Barack Hussein Obama—A Natural Born Subject of Great Britain


Imagine a foreign exchange student, a Marxist and Muslim, and married, intent on transforming his home country into a Marxist-Muslim paradise, coming to America and committing statutory rape on a co-ed, marrying her as a bigamist only to escape prosecution and loss of his foreign student visa . . . and then abandoning her and his baby.

The father leaves America, and in a few years so does the mother . . . physically renouncing her U.S. citizenship through marriage, and living the remainder of her life in a hotbed of Muslim terrorism, Lahore, Pakistan.

She abandons the baby at age ten, who by the slightest of statutory provisions has U.S. nationality at birth, and regains his U.S. citizen status at age 19.

That child attracts Muslim and Marxist support and by the greatest of flukes based on his activism, Ivy League credentials, and melodious speaking voice, becomes President of the United States.

He then proceeds to deconstruct the American Republic with a focus of intent that can only be interpreted as a subconscious justification and confirmation of his dead, alcoholic father’s miserable failed attempts at Marxism.

Update: April 28, 2011 

The birth certificate was certified on April 25 and released to the public, thanks to the adverse publicity of Donald Trump and the meteoric rise in pre-sales of Jerome Corsi’s ‘Where’s the Birth Certificate?’ on Amazon. This memo was written February, 2009. published this August of 2009 — “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children:

British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.

In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC . . .
Corrected (Sep. 3, 2009): Our original article incorrectly stated that then-Sen. Obama lost his Kenyan citizenship on Aug. 4, 1982. The correct date is Aug. 4, 1984. The Kenyan Constitution required Obama to choose whether to keep either his U.S. or Kenyan citizenship upon his 21st birthday, which was in 1982. But we initially missed that the Constitution provided him a two-year window for making that choice. So Obama did not lose his Kenyan citizenship until his 23rd birthday in 1984. We have updated the item to reflect this.

So . . . I was ahead of Factcheck’s admission of Obama’s British citizenship at birth, but I go into more detail and offer more law.

Update: November 18, 2009

I wrote to Orly after she asked for help on the Barnett motion to reconsider. I pointed out that Carter/Velamoor mis-applied Ashwander to prove lack of jurisdiction when it actually proved jurisdiction was mandatory. (Sometimes an opponent’s cognitive disorder tosses a gift in your lap.) Ashwander held that when a case could be decided on statute or general law, the constitutional issue was secondary. However, there is no statute defining ‘natural born citizen,’ and case law only mentions ‘natural born citizen’ non-specifically in regards to naturalization law, not Article II of the constitution. Article II of the Constitution is the only U.S. law that relies on natural born citizenship. Therefore, for congress to define ‘natural born citizen,’ or a court to rely on case law to adduce its meaning, without direct regard to Article II is potentially an unconstitutional revision of Article II. I finished with including Mario Apuzzo’s brilliant cite from U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Marshall, “With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution.” Cohens v. Virginia 19 US 264 (1821)

Update: October 26, 2009    A good question to ask a ‘birther’ detractor is, ‘Who was the first Natural Born Citizen President?’ After all, Article II specifies two types of eligibile citizens, (a) natural born citizen, and (b) citizen of the United States, at the time of Adoption . . . The answer is John Tyler, our 10th president. He was born in 1790, approximately six months after the 1789 adoption of our Constitution. Note: I have been corrected, and agree with the cited law, that U.S. citizenship began in 1776 upon the Declaration of Independence. I think the ‘at the time of adoption’ clause suggests 1789, but twelve years is maybe splitting hairs on this issue.  

All previous presidents, except Hamilton, were native born Americans, to British subject fathers. Obama is not only a son of a British subject, but may not even be native born. He is in willful violation of Article II’s eligibility requirements, and must be impeached.

Update: October 15, 2009     My goal has been to distill the Natural Born Citizen issue to the simplest of terms. The following 5000+ words belie that intent, but it was the best I could do.

Native Born is by statute. A nation defines who gains citizenship if born in its boundaries or territories (Note: I used the term boundaries and not jurisdiction). Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. is a statutory citizen due to 8 U.S.C. 1409 if born in Kenya, and a statutory ‘native’ citizen through 8 U.S.C. 1401 if born in Hawaii.

Because of the elimination of derivitave citizenship of wives in the 1920’s, conferring of nationality through the mother is statutory. I realize this will truly raise the hackles of any devout feminist, but that is the legislative history.

Update: October 9, 2009      This simple question is followed by the text of Article II of the U.S. Constitution. Call it an open book exam . . . please comment with your answers.

Is the son of a British subject born on U.S. soil eligible under the Article II natural born eligibility clause to be President of the United States?

“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.” U.S. Const. Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl 5

Update: July 30, 2009      Recent publishing of the Certificate of Live Birth of twins born the day after Barack Obama show Obama’s COLB number indicating a later birth, a higher number. This only supports, circumstantially, my conclusion that Obama’s COLB was from a 338-5 compulsory registration. Obama’s birthdate was earlier, but not produced by a licensed birthing facility. The mother, Stanley Ann Dunham visited the local agent for the health department at a later date to register the birth without a birth certificate. Update to the Update: April 28, 2011  The April 24 2011 certified copy of Obama’s ‘long form’ birth certificate does not impinge on the content of this blog. I always stipulated the COLB was genuine, until proven otherwise. Instead, I always considered a ‘A’ or ‘B’ scenario. Dr. Corsi is questioning the Aug 4 certificate being four numbers higher than the Nordyke twins on born on Aug 5, but Obama is listed born after 7 PM. His certificate may have been stamped out of order the next business day . . . not a big deal for purposes of this legal memo.

Secondly, the jurisprudence of challenging ‘prima facie’ evidence is the key reason for demanding Obama’s original 1961 birth registration information. The Hawaii department of vital records either has a birth certificate from a licensed birthing facility, or merely a compulsory record of data from undocumented and unconfirmed sources. (See H.R.S. § 338-5)

In this memo, more weight, has been given to the definition of the term of art ‘Natural Born Citizen.’ If, indeed, Obama does have a Hawaii birth certificate on record (why he has kept it sealed, I can’t imagine), the Natural Born Citizen issue is still a moot point . . . a child of a foreign alien, foreign born or native born, can not be a Natural Born Citizen.

Even the most liberal interpretation of 8 U.S.C. 1401 or the 14th Amendment does not define a child of an alien, non-resident father to a U.S. citizen mother to be a ‘natural born citizen.’ One jurisdiction by nature, not naturalization law (de-alienage of foreign nationality), is the defining distinction of a ‘natural’ born citizen. Again, see Footnote #19.


The Barack Obama Natural-Born Question

History Repeats Itself


In 1880, a vice presidential candidate was challenged to prove he was a citizen. He promptly produced his Vermont birth certificate and the real issue was avoided. If the challenger had asked the right question, which was “When was your father naturalized?” the appointee would not have become president. You see, his father was a British subject and Chester Arthur was born 14 years prior to his father’s naturalization[1]. Chester Arthur was born a British subject.[2]


Barack Obama was asked if he was eligible to become president under the Article II ‘natural born’ eligibility clause. Obama masked the truth by posting a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth (C.O.L.B.). His supporters declared him a natural born citizen under the 14th Amendment[3] and the issue was pushed back into the realm of conspiracy theories.


