soil to be president.
     Perhaps the push by conservative leaders to drop this important constitutional and rule of law issue and focus only on other important issues is because their pet potential presidential candidates are not “natural born Citizens” either.
     All candidates must be vetted.
142. 

     ipeggy Says:
     April 30, 2011 at 5:03 PM

     Actually Leo, in my opinion, this highlights his dual citizenship. We also had to shut-up the BC lemmings. They were sucking all of the oxygen out of the room, and painting us all as birthers.

     Now maybe it will easier to concentrate on his dual status?
143. 

     themadjewess Says:
     April 30, 2011 at 7:15 PM

     http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/the-dual-cititzen-potus-disqualification-issue-stands-alone/

     This post of yours is missing. Do you know why?

     ed. I will republish it… thought I had that up. Thanks for the tip off it was missing. Leo
144. 

     Dennis Kelley Says:
     April 30, 2011 at 9:44 PM

     I agree with your statement “Since the BC was played so perfectly by the Obama team, the genuine legal issue will now be more marginalized than ever.” Finally Bill acknowledges Obama does have and oz. of intelligence.

     ed. I think Obama is very intelligent. I am a poker player. I NEVER underestimate other players. – leo
145. 

     sickin Tired Says:
     May 1, 2011 at 12:20 AM

     Like a game of chess???? arent there 2 players in a game of chess,,are you one of those people that think everyone is dumb!!! We know and are not fooled by the BC BS,,,we know it didnt matter if he found one or not…When he told us of his father,,,WE THE PEOPLE KNEW…and thats what started the TP..and everything he has done since has only made them stronger..He played Chess with himself..and he pretended to win..TP knows the game…this country is getting pissed like Ive never seen it before..
146. 

     borderraven Says:
     May 1, 2011 at 11:05 AM

     Leo,

     Hi,
     Suddenly I awake to find 155 emails. It will be a busy day.

     M,

     I don’t know how folks get the impression natural-born citizen( NBC) requires two NBC parents. The parents have to have US citizenship, meaning they can each, either or both be naturalized, native-born, or NBC.

     Barack Hussein Obama II, has proven he was born a native born Hawaii citizen, and a dual-citizen UK/US, thus invalidated any claims he is a NBC, or constitutionally eligible to be a POTUS.

     His father was a foreign born student, on a non-immigrant student visa (8USC1101(a)(15)(F)(i)), under British consular jurisdiction, per 1952 British Treaty.

     Barack H Obama II, was born in the Hawaii, then per (circa 1961 law) 8USC1401(a)(1), he would have been native born a US citizen, and under consular jurisdiction of the 1952 British Treaty and the under jurisdiction of British Nationality Act of 1948, Part II(5)(1)(a) he was born a British Citizen, thus a dual-citizen UK/US, and not a natural born citizen, and not constitutionally eligible for the 2008 or 2012 Presidential elections.

     Read:
     1894 A Treatise on the Foreign Powers and Jurisdiction of the British Crown
     http://bit.ly/gtLNf9
     United Kingdom Treaty September 7, 1952, Date-In-Force
     http://travel.state.gov/law/legal/treaty/treaty_1507.html
     The British Nationality Act of 1948, Part II(5)(1)(a)
     http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1948.htm
147. 

     borderraven Says:
     May 1, 2011 at 11:18 AM

     Sally Hill,
     I’m seeing a faction who believes a native-born dual-citizen US/? is a natural-born citizen. I don’t know if they are using Founding Father’s beliefs, Congressional records, laws, logic or SCOTUS rulings, but they seem to be doing all they can to accommodate Barack Hussein Obama II’s usurpation of the US Presidency. The MSM is no longer protecting the American people, they’re in bed with Obama.
148. 

     Trunk Says:
     May 1, 2011 at 11:23 AM

     And the next subject to further take us away from the real legal issue rears its ugly head. Think, why would someone with access to the best forgers put out such poor quality of work? Could it be, perhaps, to turn your attention in that direction? Obama got 2 copies, did he mess with one on purpose and keep one in its original state to hand over to be examined, if he feels it is a political necessity? I don’t know. But what is obvious is that Obama is directing the conversation in reference to his eligibility. Please, stay on issue (NBC) and direct others conversation to this issue, when the discussion goes in the wrong direction. Do not allow Obama to manipulate you into burying the true legal issue. Obama plays a game of divide and manipulate, and too many follow his direction, or fall rank and file behind someone who is pushing a non-issue. without even being aware of what it is we are doing. Let us not do an encore of the birth certificate matter. Avoid discussing if the BC is altered. It is up to us not to jump on the band wagon for the ride that will take our country straight to hell.
149. 

     borderraven Says:
     May 1, 2011 at 12:16 PM

     Leo,

     Is it necessary to amend the constitution, or could a US Code revision work within the 14th?

     Example:
     Aliens and Nationality – 8 USC Section 1401c (PROPOSED)
     Sec. 1401c. Natural Born Citizens of United States at birth
     The following shall be Natural Born Citizens of the United States at birth:

     (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, where both parents are citizens of the U.S. under 8USC1401.

     ed. Amendment only…- Leo
150. 

     slcraig Says:
     May 1, 2011 at 12:29 PM

     Janet Says:

     April 29, 2011 at 12:21 AM
     Who will come forward to challenge the “natural born citizen” issue? There is precidence with the Chester Arthur fiasco in thoroughly defining what the founders meant by it and why. It’s important to remove this character from office soon.

     Thank heaven that many states are planning to thoroughly vet this guy in the Presidential 2012 election to prove “natural born” — states understand the issue well. Let’s follow our beloved Constitution… what’s left of it.

     nbcfund.com is seeking participants in all 57 Stat….urr ahhh….50 States to file “Challenges” against any and all Executive Office Candidates registered by the Political Parties under the State Election Laws or directly in the State Courts on the Statutory basis that there is “no acknowledged “legal” definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen, which is the Art.II Sec.I Cls.V “prerequisite imperative” Statutory Construction of Executive Office Eligibility.

     A “Motion for Certification of Constitution Question” from the State Courts to the SCOTUS is the objectives, providing the opportunity of taking up the Question under its Original Jurisdiction coming from a State dispute.

     Without an acknowledged “legal” definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen not only is the Executive Office not legally occupied now but, it can be argued, it is not “legally fillable” by ANY person.

     Follow the links and be part of the solution, “It’s about the Constitution, Patriot…!!!”

     http://nbcfund.com
151. 

     borderraven Says:
     May 1, 2011 at 12:31 PM

     constitutionallyspeaking,

     You got the typical copy/paste response, probably prepared by staff, not the Congressman.