Upon further investigation, the mask of the C.O.L.B. started to be more and more revealing of the original 1961 certificate, made much of by Hawaii’s Governor Lingle and the state’s Department of Health official, Dr. Fukino[4], as more probably a Dept. of Health document and not a hospital long form.


If Obama was trying to promote his Hawaiian native born status, he would have willingly posted a hospital certificate as solid, best evidence. A C.O.L.B. is labeled as only prima facie evidence;[5] the validity of its information open to inspection by a proper Hawaiian court venue.[6]


If the C.O.L.B. referenced document was not a hospital birth certificate, what was it? Under Hawaiian statute, specifically §338-5,[7] it is compulsory for the Dept. of Health to register a newborn child of a Hawaiian resident, even if no documentation of place and time of birth is presented. Only the word of one parent is required by law.


If the hidden 1961 certificate is a §338-5 form, face down like a card in a poker game, the $800,000 Barack Obama ponied up to prevent its public release means Obama is not just bluffing, but covering up perjury and other violations of election law.

In the end, a §338-5 compulsory registration will be more probative of the direct testimony evidence of Obama’s Kenyan birth,[8] than of his claimed Hawaiian birth.


What Can Be Done Now?

An issue that can be addressed now is a congressional investigation of Barack Obama’s Article II ‘natural born’ eligibility. Brought up in congress, it just might stop the Democrat spending juggernaut. If blocked by Democrats, the Republicans can go forward independently as an ad hoc caucus.


If this question is addressed in caucus or conference, an injunction may be obtained in court, or through the court of public opinion. If not stopped completely, at least this headlong rush to insolvency and socialism can be hobbled.


With a couple cases still being petitioned before the U.S. Supreme court, I have suggested that the justices may ignore the merits of the eligibility case, but request amicus briefs on the ‘natural born citizen’ term of art as used in the Constitution’s Article II eligibility clause. An authoritative opinion, once published, would give Congress, the media, and the electorate the tools needed to force Barack Hussen Obama to comply with the law.

Common Law and Natural Born

Historical references and definitions of ‘natural born’ from Vattel, Blackstone, John Jay, Senator Bingham, and the Common Law support the singular, natural allegiance of a natural born citizen.


Nationality has historically devolved from the father. Children of an alien father born in English lands were considered only a ‘denizen’ of that land, not a natural born British subject. Allegiance of the father was to his sovereign or sovereign entity, and it devolved to both the child and the wife. Conversely, British law determined that a child born abroad of a natural-born English father and an alien mother was a natural born subject, but of the father’s home country.[10]

Emerich de Vattel was a consummate writer on the law. Following are two sections from the Law of Nations, Ch. XIX., OF OUR NATIVE COUNTRY, AND SEVERAL THINGS THAT RELATE TO IT.


§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.


§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.

It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? . . . By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him.[11]


Under the old law, whose roots go back to Gothic times, Obama was a natural born British subject. Under modern law, Obama was born primarily under the jurisdiction of his father’s Colonial Kenya, with a dual nationality from his mother’s U.S. citizenship.[12]


Precedent of Using Natural Born instead of Native Born

A common error is to look at ‘Citizens at Birth’ and see ‘Natural Born.’ A child at birth may have U.S. nationality, but not be a natural born U.S. citizen.


A natural born citizen is one who is a citizen at birth, but requiring no naturalization law to make them a citizen and/or remove foreign or dual nationalities.[13] Over 90% of Americans fall into this category. The rest rely on naturalization law due to dual nationality. This is also the legal mechanism making John McCain a natural born citizen. As a child of active duty U.S. military personnel, Panama denied jus solis nationality. Thus no naturalization law was required to dealienage foreign nationality.


Congressmen, legal advice websites and even expert analysts fail to discriminate between ‘native’ born U.S. citizens and ‘natural’ born.[14]  Some cite 8 U.S.C. 1401’s Nationals and Citizens at Birth as defining who is ‘natural’ born, but that law only refers to ‘citizens’ or ‘nationals.’[15]


Citizen in the Constitution

The Constitution itself makes a distinction between the ‘citizen’ requirement of a congressman and the ‘natural born citizen’ eligibility of president. (U.S. Const. Art. II, Sec. 1)


It begs the question, who is not a natural born citizen? Only those immigrants who come to this country and are naturalized? Would, then, a 14th Amendment ‘border baby’ be considered ‘natural’ born?[18]

“§ 1473. [T]he president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties.* It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land . . . A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities. But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source. . . .”

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution (1833)

Supreme Court of the United States.

McCREERY’S v. SOMERVILLE. 22 U.S. 354 (1824)

“Ralph M‘Creery, a native of Ireland, . . . who has not been naturalized, and three nieces, . . . who are the daughters of the said Ralph, and native born citizens of the United States.”

Rawles, ‘A View of the Constitution of the United States’ 84–101 1829 (2d ed.): “Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens . . . at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.”

Rawles ‘relative quality’ conflating native and natural born applied only to those ‘at the time of adoption of the constitution.’ In this last paragraph, he elucidates further and makes final the distinction.

* Obama was dealienaged by naturalization law; thus naturalized by statute.


What is the role of naturalization law? Why doesn’t naturalization law define ‘natural born?’ What about all of the dual nationality conditions that come under naturalization statutes?


Simply put, to say natural born requires a statutory definition is a contradiction, a paradox, and oxymoronic. Being free of statutory rules is what makes it ‘natural’ in the first place.


In fact, over 90% of Americans are ‘natural’ born under U.S. jurisdiction with two U.S. citizen parents. Are children born with dual nationality ‘natural’ born as well? No. Statute is required to dealienage the foreign nationality. Is it fair, or lawful, that a child with two possible citizenships has the same right to the presidency as a child born with only one possible citizenship/allegiance?

The answer is, ‘No.’ While not unlawful, dual nationality has benefits of rights of domicile and ownership in the other nation . . . but the State Department acknowledges that jurisdictional problems under the law may also arise, e.g., taxes, military service, and extradition.


In fact, the House Judiciary committee has discussed whether a 14th Amendment ‘border baby’ is under sufficient U.S. jurisdiction to be conferred citizenship at all.[19]  [THIS IS AN IMPORTANT READ . . . IT SUGGESTS ALLEGIANCE ISSUES IN CASES OF DUAL NATIONALITY, AND HOW DUAL NATIONALITY CONFLICTS WITH A FORMAL OATH OF ALLEGIANCE, IN WHICH THE NEW CITIZEN RENOUNCES HIS FORMER NATIONALITY]

The chief author of the 14th Amendment, Sen. John A. Bingham, wrote, “[E]very human being born within the jurisdiction of the
United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866), Cf. U.S. Const. XIVth Amend.[20]


Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (39th Congress), James F. Wilson of Iowa: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except … children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.” (1866)


Secretary of State William H. Seward, said: “But the idea of a double allegiance and citizenship united in the same person, and having reference to two separate, independent, and sovereign nations or governments, is simply an impossibility.”