     You need to personally and regularly write, preferably short, succinct, and hand-written notes, and make the occasional office visit.

     If you are going to make an office visit, then bring your neighbors and friends and hold an hour or two protest rally across the street, preferably where staff or the congressman can see you.

     btw — Every year or two ask for a free (tax$$) US flag while you are there.)
152. 

     themadjewess Says:
     May 1, 2011 at 12:50 PM

     Leo- I totally agree. I do NOT think Obama is stupid either.
153. 

     jms Says:
     May 1, 2011 at 12:50 PM

     I’m convinced that Obama is still pulling a fast one. Here’s what I think is happening.

     Do a google search on “Obama adopted indians” You will find hundreds of news stories about an obscure “political stunt” Barack Obama did on May 19, 2008. According to all the articles, including the New York Times article that appears at the top of the google search:

     “The adoption ceremony for Mr. Obama was held in a tent, out of view of the crowd. It was closed to reporters and photographers.”

     I suspect that the reason that the ceremony was held out of view of observers, reporters and photographers was that what they were doing in the tent was filling out adoption papers to be filed with the State of Hawaii.

     The State of Hawaii and the Crow Indian tribe share an unusual legal quirk — both allow the adoption of adults by adults, which is generally not permitted by law. If Obama did this, his original hospital birth certificate would be literally placed under seal, and a new copy prepared in which the information about his new “parents” would replace the information about his true birth parents and become a new birth certificate of record. If Obama were to ask for a copy of his birth certificate, or even a new COLB, it would be clearly marked as “Amended” and list his adopted Crow parents instead of his well-known birth parents.

     Now I’m trying to decide if the release of this document rules out this theory, and I’m thinking what the white house has actually released is a second copy of the original birth certificate that was located in some other file in the possession of the state of Hawaii — a copy that was not sealed by his adoption. This might explain the anomolies:

     1) The Nordyke birth certificates are not bound in a book. This birth certificate is clearly bound in a book, because it has a curled left edge.

     2) This birth certificate was clearly heavily photoshopped. I don’t think that this was done to change any of the information. I think it was done because the copy they were working with must have been very illegible. Perhaps it was a microfilmed copy or a copy located in another file. Rather than present an obviously poor copy of what should have been a clear document, someone took it into photoshop, separated the text from the background, extensively sharpened the text, then replaced it in the background. But forgot to flatten the layers.

     3) It has no seal, but it does contain a registrars stamp at the bottom that doesn’t quite say what I think it should say. I think that the raised seal would certify the document as a copy of his birth certificate of record, while the stamp certifies that the document is a true copy of a document held by the department. These are two very different things.

     4) In his press conference, Obama is coy. Read his text very carefully and find the part where he claims that what he has released is “his birth certificate.” He never does. He says:

     “As many of you have been briefed, we provided additional information today about the site of my birth.”

     He also describes his COLB as his “birth certificate”, but no where does he describe the document that he just released as his “birth certificate.”

     So, in short, I think that the Crow Indian Adoption theory is still left standing. I suppose that this could be easily cleared up by asking the Hawaii department of records if the just-released “birth certificate” is President Barack Obama’s birth certificate OF RECORD. Somehow I doubt that they would be willing to answer that question.
154. 

     spewking Says:
     May 1, 2011 at 12:52 PM

     Leo, you write ‘…ed. the Constitution doesnt define nbc, it’s meaning is deduced from other evidence. the US supreme Court stated so in Minor v. Happersett where they also discussed the two parent definition. – leo…’

     what happens if the father is unknown and citizenship is is undeterminable? Does that mean the child is non NBC?
     From the posts, I would think that you would say that the child is non NBC which brings up issues. That would create a catagory of second class citizens due to no fault of their own. This seems to be a hole in your argument and probably one of the reasons you failed to get the SCOTUS to hear you case.

     ed. nonsense. If the father is unknown, then the child does not have a dual allegiance. The issue is dual fealty. If the child is born with one allegiance, then he’s nbc. Leo
155. 

     Publius Says:
     May 1, 2011 at 1:09 PM

     Leo, would you consider marching in the Ridgewood, NJ 4th of July parade this year?

     The theme of this well-established parade (voted the best in Bergen County year after year) is–would you believe it?– “Celebrating the Constitution” and I am trying to guage local interest in a float or procession consisting of Ridgewood residents who are Natural Born Citizens according to the correct and robust definition of the term which you have helped re-establish.

     I understand that you probably have a thousand sound reasons for not participating but I figured I’d ask on the off-chance you found the idea appealing.

     Publius

     ed. Not interested. I dont like parades. Leo
156. 

     borderraven Says:
     May 1, 2011 at 1:13 PM

     June 15, 1962
     Edith Coats Hawaii Longform 1962 #151- 62 – 08498
     http://passportsusa.com/wp-content/gallery/passportusa/edith_front.jpg
     http://passportsusa.com/wp-content/gallery/passportusa/edith_rear.jpg
     (Attending Richard Y Noda, Same ‘ukeleli’ Registrar as Obama, raised seal)

     What gives?
157. 

     borderraven Says:
     May 1, 2011 at 1:45 PM

     Stig,

     I think it was/is Orly Taitz and Gary Kreep who are focused on a Kenya birthplace, while Leo has always focused on Hawaii.

     I’ve been in the blogs, and took an open-mind just for the sake of argument.
     Obama supporters know a Kenya birth loses their argument, but a native-born US citizen can be argued a natural born citizen, if the judges and congress can be swayed to include all US citizens in a class, rather than a single parent being a US citizen of a dual-citizen child.

     A we know a dual-citizen birth was not the intention of the framers in deciding POTUS/CINC eligibility.
158. 

     ipeggy Says:
     May 1, 2011 at 1:49 PM

     “ed. I think Obama is very intelligent. I am a poker player. I NEVER underestimate other players. – leo”

     I am also a poker player Leo, and I have figured out one of Obama’s major tells.

     When he says, “first of all, let me be clear”, or any combination thereof, get ready to be showered by organic fertilizer…

     If lightning strikes, and Obama is found ineligible, could he be prosecuted for criminal negligence concerning Operation Fast and Furious?

     http://crapfilter.wordpress.com/2011/04/23/did-the-obama-administration-help-arm-mexican-drug-cartels/
159. 

     borderraven Says:
     May 1, 2011 at 1:58 PM

     Leo,

     Thank you so much for giving US access to your blog, a place to vent and your legal expertise.