John Jay was concerned of foreign principalities undermining the sovereignty of the United States with intrigues of those with dual allegiances.[21]


“Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen…”

Letter to G. Washington, The Papers of John Jay, Library of Congress, 1787


‘Natural born’ being a child of citizens born overseas is attributed to the Naturalization Act of 1790 allowing for long sea transit and the natural devolvement of nationality from the father to the child. It also is conferred to offspring of ambassadors and active military in Foreign Service. This is more the effect of denial of foreign nationality to those on official. The allegiance of the father is the sole source of nationality. No statutory dealienage is required. Cf. Naturalization Act of 1795 which repeals the conference of ‘natural born’ status.


Historically and legally, soil nationality (jus solis) only supercedes that of the father’s lineage (jus sanguinis) when the father is not a U.S. resident, or the family resides in the foreign country for an extended period of time. Obama’s dual nationality is first from the father, and his U.S. mother provides U.S. birthright nationality after being permanently abandoned by the father, and then marrying another foreigner.[22]

Naturalization law, per se, naturalizes a child born of dual nationalities or adults of foreign nationality. If born with U.S. nationality in any way other than of two U.S. citizens, naturalization statute must be followed to dealienage the foreign nationality. In addition, the birthright U.S. nationality and citizenship can be lost.

For example, if Obama had stayed in Indonesia or Kenya and not returned to the United States, he would have lost his birthright U.S. nationality upon reaching the age of 23. Rogers vs. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)[23]


The drastic measures Barack Obama has taken to keep hidden the 1961 Hawaiian Dept. of Health birth registration suggests that Obama was born in Kenya, where the original hospital certificate resides to this day. The newspaper notice of birth is inconclusive, as it may have been an automatically generated notice by the Department of Health.[24]


She said someone posted the address on the Internet. That July posting contained a photocopy of what is most likely the first mention of Barack Obama ever published — a tiny, one-line birth notice in the Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961, edition of The Honolulu Advertiser:

“Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Highway, son, Aug. 4.”

The exact same notice appeared the following day in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin. The numerous birth announcements above and below the Obama listing also were identical in both papers, which were unaffiliated, competing publications.

Advertiser columnist and former Star-Bulletin managing editor Dave Shapiro was not at either paper in 1961, but he remembers how the birth notices process worked years later when both papers were jointly operated by the Hawaii Newspaper Agency — which no longer exists.

“Those were listings that came over from the state Department of Health,” he said. “They would send the same thing to both papers.”


 August 8, 2009 — Two WND articles examine the published address. One claims Dunham lived in Washington State less than two weeks after the Obama, Jr. birthdate, substantiated by her class registration. Another questions either Dunham or Obama living together, Obama, Sr. maintaining an apartment within walking distance of campus. 

The above block text explanation is more on point and probative. The Dept. of Health has legal reasons to distribute birth notices for publication, and it is probably the address that was used perjurously on the 338-5 by Dunham.


If born in Hawaii, British jurisdiction through the father lasted only one year because Obama, Sr. failed to register his foreign born child with the British secretary of state.[25] Registration recorded the intent of the father to support the child. As we know, Obama, Sr. abandoned mother and child to accept a Harvard scholarship. [Inserted 1/15/2011: The British Act in footnote 25 describes a ‘citizen by descent.’ However, reading English law, Obama, Sr. was a ‘citizen otherwise than by descent,’ and therefore registration of the child as specified was not a factor. Obama was, indeed, a British citizen at birth, automatically. See] 

The 14th Amendment only conferred native born status. Obama was born with dual nationality. This voids sole allegiance at birth required for natural born status.


If born with dual nationalities, naturalization law must be applied to ‘de-alienage’ one citizenship in order to establish which legal jurisdiction takes precedent.


As discussed above, until the original 1961 birth registration proves to be a witnessed Hawaii hospital birth certificate, the affidavit direct testimony of his Kenyan birth is more probative.


Born in Kenya, Obama was a British subject up to age six, when naturalized by the mother as Indonesian.[26] Obama was returned to Hawaii at age 10 to live with his grandparents. At age 14, Obama began fulfilling the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act’s (INA) 301(a)(7) and 301(b)’s five-year continuous residency requirement to become a U.S. citizen, a birthright he obtained because his mother married a bigamist and Obama was born out of wedlock. See 8 U.S.C. 1409(c) and



Obama was born with inchoate U.S. nationality through his mother, but only because the Obama-Dunham marriage was void ab initio per bigamy.[27] He only became a full-fledged U.S. citizen at age 19. At best, if the hidden Hawaiian certificate is probative of U.S. birth, Obama is only native born.


Berg vs. Obama et al 08-cv-04083 claimed Stanley Ann Dunham failed to meet the statutory five-year residency U.S. requirements post 14 years of age.[28] Therefore, if born in Kenya, Obama not only was a British subject but had no U.S. nationality at birth. Thus, Berg claims, Obama is an illegal alien.

I challenged Mr. Berg with the out-of-wedlock provision of 8 U.S.C. 1409(c) (1952 INA 309(c)) that reduces the five-year requirement to only one-year. Berg responded, insisting he was correct because the Obama-Kezia Kenyan marriage was a “village marriage” and not recognized by the United States.[29] This is in conflict with Hague Conventions concerning recognition of foreign marriages. Any foreign marriage, solemnized and recognized by the foreign country is recognized by the United States who signed on to that convention.

Challenge of the Hawaiian C.O.L.B. follows rules of prima facie evidence. Not only is Obama’s refusal to produce the witnessed 1961 birth certificate circumstantial evidence it doesn’t exist, but Phil Berg includes as exhibits a tape recording and two affidavits from Africa describing the event of Obama’s Mobassa birth. 

Because of a foreign national father, Obama is not a natural born citizen.




All rights reserved.

© 2009 Leonard A. Daneman 




[2] An Act for naturalizing Foreign Protestants, 7 Anne, ch. 5, § 3 (1709)

[3] The chief author of the 14th Amendment, Sen. John A. Bingham, wrote, “[E]very human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866)




[7]Hawaiian Rev. Stat. §338-5  Compulsory registration of births.  Within the time prescribed by the department of health, a certificate of every birth shall be substantiallycompleted and filed with the local agent of the department in the district in which the birth occurred, by the administrator or designated representative of the birthing facility, or physician, or midwife, or other legally authorized person in attendance at the birth; or if not so attended, by one of the parents.




[10] See ‘The Natural-Born Citizenship Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty’ Jill A. Pryor, 97 Yale L.J. 881(1988)  See also, Clive Parry’s ‘British Nationality Law and the History  Naturalisation,’


M.A., LL.B.

Fellow and Tutor of Dowling College and Lecturer in the University of Cambridge







[12] British Nationality Act, 1948, 1948 (11 & 12 Geo. 6.)

[13] The duality also creates problems for the governments involved. MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN recognized this when, concurring in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 187 (1963), a case concerning native-born citizens, he observed: “We have recognized the entanglements which may stem from dual allegiance . . . .” In a famous case MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS wrote of the problem of dual citizenship. Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717, 723 -736 (1952). He noted that “[o]ne who has a dual nationality will be subject to claims from both nations, claims which at times may be competing or conflicting,” id., at 733; that one with dual nationality cannot turn that status “into a fair-weather citizenship,” id., at 736; and that “[c]ircumstances may compel one who has a dual nationality to do acts which otherwise would not be compatible with the obligations of American citizenship,” ibid. Rogers vs. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)

[14] Thomas Goldstein, CNN Supreme Court Legal Analyst: “The law was always been understood to be that if you are born here you are a natural born citizen and that is particularly the case when you have a U.S. citizen parent like Barack Obama’s mother.”

[15] 1401 (b). (Section 301 of the Act).   “Section 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:   “(1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; . . .

[16] 1952 The Immigration and Nationality Act, 1952, (Section 301 of the Act).
“Section 301.  Any person who is a national and citizen of the United States at birth under paragraph (7) of subsection (a), shall lose his nationality and citizenship unless he shall come to the United States prior to attaining the age of twenty-three years and shall immediately following any such coming be continuously physically present in the United State(s) for at least five years: Provided, That such physical presence follows the attainment of the age of fourteen years and precedes the age of twenty-eight years. See also, 
[31 FR 13537, Oct. 20, 1966, as amended at 61 FR 29652, 29653, June 12, 1996]

[17] Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), held that the U.S. born son of legally residing Chinese nationals was a U.S. citizen at birth.

[18] The attribution of ‘natural born’ to Elg in Perkins vs. Elg noted the father was naturalized prior to the birth. At that time, the mother was automatically naturalized to the nationality of the husband.



[21]Framer Rufus King said allegiance to the United States depended on whether a person is a “member of the body politic.” King says no nation should adopt or naturalize a person of another society without the consent of that person. The reason? Because “he ought not silently to be embarrassed with a double allegiance.”

[22] “Congress has recognized in successive federal statutes since the Nation’s Founding that children born abroad to U.S. citizens are themselves U.S. citizens. 8 U.S.C. § 1401(c); see also Act of May 24, 1934, Pub. L. No. 73-250, § 1,48 Stat. 797, 797. Indeed, the statute that the First Congress enacted on this subject not only established that such children are U.S. citizens, but also expressly referred to them as “natural born citizens.” Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, § 1, 1 Stat. 103, 104.

[23] “Congress has the power to impose the condition subsequent of residence in this country on appellee, who does not come within the Fourteenth Amendment’s definition of citizens as those “born or naturalized in the United States,” and its imposition is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unlawful. Afroyim v. Rusk, supra, and Schneider v. Rusk, supra, distinguished. Pp. 820-836.” Rogers vs. Bellei


[25] British Nationality Act, 1948, 1948 (11 & 12 Geo. 6.) CHAPTER 56. Part II, Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Citizen by Birth or Descent, .—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth: 

Provided that if the father of such a person is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of this section unless—

 (a) that person is born or his father was born in a protectorate, protected state, mandated territory or trust territory or any place in a foreign country where by treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance, or other lawful means, His Majesty then has or had jurisdiction over British subjects; or

 (b) that person’s birth having occurred in a place in a foreign country other than a place such as is mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph, the birth is registered at a United Kingdom consulate within one year of its occurrence, or, with the permission of the Secretary of State, later . . .”

[26] Constitution of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 62 of 1958, Law No. 12 of 2006 dated 1 Aug. 2006, concerning Citizenship of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 9 of 1992 dated 31 Mar. 1992 concerning Immigration Affairs and Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Perdata) (KUHPer) (Burgerlijk Wetboek voor Indonesie) states in pertinent part, “State citizens of Indonesia include: (viii) children who are born outside of legal marriage from foreign State citizen mother who are acknowledged by father who is Indonesian State citizen as his children and that acknowledgment is made prior to children reaching 18 years of age or prior to marriage.” Republic of Indonesia Constitution 1945 (Berg v. Obama, 08-CV- 04083, First Amended Complaint, pg. 33)

[27] Philip Berg, in Berg vs. Obama, claims Stanley Ann Dunham failed to meet the statutory five-year residency requirements posts 14 years of age. Therefore, if born in Kenya, Obama not only was a British subject, but had no U.S. nationality at birth. This is his reasoning for Obama today being an illegal alien. I challenged Mr. Berg with the out-of-wedlock provision of 8 U.S.C. 1409(c), but Berg insisted he was correct because the Obama-Kezia Kenyan marriage was a “village marriage” and not recognized by the United States. This is in conflict with Hague Conventions concerning recognition of foreign marriages. See

[28] 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth:
“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:“ Cf. 1961 Montana v. Kennedy (366 U.S. 308 (1961)). The court ruled that a child born abroad prior to May 24, 1934, to an American citizen mother did not acquire American citizenship at birth, since at that time citizenship at birth was transmitted only by a citizen father. Although subsequent legislation conferred upon American women the power to transmit citizenship to their children born abroad, such legislation was not retroactive and did not bestow citizenship on persons born before the enactment of such legislation.

[28] E-Mail from: Phil Berg, to: Leonard Daneman, sent: 11-11-08 1:45 AM


[29] E-Mail from: Phil Berg, to: Leonard Daneman, sent: 11-11-08 1:45

See also:




Tags: , , , ,

56 Responses to “Barack Hussein Obama—A Natural Born Subject of Great Britain”

  1. Why are some national media finally reporting on Obama’s eligibility? « ~THE “G” BLOGS - Gunny G Online~ Says:

    […] permission of WND) the blog, ‘Barack Hussein Obama-Natural Born British Subject’ at… | Reply to this post RE: Alledgedly Major Media Posted by fatso jack on Mar 01, 2009 […]

  2. Ed (TXEDGY) Guerrero Says:

    Hi LAD, I consider Your legal research effort a boon to novices like me!
    Last time I opened a book in civics was back in 1953! I’m making a serious
    effort for my 15 yr. grandson to absorb what you have entered in this
    legal information clearing-house of Yours. Congratulations!

    • paralegalnm Says:

      The Truth will set us free, and save the Republic.

    • sparta16 Says:

      I’m with you my friend. I appreciate how much work must have gone into this so that a layman like myself can put my hands on hard facts in reference to this issue. Thank you.

  3. liz ross Says:

    thank you for explaining thisproblem. What can we do? How can we be of service in protecting our country? And how can we remove Obama and his lowlife cronies?

    • paralegalnm Says:

      TWO YEARS IS TOO LATE is one of the sections of this article.
      If five Republican Congressmen formed an Ad Hoc Caucus to Review Obama’s Article II eligibility,
      and if voiding his electoral votes (as they should have done January 8th) is the law, rather than
      constitutional rules of succession when removing a president, the Democrat Socialist raping of
      the U.S. Treasury and financial future of America can be STOPPED NOW.

  4. Donald Beach Says:

    I can only say, If BO is allowed to continue on the path he is taken we can kiss America as we know it good bye.