     With the release of Obama’s LFBC into evidence in the public domain, then is there some legal trigger for motions of notice or discovery that anyone with an active of a previously dismissed case can file?
160. 

     Philip N. Says:
     May 1, 2011 at 2:03 PM

     Changes in Espionage by Americans: 1947-2007

     http://www.fbiic.gov/public/2008/apr/espionage_by_Americans.pdf

     57% of Americans were motivated solely by divided loyalties. Increasingly, divided loyalties are a factor in motivating American espionage.

     Spying for divided loyalties is the motive that demonstrates the most significant change of all motives since 1990, with 57% spying solely as a result of divided loyalties.

     Obama created the birth certificate conspiracy to ultimatly define natural born citizen as anyone born in the United States.
161. 

     Bobbi Says:
     May 1, 2011 at 2:30 PM

     Forensic experts are all over the fact that the pdf on the whitehouse blog is a digital constructed photoshop.
     Phil Berg also has another birth certificate that had been posted originally 3/2010 by the Aloha Reporter and indicates a Kenyan birth.
     http://obamacrimes.com/
162. 

     borderraven Says:
     May 1, 2011 at 3:24 PM

     For Bill at April 27, 2011 at 5:37 PM,

     This effort to challenge to eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama II (his proper legal name), has actually been a test as to the adherence of our elected government to their oath of allegiance to the US Constitution and of the media’s and various scholar’s commitment to their duty to protect US from a corruption within the elected. Grade: C-

     Citizenship by birth is determined by the circumstances existing at the moment of birth (Usually the 24 hour day in which the birth occurs between 00:00:01 to 11:59:59), jurisdictions, location, laws, treaties, etc.
     Territory and allegiance determine jurisdiction.

     Dual-citizenship is conferred by territory (jus soli) or by blood (jus sanguinis), owes dual allegiances and may be influenced by one against the other. Not someone you would want commanding the Army, is it?

     Natural born citizen, is conferred by territory (jus soli) and by blood (jus sanguinis), has a singular allegiance that cannot be affected by a foreign influence.

     As to your question of a child’s allegiance, see Barry v Mercein 46 U. S.(1847) Case Footnote 4:
     http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=46&invol=103

     You are correct, that in our new age of diversity, children are raised in the homes and schools, to respect a rich and diverse multi-cultural world, but in reality discrimination is the essence of immigration enforcement and the opposition to invasion, is the duty of every citizen, else we lose sovereignty.

     Your generation question.
     Barack Obama, was born the British citizen, is a dual-citizen US/UK by birth, he is one generation too soon of the constitutional eligibility to run for POTUS, but his children will become eligible. Barack Obama is a US Citizen and he married Michele, so their children are natural born citizens.
163. 

     borderraven Says:
     May 1, 2011 at 4:37 PM

     Nezumi,

     First read the US Constitution requirements for Legislature and Executive branches of the US Government.

     Study all presidents and their parents.

     See
     http://www.scribd.com/doc/51856853/US-President-Eligibility-V4-0

     Presidents 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 & 12, who were “present at the adoption of the constitution” became the first-generation US Citizens “by conversion”.
     With George Washington being 55 and Zachary Taylor being the youngest at 3 years old.

     The “second-generation” US Citizens who were born of two first generation citizens, became the Natural Born Citizens.

     The Natural Born Citizens who became US Presidents are: 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 38, 40, 41, 42 & 43.
     Both of their parents either became citizens at the adoption of the constitution, or were born of the new citizens, or were naturalized before the future president was born.

     Anomallies
     #21 Chester A. Arthur
     #44 Barack Hussein Obama
164. 

     DrJim77 Says:
     May 1, 2011 at 4:59 PM

     Obama and his minions do NOT want the birth certificate issue to go away. Witness the edited, Seal free joke of a document presented on Wednesday. If this was ever presented in court it would certainly be not be accepted in it’s current presentation because it could clearly have been edited . Let’s see if the HDOH verifies this as what was released to obama’s attorneys. Notice that the copy released from CNN was “flattened” as to hide signs of manipulation. Why would the WH release such a flawed document ??? Are they that inept ? Hard to believe. Is some one attempting to “set up” obama ?? An interesting idea.. Leaving the issue open with controversy allows the past employed Alinski protocols to be continued through isolating , belittling and attacking any dis-tractors.

     And then we have the issue of Trump. Does he plan on accepting all this theater and be part of obama’s current, misguided final solution?? At the WH Corresponce Hooplah last night, Trump did not look very happy and appeared to be growling as the momentum of his evisceration unfolded. In the coming days, we shall begin to see where Trump is really coming from. It would be out of character for him to roll over and accept this document especially because of his competitive nature and enormous ego. Remember his show down with Rosie O’Donnel?? I suppose, very soon, we shall what team the Trumster is really on.
165. 

     minutemancdcsc Says:
     May 1, 2011 at 5:21 PM

     Mr. Donofrio, it’s good to see you posting again.

     I can’t understand you attempting to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory at this point.

     If you must castigate someone for focusing on the BC to the exclusion of the non-citizen father, beat up on Joseph Farah, Jerome Corsi, and Donald Trump. But don’t chastise all of us in a fit of pique.

     Just because you have chosen to pursue the non-citizen father disqualification to the exclusion of the non-U.S. birth disqualification, the latter is STILL a requirement for nbC. Many of us have been fighting this battle on BOTH FRONTS since before the ’08 elections, because he is ineligible on both issues, ius sanguiinis AND ius soli.

     What he has done by issuing the 4/27/11 Certificate of LB is to snare himself in his own corruption. That Certificate is so obviously counterfeit in all its digital glory as to sink his credibility about his ineligibility and render him guilty in the court of public opinion. His false testimony on this Certificate goes a long way towards making him an unreliable witness in court. Issuing this counterfeit Certificate is an irreparable first step downward toward his eventually resigning from office in disgrace, if not in handcuffs.

     Sincerely in Christ,

     MinutemanCDC_SC
166. 