    Before it is over there will be blood in the streets. I am a WW 2 decorated vet & I will be glad to lead. He must be stopped.

    I do not understand how people can be so dumb, not to see a train wreck coming.

    • paralegalnm Says:

      Mr. Beach,

      Thank you for your service. You lead, I’ll follow. My Father and Uncle served, in the Navy and 10th Mountain Div. respectively.
      I appreciate the comments, that this article is helpful. Please have others read it . . . the more the better.

      As for “blood in the streets,” there is precedent that courts have avoided justice in fear of violent retribution. Rodney King and O.J. Simpson come to mind. The ‘Calcutta Quran Petition’ is worth Googling. In the case of Berg vs Obama, it is my opinion that Judge Surrick was not only a coward, but violated Rule 36 and the Code of Judicial Ethics in dismissing that timely case.

  5. paralegalnm Says:

    Read the section on a Republican Congressional Ad Hoc Caucus.

  6. demandthetruth Says:



    Obama is NOT a LEGITIMATE President !!

    He is a USURPER. He has NEVER PROVEN that he is LEGALLY ELIGIBLE to be President.

    EVERYTHING he has to say is INVALID, and EVERYTHING he signs is VOID.




    * We DEMAND that Obama show the American people his LONG FORM Birth Certificate!! (Not a Certification of Live Birth (COLB) – which is the ONLY document he has ever presented – which ANYONE can file in Hawaii – even if born outside the USA!!)
    * We Also DEMAND that he show all the documents he has hidden from America:
    * U.S. Oath of Allegiance
    * U.S. Certificate of Citizenship
    * his education records
    * his Bar Application,
    * his Kenyan Birth Certificate
    * and MANY MORE!! (Go to the web site!)


    GO TO our web site to see the extensive list of hidden documents and Register by email for:


    Register at:

    We NEED YOU in Washington !! REGISTER NOW!!!

    *** Please link this notice to appropriate sites and / or email it to people who demand the TRUTH! ******

  7. marcyaz Says:

    A tiny few will “march in the streets”, go to Washington, etc. But all can use the net and your contacts to spread the truth that BO is NOT eligible. What can you do- send all over the net links to the truth, such as this blog. Put your comments after net articles you read. Refer your friends and neighbors to the articles. Print them and hand them to friends who aren’t on the net. SPEAK and tell your friends and relatives the truth- don’t be afraid of saying what you believe. As millions start to see who BO really is and what he intends for the country, they regret their votes. We are in a war for the traditional USAno less than our troops on the battlefield. Help your contacts to see there is a way to get rid of him NOW.

  8. RaiulBaztepo Says:

    Very Interesting post! Thank you for such interesting resource!
    PS: Sorry for my bad english, I’v just started to learn this language ;)
    See you!
    Your, Raiul Baztepo

  9. magna carta Says:

    I think DC is a bad place for average people to have to go…its a tough one,although I understand the impulse.I wonder if there are alternative ideas for making our point.What about a protest in front of his legal teams office or Occidental?

    • paralegalnm Says:

      Gatherings are more social than proactive.

      I would suggest reading my blog . . . searching the links . . . taking it as far as you can intellectually.

      I can not contact all the congressional representatives because they limit their correspondence to those in their district.

      If you can contact your Republican congressmen and make a simple, clear, succinct statement and insert good links . . . Rep. Bill Posey desperately needs Republican support . . . he is being ignored by cowards.

  10. kittycat Says:

    Hi, and is it Leo?
    I just read your post at WND Forums. I’ve been talking to you off and on all day, well, just about. I’m from TX. Well, there must be a lot of Leos dealing with this. Really, just joking!

    You are welcome to write me at my e-mail address. I’m impressed with you, not only for your understanding of legal stuff (get that?), but you have an understanding of the laws of inheritance as it pertains to the Scriptural understanding, which I find 100% refreshing. The founders had the mind-set of “Scriptures,” and today’s day and time, this has been lost. For the most part, people have forgotten the basics, period.

    Anyway, I’ll write you back later. You can always e-mail me. My e-mail address is here, but possibly you need it? Maybe not. If you do need it to write me, please let me know and I’ll find a way to get it to you.

  11. oldsalt76 Says:

    I have repeatedly called for the publication of the usurper’s facts, on a world level. Our friends, above all should be the first to hear our beliefs and suspicions. All of it needs to be published in newspapers around the world. The people in all countries on Earth need to challenge Obama to show the world that he has the right to occupy the White House. All countries need to know him for what he really is, and the damage that he can potentially do to their own countries.

    [edited for length and content]

  12. oldsalt76 Says:

    I am hopeful that the true intellects everywhere in the world will see the necessity in rejecting this person.HE IS A PRETENDER WHO INTENDS TO RULE THE WORLD UNDER A NARXIST REGIME.If you live in a FREE country you are seriously at risk of being OBAMINATED, which equates to being put under the control of an ANTICHRIST. You need to think hard and long on this. Nobody knows the extent to which he intends to carry his dominance. It could even surpass the behavior of Adolf Hitler. I wonder if you are ready to die for Obama? He will oblige you.

  13. Dallas Says:

    “Born in Kenya, Obama was a British subject up to age six, ”

    If Obam Jr. was born in Kenya Aug. 4, 1961 He would be a CUKC.
    Proof: British Nationality Act 1948 (also sited by

    4. Subject to the provisions of this section, every person born within the United Kingdom and Colonies after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by birth.

    If Jr. was born” before “the commencement of the 1948 Act, then he
    would have been a british subject. Additionally Jr states repeatedly and
    insists in factcheck that he was a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC) at birth.

    His Parents were married before the Kenya Constitution took effect, so he was legitimate.

    His father is a different story!

    • paralegalnm Says:

      My interest in the bigamy of Obama, Sr and that fact’s effect on application of U.S. Immigration and Nationality law was the subject of my first communications with Phil Berg. The marriage to Kezia preceded the Obama-Dunham marriage, and I applied international law out of the Hague to challenge Berg’s assertion that the Obama-Kezia marriage was not recognized by the U.S. Berg claimed it was only a ‘village’ marriage.
      1) Under international law, any marriage recognized and solemnized by a foreign nation was legitimate.
      2) While polygamy was practiced by Kenyan Muslims, I cited case law that denied that as a reason to legitimize Dunham as wife #2.

      As for the creation of a free Kenya republic, that only determined whether a Kenyan colonial wished to be Kenyan, or a British subject. So, from age two to six, Obama, Jr.’s nationality as a British subject was that of his mother, not because of Kenyan independence, but that his father had abandoned the family. If born in Kenya, U.S. law denied Obama, Sr as legal ‘parent’ due to abandonment.
      If born in Hawaii (which evidence fails to prove), Obama, Sr. failed to register the boy with the British Secretary of State as required by the 1948 Act.

      Nevertheless, by 1972 Obama had been naturalized as a minor to Indonesian citizenship by his mother’s marriage to Soetoro. The Indonesian citizenship was renounced and Obama successfully completed five years of continuous U.S. residency from age 14-19, as required by INA 1952 349(a) and became a U.S. citizen.