     ShadowOTR Says:
     May 1, 2011 at 6:16 PM

     Leo-
     Could you make a single compilation of all the raw source material you’ve gathered in proving your case? I’ve seen your findings over the past few years and have been long convinced, but others who need convincing won’t have the patience to go through three years of blogs, and it’s hard to sift through everything.
     Make a compendium of your case. Print it. Your readers will spread it around, to neighbors and family and to every space-time curve of the blogosphere. Make it pointed, make it professional (not shouting-style), concise, and as “airtight” as your legal filing (as you yourself described it one dark day in 2008) minus the legalese, so that every uninitiated citizen of this country, natural born or otherwise, will see its truth.
     There are enough people in this great land (perhaps not the majority, but a sizable portion) that are open-minded enough to weigh evidence objectively and form opinions based on it, and not the other way around. I can’t tell you how many people I’ve spoken to recently that didn’t have any idea that it’s even possible to provide evidence on the intent of language in the Constitution, and certainly never knew that it had already been gathered. I tell you, they were intrigued and wanted to hear more. But a postion that appears radical (especially to suggest the ineligibility of a long-dead President) needs solid proof, or will quickly be relegated to the dustbin of conspiracy theories (as this one largely has, unfortunately). Do it for your readers, and for the Framers who are being trampled and spat upon. We have all seen the power of the exchange of information online (Middle East revolutions come to mind); no one can predict how far one powerfully written document of iron-clad logic and research will go in today’s climate.
     Ask…what you can do for your country.
     Respectfully,
     ShadowOTR
167. 

     Tom Says:
     May 1, 2011 at 6:54 PM

     Funny, how so many are hoping that “The Donald” along with his titanic EGO will lend voice to the “real issue”; that of the true meaning of Article II ‘natural born Citizen’—-
     Well, don’t hold your breath, folks— too bad that little thing called women’s suffrage has gotten in the way— —alas resulting in the exclusion from the Oval Office of those members of Trump’s brood[he] sired with Ivana-
     Do you really think he ["The Trumpster"]would relish the role as spoiler of dreams of Presidential Glory , no matter how remote, for his own children*?
     *Eric , Donald Jr, Ivanka
168. 

     borderraven Says:
     May 1, 2011 at 7:04 PM

     Brian Dodge,

     If you believe a person elected to the US Senate is naturalized by the oath of the Senate or that Obama naturalized by the oath of POTUS, then upon read the constitutional qualifications for POTUS, a naturalized citizen is ineligible.

     LOL
169. 

     borderraven Says:
     May 1, 2011 at 7:46 PM

     Leo,

     It appears the “hoax” is in the algorithms in the programming code of Adobe Illustrator (Why we pay the big bucks to purchase it.)

     The appearance of the vital record image on the certified copy, could be a result of a ‘xerox’ process or a computer graphic process used to archive the records for easy retrieval, while preserving the vault copy from wear.

     The 2002 digitizing would account for this theory.

     So, any distraction of the “fake” birth certificate is a diversion from pressing Obama on ineligibility as he was born a dual-citizen.

     The “buzz” we produce is being watched, gauged and analyzed by Team Obama. Our buzz got uncomfortably loud last week resulting in an appetizer of a birth certificate. We need to get a louder buzz about ineligibility going and keep it up through the election.

     In politics to tell a half-truth is to avoid telling a lie.

     They/Obama will not say Obama is a natural born citizen.

     They will dodge and weave around the truth, saying “born in Hawaii”, “born in USA”, “US Citizen”, but will not cross the line of truth, so as to avoid court challenge. Communist propaganda ploys of the Alinsky Method, is their game plan.

     We need street rallies, freeway overpass rallies, rallies outside of local congress offices. Also any active or retired military or federal employees who are aware of Obama’s ineligibility, need to present themselves before any local judge or magistrate and admit ti “misprision of treason” (18USC2382)

     18USC2382 – Misprision of treason

     Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge
     of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as
     soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to
     some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or
     justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and
     shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years,
     or both.
170. 

     kittycat77 Says:
     May 1, 2011 at 8:28 PM

     This issue seriously needs to be settled by the SC. They are avoiding the issue. There are instances where there are gray areas. For instance, my hypothetical of crossing the Mexican border to shop, then having a baby that wasn’t expected for a month, or whatever. Which in my own mind, I wouldn’t do anything. But Americans do it still.

     Then, say, you live close to the Canadian border, and you go into labor, then the only close hospital is in Canada. This is all considering the parents are US citizens to begin with, natural born citizens at that.

     So there are things that have gray areas. Surely someone can see that, I hope. Imagine you live in the US on the border between us and Canada, but you’re closer to a Canadian hospital.

     What do you do?
171. 

     Rene Says:
     May 1, 2011 at 9:55 PM

     Leo get a pair of glasses. Race is Caucasion, Negroid or Asian.
     Nationality is African, Canadian or American. This is a cheap forgery.

     I am legally blind in one eye but I will lend you my glasses.
172. 

     Keiya Says:
     May 2, 2011 at 12:52 AM

     There is no legal question. According to Title 8 of the U.S. Code, section 1401, anyone born within the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a national and citizen at birth. This is the legally-accepted definition of ‘natural-born’.

     ed. No it isn’t. There is nothing in the law or any Supreme Court decision to back up what you say. You have issued an opinion not backed by law. This blog contains multiple legal citations which argue against your opinion… from Representatives and Senators to Secretaries of State. Please get your facts straight. Just saying something here without backing it up is weak and/or misleading. – Leo

     
     There is no clause that would exclude people with dual nationality.

     ed. There is no clause that includes people with dual nationality. – Leo

     You could make an argument that this should not be the definition, and perhaps you’re right and it will be changed in the future. It’s certainly an interesting thought. But as the law currently stands, there is no question.

     ed. There certainly is a question. And the evidence produced throughout this blog testifies that the greater weight of evidence supports the argument that dual citizens at birth are not eligible. – Leo

     (As a side note, Article III, Section 3 strongly implies that one can not be judged for the crimes of ones ancestors. Though of course, you’d have one heck of an uphill battle as a son or daughter of Osama Bin Ladin seeking to get elected even if your every action from the moment you left the womb has been in opposition to him!)
173. 

     Keiya Says:
     May 2, 2011 at 12:55 AM

     Oops, I forgot to say what document I was referring to “Article III, Section 3″ of. I was referring to the US Constitution. Sorry.
174. 

     Starbeau Says:
     May 2, 2011 at 1:02 AM

     Did anyone read the name of the Local Registrar on Obama’s official Certificate of Live Birth?

     It is Ukelele!!!!!!
175. 

     Joseph Fazio Says:
     May 2, 2011 at 2:23 PM

     Leo,

     Back to your (and my) future prophecy, here is an article that I got from the NY Times, 4-7-11 and copied and kept the link to it in my email folder. Obama fulfilled it when he showed his LFBC after two years of brilliantly manipulating the American people. I had sent it to Glenn Beck and was rewarded by him with a rejection of all my emails from that time on. So much for Beck’s love of the Constitution…NOT!

     “While surfing the net I got this very interesting article in the NY Times, today, Thursday, April 7, 2011 with the link to mediadecoder.blog:
     “CNN President Says Obama Citizenship Issue is ‘Dead,’ But Lou Dobbs Revives It, ”

     http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/28/cnn-president-says-obama-citizenship-issue-is-dead-but-lou-dobbs-revives-it/

     Notice the date of the link. Why would the NY Times resurrect an article dated, 2009/07/28, and, after obama began his re-election bid for 2012??!! Surprise! The corrupt NYT is making a pre-emptive strike against those who question obama’s elegibility—particularly vs Lou Dobbs–so that he can pull the same bull—t of 2008 on the American people. But we must be very much on our guard, obama just might make his long form birth certificate public to proove his US citizenship and take attention away from his British citizenship statement on Factcheck.org.

     What freaking brilliant arrogance is this usurper of the presidency! I have saved a screen shot of the Factcheck.org statement. The assination of Bin Laden was delayed until after the LFBC was made public is another move to take away any opposition to his elegibility to be POTUS. Watch his numbers in the polls go up now!
176. 

     NJ_Tom Says:
     May 2, 2011 at 2:51 PM

     Leo,
     If you examine the info posted at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2713569/posts and http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2713337/posts, you’ll see that the BC is not onlt a fake, it is a VERY CLUMSY fake – a fact that anyone can easily determine without and special graphics credentials. Which led me to post the following in the comments of the second posting:

     “The question is – what is the Obama administration trying to accomplish? If they wanted to truly put an end to the controversy, they would have posted a simple photo or scanned image of their fake document. They must have a reason for publishing it in a form where anyone with the most basic computer skills can quickly establish that it’s fake.

     Is it to keep the Eligibility Questioners (or “EQ”s – my preferred term) focused on the place of birth, to the exclusion of the requirement that both parents be citizens?

     Is it to keep the EQs aligned with Trump, so as to encourage a third-party run?

     Do they just want to continue, with the assistance of the MSM, flagging EQs as tin-foil hat wearing loonies, in the hope of scaring Independents off? Or are they just so arrogant and contemptuous of Congress & the MSM, that they saw no need to be careful? (After all, most of the MSM still believes the Texas ANG memos were authentic.) “
177. 

     Bobbi Says:
     May 2, 2011 at 3:01 PM

     http://obamacrimes.com Phil Berg’s website has an interesting video of another bc that waspublishrd on the “Aloha Reporter”. 3/3010. Interestingly, signed by Madelyn and indicates Kenyan birth.
178. 

     jondos Says:
     May 2, 2011 at 3:42 PM

     Obama’s own legislation stating that John McCain was eligible to become President implicates himself as being NOT Natural Born. Has Leo brought this up before? It has been 3 long years of this stuff going on and the details are blurry from site to site. Anyway, the below video shows how this specific legislation, pertaining to John McCain’s eligibility status, clearly allows him to run because BOTH of his parents are citizens. The legislation states that this in itself allows John McCain to be considered “Natural Born”, however this statement also DISQUALIFIES Obama at the same time. Quite remarkable.
179. 

     Lisa C. Says:
     May 2, 2011 at 4:09 PM

     Leo, I’ve long been a reader, and sometime contributor, here and have become better informed as a result of reading everything and the contributions of Borderraven and dozens of other here. I understand your sentiments and, with all the work you’ve done, earned the right to them. However, I also think that this work has led to legions of us reading the Constitution again and following your research and that is to the good. The payoff in informed and determined citizenry might be delayed but I think that we can safely assume that natural born citizen status will be an issue in the 2012 elections and might lead to a formal due diligence process that will prevent this mess from being able to happen again.

     One new factoid that I came upon and checked for accuracy is that George Romney (father to Mitt) ran for president despite having been born in Mexico so that “precedent” thing might be cited by the Obama people if all else fails.

     I always hoped that Bobby Jindal would throw himself on his sword and run for the Presidency so the media might actually become “interested” in the nbc concept as Bobby was born in the U.S. to non-U.S. citizens, thus has nbc issues paralleling, and contemporaneous to, Obama’s. Instead it might turn out that Obama’s illegitimate presidency paves the way for Bobby to run? What a strange mess the BHO people perpetrated.

     P.S. Long before he became president, Vanity Fair ran a laudatory profile on Obama, citing that he stayed in the room, ordering and paying for pizzas, while the voting continued for the editorship of the Harvard Law Review. The strongest objections were made that he was the ONLY contender who’d never evidenced any scholarship nor had any articles published therein…which were, historically, requirements for the position. Obama argued that having a “black” editor for the first time outweighed any other valid considerations. The voting took 37 hours, and numerous rounds, while others removed themselves from consideration just to take the pressure off their colleagues and to avoid an unmerited label of racism. I consider Obama our first affirmative action though not-legally-eligible president.
180. 

     Tea Party Conservatism Says:
     May 2, 2011 at 4:33 PM

     Birth certificate speculation, isolated from other disqualifications, has been a diversion from the fact that Obama’s father precluded his being a “natural born citizen” meaning born on U.S. soil of U.S. citizen parents; he is further ineligible by dual citizenship for being born a British citizen pursuant to the British Nationality Act of 1948, as his father was a British citizen of colonial Kenya.[1]

     When the Constitution was adopted, citizenship was acquired at the time of the adoption with no naturalization needed or by being American born of a citizen parent. A natural born citizen encompasses citizenship but requires the additional circumstance of being born of citizen parents. The Art 2, Sec 1, exemption from being a natural born citizen, “or a citizen of …” wasn’t needed if a natural born citizen means a citizen.

     Each authoritative definition of a natural born citizen stipulates citizen parents (plural). First Congress, Ses II, Chp 3, Sec I, 104, 1790: “the children of citizens.” Bingham, House floor, 1866: “of parents not owing allegiance.” Supreme Court, Minor v. Happersett, 1874: “of parents who were its citizens.” Senate Res 511, 2008: “born to American citizens.”

     A natural born citizen also means more than excluding naturalized citizenship. Congressional eligibility already does that by setting 7 and 9 “years a citizen” for Representatives and Senators respectively. With no similar allowance of years set, a foreigner would be eligible upon naturalization. This definitive incongruity logically demonstrates that naturalized citizens are not eligible, given the comparatively greater power of the President.

     Mistakenly equating a natural born citizen with a non-naturalized citizen, illegally and foolishly forfeits the constitutive protections of very wise eligibility exclusions. Potentially a foreign enemy and a naturalized U.S. citizen, could have a child born on U.S. soil but raised overseas until age 21, then 14 years later be eligible for President. Similarly untenable, is allowing Obama to set a precedent permitting dual citizens with possible divided loyalties to be eligible.

     Allowing a usurper to stay in office threatens national security. Obama recently stated, “We don’t have time for this kind of silliness. Forget the birth certificate “distraction” and focus on what’s really important!” That’s good advice.

     Members of Congress swore to support and defend the Constitution. Either they remove Obama from office, or they must be removed. Impeachment applies to offenders legally in office and may undo very little. If Obama faces trial for usurpation, every law and executive order he signed along with his illegal military orders, will all be mute. His administration will be removed along with his appointments, especially his dissidents on the Supreme Court.

     1. Leo C. Donofrio, Esq., “Why Obama is ineligible – regardless of his birthplace.” WorldNetDaily, 4/01/2010.
     http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=134881
181. 

     Joseph Says:
     May 2, 2011 at 7:37 PM

     Leo,

     The following was an article in the NY Times that I had read online and made the following observation in an email to Glenn Beck who rewarded me with a rejection of all my emails to him after that by the BS of saying his mail box was full. So much for Beck’s love of the Constitution. ..NOT!

     As you see, your prophecy (and mine at that time) has been fulfilled:

     “While surfing the net I got this very interesting article on the NY Times, today, Thursday, April 7, 2011 with the link to mediadecoder.blog:

     “CNN President Says Obama Citizenship Issue is ‘Dead,’ But Lou Dobbs Revives It, ”

     http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/28/cnn-president-says-obama-citizenship-issue-is-dead-but-lou-dobbs-revives-it/

     “Notice the date of the link. Why would the NY Times resurrect an article dated, 2009/07/28, and, after obama began his re-election bid for 2012??!! Surprise! The corrupt NYT is making a pre-emptive strike against those who question obama’s elegibility—paticularly vs Lou Dobbs–so that he can pull the same BS…t of 2008 on the American people. But we must be very much on our guard, obama just might make his long form birth certificate public to proove his US citizenship–and take attention away from his British citizenship statement on Factcheck.org. What freaking brilliant arrogance is this usurper of the presidency!”

     The usurper is keeping the public’s eye on the LFBC and off his dual citizenship at birth. And, to top it off, he agrees to the assassination of Bin Laden at this time after he blows away The Donald with his LFBC! Watch his poll numbers skyrocket! As a reader posted: “I have handed it all over to God.” (Leo, if I have posted this before, please ignore and delete)
182. 

     borderraven Says:
     May 2, 2011 at 10:04 PM

     Leo,
     I was in Pasadena earlier today. I got lucky and found a seat in the back row, between cases. I feet the judges were cordial towards Kreep and Taitz, in asking them what remedy they are seeking. Hopefully the case will be remanded to District Court.

     http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/
     Recordings appear on this site by 12:00 p.m. PT the day after argument on May3.
     Wiley Drake v. Barack Obama 09-56827 PREGERSON, FISHER, BERZON Pasadena, CA 05/02/2011 Listen
     http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_subpage.php?pk_id=0000007341
183. 

     borderraven Says:
     May 2, 2011 at 10:10 PM

     Leo,

     Wiley Drake v. Barack Obama 09-56827 PREGERSON, FISHER, BERZON Pasadena, CA 05/02/2011

     9th Circuit Court of Appeals has a YouTube channel

     http://www.youtube.com/user/9thcirc

     The video should appear in 24 hours.
184. 

     borderraven Says:
     May 2, 2011 at 11:56 PM

     Leo,

     I learned in court that a challenger to Obama in the 2012 presidential election has standing to sue him for a challenge to prove eligibility, and get discovery to produce bona fides. It can and should be done during the election, due to complexities of removing a sitting president. And the sooner the better.
185. 

     IceTrey Says:
     May 3, 2011 at 2:22 AM

     ‘”Kim Jong Il wouldn”t have to be in this country at all. He would simply have to impregnate an American citizen woman and send her back here to give birth.”

     According to the Obots the American women wouldn’t even have to come back to give birth for the child to be an nbc. They even think children born in America to two foreign parents are nbc’s, even if they are here illegally.

     “There are more than one type of citizen at birth… nbc, 14th amendment, and citizen by statute. ”

     I have to disagree with you on this one. There are only two types of citizens, natural born and naturalized. Anyone who is a citizen who is not born in the country to two citizen parents is a naturalized citizen. In other words anyone who is receives their citizenship by and Act of Congress, even at birth, is a naturalized citizen. It’s just that those who are naturalized at birth are done so automatically and immediately and don’t have to go through any kind of process or paperwork. Obama was naturalized at birth. End of story.
186. 

     Brian G Says:
     May 3, 2011 at 7:55 AM

     Leo,
     I would take Tea Party Conservatisms’ remakes one step further. Have been looking into his father.

     He came to this country on a student visa as part of a joint Kenya Gov/Private US Foundation grant program. The stated purpose of this venture was to train future Kenya Gov. officials in US schools and return to fill government posts at home (which he eventually did). This in itself proves (and no evidence has been found to the contrary) his father was never a citizen. I contend he was in defacto a goverment official in training. Becoming a US citizen would have nulified his Kenya government possition offer.

     In light of these facts, Obama Sr. would have held the status of carring on official bussiness for the government of Keya (being educated for government possion late held as citizen of Kenya). This falls under the excluionary clause for citizenship and that is why he didn’t want to show it.
     
     ed. This is an excellent point… Obama Sr. is perhaps a type of Minister or Ambassador. Excellent point. – Leo
187. 

     borderraven Says:
     May 3, 2011 at 8:07 AM

     I appreciate the mention by Lisa C. I am honored.

     I’ looking into candidates who announce or hint a entering the 2012 presidential election. George Romney (father to Mitt) was naturalized be for Mitt was born, Mitt Romney is NBC.

     Bobby Jindal is not NBC.
188. 

     Mike Says:
     May 3, 2011 at 8:39 AM

     On the raised seal. There is a shadow of one there. But it is very rough and difficult to see. See here:

     http://i1221.photobucket.com/albums/dd476/bluecat6/LFBC/birth-certificate-long-formfrompdffromWHSealenhanced.jpg

     Also, I have gone through the Obama Senior FOIA information released by the Boston Globe (after they held on to it for 2 years).

     Here is a summary of his ‘Application to Extend Temporary Stay’ forms:
     August 31, 1961: DOB 6/18/1934, Married, Spouse: Stanley Ann Dunham, No Children listed
     September 16, 1962: DOB 6/18/1936, Married, Spouse: not listed, Child: Roy (from Kenyan wife)
     June 6, 1963: DOB 6/18/1936, Marriage status not listed, no wife or children listed. Hand written note that “He is married”.
     4/21/1964: DOB 6/18/1936, Married but separated (a lie since divorce was finalized in March 1964), Child: Barack Obama 2nd USC (US Citizen) 2 yr old.
     The last extension is denied and Obama senior returns to Kenya on 7/6/1964

     Of note: Never acknowledged Obama 2nd until 1964. Changed DOB by 2 years – AFTER August 31, 1961. But LFBC shows age as 25 – matching the date he later started using. In general, he was never consistent with his details in these forms as to his family life. But he was consistent with DOB – it was 6/18/1934 on all forms on or before 8/31/1961. It is listed as 6/18/1936 on all forms starting in 1962.

     Also in the FOIA release is an letter from INS officer. States he talks with Obama Sr. USC (US Citizen) wife in April 1964 – while she is in the Philippines. So now it would appear SAD definitely had a passport prior to 1965 (cut off of FOIA release on her information). And she was using it! But not for travel to Kenya. At least not in 1964.
189. 

     Mike Says:
     May 3, 2011 at 9:55 AM

     To Brian G’s point.

     In 1982 Obama’s 1st cousin and I assume uncle were implicated in a coup plot against then Kenyan President Moi.

     See here:

     http://kumekucha.blogspot.com/2006/07/82-coup-plot-revelations-raila-odingas.html

     Well the cousin is the current PM of Kenya. And Obama campaigned for him while he was a US Senator (in possible violation of US law).

     http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1574963/Im-Barack-Obamas-cousin-says-Raila-Odinga.html

     I do not like to connect loosely coupled dots. However, recently Orly Taitz obtained records that indicated Obama did not attend Columbia until Fall of 1982. He basically now has an unaccounted for year. Was he in Kenya, with the family, helping to try to overthrow Moi. And take his spot with his cousins in the Kenyan government? Far too sketchy, but I have to throw it out there with the recent findings about Columbia. Remember Obama traveled in 1981 to Kenya but it was not published in his book and only slipped out during the campaign. There are reports that the stay was extended and that he traveled other times to Kenya in the early 80s.

     Here is a more about the family connection between Obama and his Kenyan Family:

     http://kerfuffles.blogspot.com/2010/07/obama-odinga-campaign-in-kenya.html

     Here is an article about ‘the lost years’ – from the WSJ:

     http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122108881386721289.html?mod=hps_us_at_glance_opinion

     As a kicker – Obama Senior was killed in a suspicious auto accident in November of 1982. Some said he drank a lot due to a failed political career. Being related to failed coup instigators could cause that!

     All sketchy, admittedly sketchy. But 1981-1983 is time that is still mostly a gap in Obama’s documented history. And it was active time in his ‘home country’ with his own family being in the middle of it.
190. 

     Couriouser Says:
     May 3, 2011 at 12:08 PM

     Attn.: borderraven
     Re: George W. Romney naturalization
     Born: Mexico to American parents
     Returned to U.S.
     Citizenship: Dual
     Proof of naturalization: Do you have a link proving he chose American citizenship over Mexican at 18 years of age?
191. 

     borderraven Says:
     May 3, 2011 at 3:59 PM

     IceTrey,

     It has been said that citizenship carries with it all of the rights and prerogatives of citizenship obtained by birth in this country ‘save that of eligibility to the Presidency.’ Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 22 , 34 S.Ct. 10, 13.

     John Bingham in the Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 1st Session 1866, Who are natural born citizens?
     “All persons born within the Republic, OF PARENTS OWING ALLEGIANCE TO NO OTHER SOVEREIGNTY, ARE NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.”

     US citizens maybe naturalized, native-born, or natural-born.

     An alien can be naturalized, eligible for all government offices except the US president.

     A child native-born in the US to aliens is a native-born US citizen, until we fix the laws, eligible for all government offices except the US president.

     A child native-born in the US to one alien and US Citizen is a native-born US citizen, eligible for all government offices except the US president.

     A child native-born in the US to two US Citizens is a natural-born US citizen, eligible for all government offices including the US president.
192. 

     borderraven Says:
     May 3, 2011 at 8:23 PM

     Couriouser, asked about George W Romney’s naturalization.

     George Wilcken Romney born July 8, 1907.

     http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/74/74.US.496.html
     From Congressional Record:
     “On the 10th of February, 1855, Congress passed an act,1 entitled ”An act to secure the right of citizenship to children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits thereof,’ the second section of which provides, ‘that any woman, who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or who shall be married to a citizen of the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen.” ” (Repealed in 1922)

     Note: The second section applied to Marie Elg’s mother in the SCOTUS opinion of Perkins v Elg (1939)
193. 

     IceTrey Says:
     May 3, 2011 at 9:47 PM

     borderraven

     I really don’t see the point of your post. The phrases native born and foreign born only describe the location of your birth not your citizen status. You shouldn’t use native born citizen because it is confusing. All nbc’s are native born but you can also be native born naturalized. That is what anyone born in the US with at least one non citizen parent is.
194. 

     Pro Graphics Says:
     May 4, 2011 at 2:02 AM

     I have over 25 years of graphic/photographic effect/analysis. For different reasons, I, too, say it’s a fake.

     The “Birther Report” was nice enough to publish my own graphic analysis here

     http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/05/comparative-analysis-by-pro-graphics.html

     and I come to the same conclusion of fraud but for different reasons. I do not debate the repeated lettering which shows tampering, I agree with it. However, adhering to “Occum’s razor” (keep scientific models simple) the most basic evidence is being missed: the long form Obama submitted is not a copy of an old document. It is a copy of a new document. My impression was that we were not supposed to take Obama or Hawaii’s word for it, and would be given a copy of a legit 50-year-old long form. The document copied is not 50-years-old. Period. Any expert from any number of professional fields will attest to it.

     It lacks all signs whatsoever of aging to a degree that the fake is a very amateur forgery. It’s so amateur you can prove it yourself: copy your own “middle-aged” long form birth certificate in every way you can think of: photocopy, scanner, what-have-you. Yours will show signs of age and if you lighten it to the point it does not, it will not be gray-scale sensitive enough to show pencil marks the way Obama’s does (which I suspect were copied handwritten notations imitating the Nordyke BC to create a circumstantial touch to give a sense of legitimacy to the document).

     While I agree somewhat with Miss Tickly, my own view is that people are missing the big picture. This document is pathetically not old. Check my analysis, copy your own birth certificate and see for yourselves. There is nothing magic about Hawaii’s “official” original or document copy methods. Sometimes the simple answer is the right one:

     What Obama presented is simply not a copy of a document that could have been made in 1961 because it is 100% without any manifestations of aging. It is a fresh copy of a very recently created document. Absolutely. There is no doubt.
     
     ed. Excellent points. Thank you for contributing. – Leo
195. 