      So, I don’t understand your application of law . . . perhaps you made a typo . . . but your conclusion of the Obama-Dunham marriage being legitimate because it was prior to Kenyan independence . . . I don’t agree. Obama, Sr. always maintained his relationship, husband/wife, with Kezia.

  14. GALA LIRETTE Says:

    Thank you so much for your time and effort to make your presentation so clear and understandable to those of us who are not legally trained. You’ve presented facts clearly and logically. It is much appreciated. If only we could make this mandatory reading for all those who voted!

    Gala Lirette

  15. Dallas Says:

    What I meant by this statement:

    “His Parents were married before the Kenya Constitution took effect, so he was legitimate.”

    No my statement was not a typo, it was meant to be retracted though!(smile). It was originally made in reference to the BNA 1948 Sect. 23- persons born out of wedlock. But then I realized, even if the marriage is found null and void (and the subsequent 1964 Hawaii divorce wasn’t necessary after all)- a null and void marriage does not illigitimize the children.
    Certainly if Ann’s Attorney would have agreed the marriage was null and void he wouldn’t have ben compelled initiate such proceeding… Right?

    • paralegalnm Says:

      Under bigamy, the Obama-Dunham marriage was void ad initio. So, the divorce proceeding was superfluous. The end result was the same; the marriage nullified.

      The significance of bigamy is the marriage was nullified ‘ad initio.’ No divorce or formal papers were required . . . just a little paperwork. That activated 8 U.S.C. 1409, the out of wedlock provision. This confered U.S. nationality on the Kenya born Obama, which Berg’s application of law assuming the Obama-Dunham marriage was legitimate denied U.S. nationality. I cite and even quote the applicable laws in the article.

  16. kittycat Says:

    Hi, Leo:

    I’ve got a question, well, actually a couple of questions for you right now. A person posted this over at WND, which I was trying to find this earlier over at He had it there back on 3/4. Let me quote:

    “During the Berg lawsuit, BO’s lawyers argued that revealing the info (bc,other citizenships, etc) would “cause a defined and serious injury” to Obama and/or the DNC. The Obama file wrote that BO’s lawyers argued revealing these documents raises a “legitimate privacy concern” and “particularly serious embarrassment will result from turning over the requested documentation.”

    My question is simple on that one, just exactly what do you think about it?

    Next, my question is the question that all of us have asked about conservative radio such as Rush, Hannity and others. What is your opinion as to why they are so quiet on this subject of BO’s birth issue? I’ve wondered this for a long time now, but in my honest opinion, I bet Rush keeps up on this subject, although he doesn’t talk about it.

    • paralegalnm Says:

      1) I have a particularized hatred for lawyers who think they can violate the law (or impress their activist philosophy on the masses, e.g., gay marriage, socialism, death penalty repeals). That hatred increases when they think they are too valuable, or important, to be punished. I believe the ‘privacy’ defense was created by Bill Clinton. When a defendant uses the ‘defined and serious injury’ defense, only a liberal judge raised by Dr. Spock would be influenced.

      2) Rush, Levin, Hannity, Ingraham, . . . haven’t done their due diligence. The term of art ‘natural born’ is only material in the process of a presidential election. Lawyers can be very lazy, as are congressmen. In addition, the backlash from the media and the DNC is emboldened by Obama’s perceived popularity. Look what happened to Rep. Bill Posey. They are all cowards and lazy, putting on airs of wisdom and superiority by having their friends hold them back from the fight while yelling with false bravado, “I’ll get you yet Obama. You just wait till 2010. Then we’ll show you.” Now that is inspiring leadership that drives the conservatives to the polls.

  17. kittycat Says:

    Thanks for your response. All I can say is this: it’s just such a huge mess, which is going to get worse. If Barky gets removed, can it even be possible to straighten out all the damage that he’s done? We need Roto-Rooter to go through there and clean up all that mess, meaning the crooks. I can tell you that a huge list of them need to be removed, some possibly need to go to prison.

  18. kittycat Says:

    Hi, Leo:

    Have you seen anything written by the Dr. Herb Titus? I was just researching him.

    I’m just curious, that’s all.


  19. kittycat Says:


    Your writings may be more important than YOU even realize (don’t get the big head, though!).

    Seriously, they are so good, and you have done so much research that it will take take time to study.


    • paralegalnm Says:

      I put a lot of work into them . . . could write even more if I drove the two miles to the law library. But, you can get too technical . . . I tried to arrange the article to engage the reader on several levels . . . from light reading, to digging around a more difficult chapter . . . to checking out the cited sources for a more detailed look.

      It is written . . . it is God’s will who reads it . . . and if they act on the information.

      You’ve seen how some react with a chauvinistic defense, ignoring the facts and law in order to belittle a ‘lowly paralegal’ and chastize me for attacking respected lawyers, professors, and politicians.

  20. Bob Says:

    I want to thank you for the work you have put into this. I do understand the issues and believe that Obama has taken Office through trickery and deception.

    I have taken the liberty of linking this page to my blog for people to read for themselves what the problems are since you are so succinct.

    I do not believe that with the bills in congress now and the laws that have been passed that we can afford to wait until 20 10 to attempt to take back control of the congress. As you said it may be too little too late.

    Since the courts have been very reluctant to address the situation I am hopeful that the organization of “We The People Foundation” may be more successful in their efforts.

    I urge you to look at their proposals and become involved with the movement if you believe it worthy of your time and knowledge. They may be found at

    Again many thanks for your diligence and time for the sake of our Country and her future.

  21. kittycat Says:

    Hi, Leo,

    Hope you’re doing fine. I have a question for you. Back several months ago, Leo Donofrio had some excellent points about natural-born citizen. First off, let me state that I do not agree with everything that he says, especially nowadays. He says that McCain, who I voted for, was not a natural-born citizen, yet both of McCain’s parents U.S. Citizens and his dad was military. I always thought that this could cover McCain, right? Or is my thinking wrong here? Can you explain to me the run-in that you had with Donofrio, and if you don’t want to, that is fine too? You mentioned something once about “Colon,” if I’m remembering this correctly. I may not be.

    Heck, what can I say, I’m getting old now!

    Thanks for your work,

    • paralegalnm Says:

      Donofrio argued that Colon was not ‘on base’ and therefore McCain was not born on U.S. Territory.

      I argued that didn’t matter . . . Colon was surrounded by U.S. controlled territory and his father was active duty, which was enough to make John McCain a natual born citizen. I think it is 8 USC 1403 that covers Panama-birth situations.

      There are also specific Military regs on how to register foreign active service births of servicemen to foreign mothers. Case law supported that the military personnel had to be ‘active duty.’

  22. PiterKokoniz Says:

    Hello !!!! ;)
    My name is Piter Kokoniz. Just want to tell, that I like your blog very much!
    And want to ask you: what was the reasson for you to start this blog?
    Sorry for my bad english:)
    Thank you:)
    Piter Kokoniz, from Latvia

    • paralegalnm Says:

      Latvia was Soviet controlled . . . do you recommend a fascist state socialist economy for the U.S.A.?

      The truth of Obama’s foreign nationality and radical communist philosophy can only be stopped if his perjurous birth registration and fraudulent election can be prosecuted under U.S. law.

      In my opinion, crooked lawyers must be prosecuted and held up to greater standards of ethics and conforming to the law. Obama was a crooked lawyer associated with criminals, and legislated public money to those criminals. That fact is not in question. What he is allowing to be done to the U.S. economy and sovereignty is even more serious.

  23. Mark Says:

    You claim to be a “trained researcher”, but you write

    1) “Keith Olbermann CNN” ??

    2) “Emmerich de Vattel was a consummate 16th Century writer.” You mean 18th Century, but what is a typo to a “trained reseacher”?

    3) “Nationality has historically devolved from the father”? That was true back in the stone age, when women were just baby machines, but times have changed. Last I checked women can even vote!

    4) The opinion of some Swiss guy from before the USA even existed is irrelevant.

    On the good side, at least you are not spewing the illegal for Americans to travel to Pakistan in 1981 “fact” that money-grubber sites like WND claim.

    Every court case on this has been tossed as frivolous. Why is that?
    A) they are frivolous
    B) there is a CONSPIRACY

    We believe what we want to believe, whether it is true or not does not matter.

    • paralegalnm Says:

      I don’t watch CNN or MSNBC, or ESPN for that matter. So you got me there about Keith ‘I want to shit in Ann Coulter’s heart’ Olbermann.

      Yes, Vattel was born 1714 and I was ‘dyslexic’ reversing ’16th’ instead of ’18th’ century. In addition, there is only one ‘m’ in Emerich.

      As for nationality from the father, I believe I did mention the Cable Act of 1922.

      However, the logic of my assertions and conclusions are not diminished by my ‘typos,’ or your pathetic suggestion that feminism or a philosophy favoring a matriarchal society has any bearing on Nationality Law in the 1700’s to the present.

      The founding fathers valued Vattel’s ‘Law of Nations’ and his influence as a source of authoritative law is not to be ignored.

      As for the courts, if you’ve never litigated a case with a politically tainted judge against you, and for the defendant, you have no idea how unethical the judicial process can be. Both Robertson and Surrick should be removed from the bench. That is my opinion. The list probably can be expanded . . . there have been over a dozen lawsuits that should have allowed Discovery and Berg’s Request for Admissions to settle this matter.

      Finally, thank you for pointing out my mistakes.

      I wrote the majority of this article over the course of one night, . . . . writing, sleeping for an hour . . . up and at it again. A couple readers have contributed as ‘editors’ proof-reading this article. If you’ve ever written professionally, you’d know that the gremlins that cause the original errors have a way of masking the flaws to the writer . . . only a dispassionate reader can see them clearly.

  24. Mark Says:

    “$800,000 Barack Obama ponied up to prevent its public release”

    Can you prove this assertion?

    • paralegalnm Says:

      No. But, the law firms involved have been reported and I was repeating the estimated legal costs from other sources. The matter has been so thoroughly reported that I didn’t take the time to fact check the $800,000 figure. There is no way to do it.

      In conclusion, when Obama’s eligibility was questioned he chose to hire expensive law firms instead of pay the $10 to $15 for a certified copy of his Hawaii birth registration. (You can attack the entirety of my article for not looking up exactly what the fee is.)

      My addendum on Mario Apuzzo’s jurisprudence of challenging ‘prima facie’ evidence is something you should read . . . and thank you for reading my article. That counts for something.

  25. kittycat Says:

    “The matter has been so thoroughly reported that I didn’t take the time to fact check the $800,000 figure. There is no way to do it.”

    I’ve heard this very figure over and over again in many different places. To be 100 percent honest, it’s probably more than that figure now. I wouldn’t doubt it. How can one hire 3 law firms and come out ahead? Not possible.

  26. toulgeli Says:

    emm.. good one )

  27. paralegalnm Says:

    I’ve never used RSS . . . although I taught myself HTML back in the early 90’s, I can’t even seem to get the Word uploaded footnotes to work in this blog. You have to note the footnote number and scroll down manually.

  28. estuacell Says:

    mm.. cognitively.

  29. forexInvestor Says:

    Awesome information you have here. Thanks for sharing.

  30. jtx Says:

    I’ve missed the link to your addendum on Mario Apuzzo’s jurisprudence of challenging ‘prima facie’ evidence. Could you point me to it???

    BTW Colon Republic of Panama was adjacent to or near the US base not surrounded by it (and Colon was never a part of the Canal Zone itself). The Colon Hospital where McCain was born according to his BC was a private hospital in the City of Colon so I’m not so sure he would have clear sailing to be a NBC – but I do think the point is now moot.

    • paralegalnm Says:

      The Apuzzo quote from Kerchner is at . . . scroll a little over halfway down.
      I quote it in my Hollister vs. Obama update at

      My research of Colon indicated it was the oldest city in Panama and, indeed, surrounded by the Panama Zone. The map also indicated this. As for not being sure, I would suggest reading case law on dual nationality. Terrazas, Bellei, and Elg come to mind. There is also the case of an American who participated in Israeli politics and joined the Army.

      After reading case law and the statutes, you will understand that one of the keys to ‘natural born’ status is whether Naturalization Law had to be applied to the child’s nationality at birth, and the mechanics of birthright nationality has on choice of nationalities when the child reaches the age of majority/discretion.

      In McCain’s case, while citizenship is covered by a special set of statutes, 8 U.S.C. 1403 and parallel military codes detailing registration of birth so passports and citizen status can be filed, no Naturalization Law per se had to be applied to ‘dealienage’ any Panamanian nationality. It is international practice not to confer any jus solis rights to children of active military or diplomats. This is a practice that goes back centuries, and makes very good sense.

      With no jus solis Panamanian nationality, from the moment of birth and throughout his life John McCain had only one possible nationality, and was therefore a natural born citizen.

      Compare this to Barack Obama. Even if the C.O.L.B. is verified by a root record of 1961 birth registration with a witnessed Hawaii birth certificate, his birth under British jurisdiction, even though shifted to U.S. jurisdiction due to abandonment by the father, allowed him birthright Kenyan citizenship. He also was naturalized as a minor and had rights to Indonesian citizenship through at least the age of 19 . . . under 1952 INA 301.

      Having multiple nationalities/allegiances is contrary to the founder’s intent requiring a natural born citizen president, a special and unique stipulation designed to avoid any chances of natural foreign allegiances in a commander in chief.

  31. jtx Says:

    Thanx, paralegalnm, for the McCain related info – I will indeed check that out (but I still consider it moot since he’ll not run again with any real chance of election).

    I appreciate also the Apuzzo links; I’ll certainly check that out also – and I think it is far more important to life as we know it (or would like to). Keep up the great work …

  32. jtx Says:

    Just to set the record straight, the city of Colon in Panama is not surrounded by the CZ. In fact it is a coastal city on the Caribbean side and the peninsula it is on is across the Manzanillo Bay from Coco Solo. Both Colon and Panama City were specifically excluded by treaty from being part of the CZ. Colon, of course, is near the Gaitun locks on the Caribbean end of the canal – but it is not surrounded by it.