     Brian G Says:
     May 4, 2011 at 10:38 AM

     To Brian Dodge:
     —————–
     The “Constitution” origanally granted states the right to determine state citizenship. Ex…as late as 1862 Illinois did not recognize negro’s or mulato’s as persons.

     In 1862 the citizens of Illinois amended their State Constitution to say that “No Negro or mulatto shall immigrate or settle in this state” (JRK p. 55).
     ****Note…this is here for refference and not an endorsement for the book*********
     The South Was Right! by James Ronald Kennedy and Walter Donald Kennedy, 1998 (A fascinating and well footnoted look into little known facts critical in understanding the War for Southern Independence.)
     Obtained from:
     http://csapartisan.tripod.com/essays/causes/causes.htm
     —————–
     This in part was the reasoning behind the 14th Amendment’ to prevent states from dictating national citizenship policy. States still hold state citizenship power to set marrage, divorce, voter elligability, etc…..
     They are called residence laws today.
     ————————————————————————–
     Leo,

     I’ll give everyone here the “Biggest” reason the politcal left and mainstream media want to push the birth certificate debate and not the debate to be about his fathers citizenship status (which has a lot more case law to draw from).

     Q..If he is not eligible for the office of president, how does this affect the legality of any laws, proclomations, regulations, appointments, treaties ect… that he has signed.
196. 

     naturalborncitizen Says:
     May 6, 2011 at 2:15 PM

     Miss Tickly is shutting her blog down. So I removed my last post about her out of respect for her decision. I don’t know anymore about it other than what she has posted.
197. 

     Bones Says:
     May 6, 2011 at 3:18 PM

     Birtherreport.com still has a copy of her article online. I hope it remains online somewhere.
198. 

     constitutionallyspeaking Says:
     May 6, 2011 at 5:12 PM

     Leo, more historical reference for the natural born definition arsenal:

     Manual of the Constitution of the United States of America By Timothy Farrar (1867)
     CHAPTER X.

     SECURITY OF LIBERTY.

     § 104. The sixth and last of the avowed purposes of the people in the establishment of their government, and for the accomplishment of which they of course intend their government shall be responsible, is “ to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” Here the last and most valued of the natural and constitutional rights of the people is placed, expressly for security and safety, directly under the care and guardianship of the government of the United States. The provision is afterwards supported and assisted by an auxiliary Article, recognizing the common-law right to personal freedom, and perpetuating the common-law remedy, by habeas corpus, against its infringement ; and by another, making a direct and absolute prohibition of any deprivation of it, otherwise than by due process of law. That, in the ‘middle of the third generation after the adoption of such a Constitution by the American people , there should have existed in their midst four millions of people, partly of their own posterity, mostly natural-born citizens of the United States, and universally resident inhabitants of the land, subject to its government and entitled to its protection

     http://books.google.com/books?printsec=frontcover&dq=Manual%20of%20the%20Constitution%20of%20the%20United%20States%20of%20America&ei=_9aDTY3xJcnVgQe80-HCCA&ct=result&id=63FDAAAAIAAJ&output=text&pg=PA133

     So there we have it. Natural born are those born (their Posterity) to American citizens AFTER the adoption of the US Constitution. Children born to foreigners need not apply for the presidency.
199. 

     Lisa C. Says:
     May 6, 2011 at 5:13 PM

     Miss Tickly has become very active, then abruptlyquit, several blogs so this isn’t a surprise.

     For those wanting to understand the “fake” issues with respect to the most-recently-released BHO birth certificate, the 4 YouTube videos by orangegold1 are very good. He’s been following the debunkers of the debunkers and addressing the issues as they come up, including showing that the OCR software wouldn’t have created the data-rich layers that Adobe software shows are in the BC that was on the White House website. We don’t who created that BC though and can’t rule out hackers playing with just to show they can.
200. 

     Seizethecarp Says:
     May 6, 2011 at 6:47 PM

     Here is an interesting Youtube analysis claiming that if you overlay the “gold standard” Nordyke BC and the new Obama LFBC, the fonts on the forms and the typed characters do not match:

     Uploaded by Bigone5555J on May 3, 2011

     “Proof Obama’s Long Form Is a Fraud. By comparing the actual terms from a genuine 1961 Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth, anyone can clearly see that Obama’s document is a fraud”

     A personal acquaintance of mine, who is a partner at a DC law firm from which a key Obama team lawyer came, has told me that based on his legal experience proving up old documents this discrepancy was caused by distortions common to the “photostat” copier used for the 1961 Nordyke BC compared to the Xerox copier used in 2011.

     To my retired CPA/CFE eye, I can see that some limited distortion could be explained that way, but not the extensive differences.

     Not noted on the video, but evident to me is that the “A” in CERTIFICATE leans differently in the two specimens. They should be the same unless two different blank forms were used one day apart in 1961.

     This document overlay approach taken on the video could be just the beginning of what could be identified with more extensive analysis.
201. 

     Rodney Rawlings Says:
     May 6, 2011 at 6:56 PM

     I think Pro Graphics may be missing the meaning of the green background paper.

     My thinking is that, these days, whenever a document facsimile is requested, they scan it in black and white (without bothering to remove it from its binder), then transfer the black part of the image to the green-patterned paper, either by printing it on or by combining the black/white image and the green background electronically and then printing it out.

     This gives them something to stamp and sign as a valid copy, with today’s date.

     The stamp and signature is frankly and openly modern, and so is the green paper. Only the extracted image is meant to be the exact copy of the old document. And perhaps blemishes were cleaned up before the transfer of the image to the modern paper and stamped certification.

     This is not to gainsay the validity of the rest of analysis. I just think Pro Graphics is off track on the green paper.
202. 

     Lori Says:
     May 6, 2011 at 8:55 PM

     Our best to Miss Tickly, I hope everything is ok. She has been a tenacious investigator and an awesome contributor to the movement. When all is said and done, and the movie rights are sold, I hope her role is cast to the best of the best actresses.
203. 

     Stephen Says:
     May 6, 2011 at 9:01 PM

     I am a professional graphic artist with over 20 years of experience. I have been examining the long form birth certificate. Here is something I have found. I added some straight lines to show how the thatch background design does not conform to the curve of the paper. The black printed area has been superimposed over the security background. The black lines and text curve but the background does not. http://www.trippervision.com/Thatch.jpg