    Actually, Colon is across the above mentioned bay from Coco Solo, a base where some reports had McCain born (which was not the case). Indeed 8 USC 1403 makes him a “citizen” as you said. As for jus soli, etc. you may or may not be correct but to me it is – as said earlier – moot AFAIC.

    But thanx for the input and I’ll follow that up at leisure (ha). Just wanted to clarify the “surrounded by the CZ” description dince it sticks out into the Caribbean more or less (yes, picky, but that sometimes how misinformation gets started).

    As for BHO, there’s no doubt we agree – and your efforts should be heartily commended by those interested in the truth.

  33. paralegalnm Says:

    1) Naturalization of a minor by the parent marrying a foreigner and making his homeland her domicile is settled law.
    2) U.S. law gave Obama birthright citizenship at birth, whether born in Hawaii or Kenya. I cited law supporting this.
    3) If Obama had not returned to full residency in the U.S., he would have remained an Indonesian citizen.
    4) Under U.S. law that I cited, Obama fulfilled a required 5-year continuous residency starting between ages 14 and 23. This automatically renounced his Indonesian alienage. It is called right of election of birthright citizenship of a U.S. national naturalized to foreign nationality as a minor.
    5) Several countries, including Indonesia, do not recognize dual nationality. Officially, the U.S. only recognizes potential legal problems if one claims dual citizenship.
    6) If Obama did not meet the statute cited, he would have had to formally apply for citizenship with the State Department. This is not a visa and green card because he already had birthright citizenship. The Oath of Allegiance includes a renouncing of the foreign alienage.

  34. jtx Says:


    TYVM for the parentage insight – quite interesting and potentially helpful. I’ve seen the Malcolm X photomorphing and actually I don’t subscribe to either he or FM Davis as the parent but believe that most likely BHO I is the daddy. I do hope that Andy Martin gets the BC even if I doubt his theory but I also don’t think he’ll be successful.

    Just thought the POSSIBILITY was interesting since we won’t know until we see the actual BC.

  35. paralegalnm Says:

    Yes. I’m familiar with 1403.

    Also, I agree with the ‘rule’ that natural law is outside the scope of statute. However, congress has the constitutional power to define legislatively both natural born and naturalized.

    I took the logical route that without Panamanian alienage, there was no statutory ‘de-alienage’ . . . and therefore no statutory naturalization renouncing the foreign allegiance.

    McCain was born of only one possible allegiance.

  36. bob strauss Says:

    Did his trips to Pakistan and Kenya extend his 5 year residency requirement?

  37. competitive intelligence Says:

    great blog

    [url=]competitive intelligence[/url]

  38. RJS Says:

    A wealth of information presented here. Wished I had know about it much sooner.

    Much time and events have taken place since your last post here. With what has transpired since Obama has been in office (including the takeover of the health care system), is there still anything that can be done to force this issue. I realize that even if Obama is found to be a fraud and rightfully removed, tremendous damage has been done…possibly beyond the point of no return?

    Your thoughts?

    • paralegalnm Says:

      I’ve simplified the message now asking people, “After 8 1/2 years of bloody Revolution, would the founding fathers write Article II allowing a Natural Born British Subject eligibility to the presidency?”

      Arguing the point that way, they don’t need convincing. There is no way they can say, ‘Yes.’

      The ‘But, he was native-born and to a U.S. mother,’ argument falls short. First, those citizenships at birth are statutory. Second, while valid, they don’t void or eliminate the fact that the father confered, by natural flow, his Natural Born Subject status to Great Britain. In fact, no law in the world blocks the nationality of the father; but soil (jus solis) and matrilineal citizenships are conditional. Third, if they believe the Obama-Dunham marriage to be valid, in 1789 the wife would automatically become a citizenship of the alien husband . . . no U.S. citizenship for the child. You can not amend constitutional law to fit modern statutes.

      With the Sotomajor appointment to the Supreme Court, the raiding of the Indiana Pension Fund, and support of Unions at the expense of private corporations . . . and now, the despicable bribery forcing an unconstitutional nationalization of Healthcare . . . we’ll see how the states fare in court. But, if any of these lawsuits fail to make the claim that Obama is not an Article II ‘natural born citizen,’ they are not filing a complete complaint.

    • paralegalnm Says:

      The Natural Born Citizen issue may be the answer, but Republicans must take back congress in order to get an impeachment. Otherwise, we depend on the courts.

      Obama is in violation of the constitution. As a lawyer, and those who are lawyers on his staff, they either conspired to ignore the issue or were just negligent. Neither excuse violation of the constitution and both are prosecutable.

      The key to ‘natural born citizen’ is alienage. Birther detractors key in on discussions on jus solis, especially in Wong Kim Ark. But even if Dunham was holding an apple pie and sewing a Stars & Stripes while giving birth to Obama in front of the Liberty Bell inside Independence Hall, he was still a Natural Born British Subject.

      That alienage was not only primary and by natural flow from the father, but required ‘de-alienage’ through naturalization law. Laws allowing for citizenship at birth from the mother create dual nationality that eventually has to be sorted out by statute. Laws for citizenship at birth when born on U.S. soil are at the discretion of the nation itself, but can also create a dual national when the father is an alien.

      Note: Under the 1790 Act, a child born outside the U.S., but to U.S. citizen parents, was considered ‘as’ a natural born citizen. Under traditions going back prior to the formation of the U.S., foreign born children to U.S. citizen parents in foreign service are natural born citizens. The key factor is the foreign nationality was never confered.

      John Jay felt it essential that no foreign alienages put the allegiance and influences upon the Commander in Chief into question. Having a foreign father is a key problem when determining natural allegiance. His writings, and those of Joseph Story and John A. Bingham confirm the risks of foreign alienage in a president. Obama, from birth and through adolescence had two foreign fathers and a mother who de facto renounced her U.S. citizenship.

      Would John Jay accept, under Article II as written, a Natural Born British Subject in the presidency? Hell NO. They just spent 8 years of bloody war getting rid of British government rule and influence. The first nine presidents were Natural Born British Subjects . . . but almost every first U.S. citizen was. The difference is Article II made an exception for those who were naturalized the first U.S. citizens by adoption of the constitution on Sept. 17, 1789.

      This is THE issue . . . Obama has gotten away with ‘nationalizing’ banks, car companies, and wiping out state run pension funds. Now, he is taking over private health insurance companies, which necessarily includes doctors and hospitals and all other healthcare workers, whom he wants to unionize.

      The Republicans must use this issue, because any other attack risks the political questions doctrine.

  39. Who is a Citizen-at-Birth, or a Natural Born Citizen? « Paralegalnm’s Blog Says:

    […] 2) The result of jus solis birthright citizenship in a Republic, where those newborns are instantly equal members of the polity, i.e., citizens, yet of foreign nationality from their parent, has been rampant illegal immigration and destruction of our infrastructure and electorate. It is what Justice Joseph Story recognized as a ‘conflict of laws.’ See also the Alexander Morse quote in the following section. (Cf. Secretary of State Seward’s comment quoted in my first blog….) […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: