Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Is Putative President Barack Obama’s Mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, Really Jo Ann Newman?

              Is Putative President Barack Obama’s Mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, Really Jo Ann Newman?

                                                             By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                                              November 15, 2011

Martha Trowbridge reports that she has uncovered the true identity of Stanley Ann Dunham, putative President Barack Obama’s mother. She writes in her latest article, Stan The Sham, and True Love, posted at her blog, Terrible Truth, on November 15, 2011, at http://terribletruth.wordpress.com/2011/11/15/stan-the-sham-and-true-love/  that Dunham’s real name is Jo Ann Newman.

Why would Obama tell us that his mother’s name is Stanley Ann Dunham when it is really Jo Ann Newman, a white teenage girl from the Bronx, New York, who according to Ms. Trowbridge was Malcolm X’s teenage lover and devotee?

Is Obama telling us a lie about his mother’s true name because he wants to hide his own real identity?

Is he telling us that lie because he wanted to make himself more electable to the average American?

What would knowing that Obama’s mother’s real name is Jo Ann Newman tell us about Obama’s true identity?

And why would Obama want to hide his true identity?

I have already reported at this blog in numerous posts and comments that various experts have concluded that Obama’s long-form birth certificate which he posted on the internet in April 2011, is a forgery.

I have also reported that Obama is using a questionable social security number issued from Connecticut and that evidence shows that he forged his Selective Service Registration application.

I have already reported at this blog that Ms. Trowbridge maintains that most of the pictures of Obama and his mother that the American public has been fed by Obama and his campaign have been photo shopped so as to conceal the real face of Obama’s mother. These pictures were done, among other reasons, to give Stanley Ann Dunham the appearance of having long hair when in fact she had short hair. Other facial features were also digitally changed in these photographs. So now we discover that not only has this person’s hair and face been altered but also her name. Many of Obama’s other publicly-released photographs also reveal signs of tampering and forgery.

Ms. Trowbridge also contends that Obama’s real name is Bâri′ M. Shabazz, born in New York City, on October 28, 1959, who was assigned social security number 084-54-5926, issued in New York, in 1974. See my article entitled, Is Barack Hussein Obama II Really Bâri′ M. Shabazz, Born October 28, 1959 in New York City? , at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/11/is-barack-hussein-obama-ii-really-bari.html.

I also reported at this blog that the Bari Shabazz, who had an auto accident in Honolulu County, Hawaii on March 12, 1982, could be the same Bâri′ M. Shabazz and Barack Obama. See my article entitled, Is Putative President Barack Hussein Obama II Really Bari Shabazz, Fugitive from Justice For 21 Years Following An Auto Accident in Honolulu County, Hawaii on March 12, 1982? , at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/11/is-putative-president-barack-hussein.html.

What we now add to our puzzle is Stanley Ann Dunham’s real identity which Ms. Trowbridge says is Jo Ann Newman.

I also reported that Ms. Trowbridge contends that Malcolm X, also known as Malcolm X Shabazz, is the biological father of Barack Obama whose real name is Bâri′ M. Shabazz.

So, who is Jo Ann Newman? Did she and her family and friends know Malcolm X?

The big question now is how we reconcile the name of Jo Ann Newman with the Stanley Ann Dunham life story that we have been provided. As we know, this alleged fabricated life story consists of, among many life events, a birth in Kansas; youthful years and schooling in Washington; schooling in Hawaii; a hasty marriage to and divorce from Barack Obama Sr.; a marriage to and divorce from Lolo Soetoro; a move to Indonesia; and the birth of Maya Soetoro in Indonesia.

The American public has been informed through numerous publicly-released documents and from Obama himself that Obama’s legal father is Barack Obama Sr. Hence, in the case of Kerchner v. Obama, 669 F.Supp.2d 477 (D.N.J. 2009), which I filed on January 20, 2009, before Obama was sworn into office, we maintained that Obama, does not meet the original and still-prevailing American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen’ which is a child born in the country to citizen parents. I cited and quoted, among many other sources, Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) (“The native, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens;); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 167-68 (1875) (“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners”). We showed that because Obama was born to the marriage of Barack Obama Sr. and Stanley Ann Dunham, and that Barack Obama Sr. was a British citizen at the time of Obama’s birth in 1961, regardless of where that may be, he is not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen” and therefore he is not eligible to be President. We also maintained that Obama has yet to conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii or any other place in the United States and for that reason also he has not shown himself to be a “natural born Citizen.” We also sued Congress for breaching its constitutional duty under the Twentieth Amendment, despite the many petitions to do so, to properly vet Obama under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 before confirming him as President.

The New Jersey Federal District Court concluded that the plaintiffs did not have standing, i.e., that they did not show that they were personally injured in any way that is different from how all Americans would be injured living under an illegitimate and usurper President and Commander in Chief of the Military, and so it dismissed the case. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the plaintiffs did not show that they suffered any personal injury that was different from that of all other Americans, and even issued an order ordering me to show cause why I should not have to pay for the government’s costs in defending Obama in his eligibility law suit. Kerchner v. Obama, 612 F.3d 204 (3rd. Cir. 2010). The Court quickly discharged it order when I responded that in all the cases filed against Obama and others, Obama not once produced as evidence in court a certified copy of his long-form birth certificate. I argued that I was therefore entitled to see Obama’s long-form birth certificate to prove that the government did not mitigate its defense costs by simply producing the document to a court or Congress and thereby proving or disproving that he was a “natural born Citizen.” Our United States Supreme Court, not giving any reason for its decision, refused to hear the appeal and so the Kerchner case came to an end in the courts of the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court denial of the petition for a writ of certiorari is reported at Kerchner v. Obama, 131 S.Ct. 663 (2010). But as we can see from this court activity, the courts did not rule on the merits of whether Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen” or whether he was born in Hawaii.

Regardless of whether Obama’s biological father is Malcolm X (a “citizen of the United States”), Obama’s legal father is Barack Obama Sr. and it will stay that way regardless of what Obama might attempt to do to change that. Obama is therefore not a “natural born Citizen” and not eligible to be President.

But let us stay tuned for more to come from Martha Trowbridge.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
November 15, 2011

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved


Tiza said...

I don't know about all this stuff, Mario. Hope you know a lot more than we do. I don't see the evidence yet.

Really not meaning this to be critical. If you know something that we don't, fine.

A pen said...

Tiza, the whole point is we have a right to know and it's been denied. That leaves one option, to dig for the truth.

As for Bari, if he were seriously injured without a drivers lic. he may have racked up some serious debt. No-fault insurance was not available when the accident happened in HI. To escape that debt one might simply assume a new identity. Doing so would put you at the mercy of anyone with that knowledge as well. All the more reason to know who BHO really is. It also would explain why no one has come forward with a statement corroborating the SADunham/ Obama birth narrative. It also jives with Michele saying "There is no shame in being adopted by a step father". Shame is not intended as the protection of art2, preventing an unknown allegiance from holding power is.

Texoma said...

There is a photo of a young Ann Dunham in a grade school yearbook in a small town in Texas where the Dunhams lived for about a year. There are people in that town that remember the little girl.

Puzo1 said...


Can you at this moment provide any link or source so that we can follow up on your comment?

SaipanAnnie said...

Tiza says:

If you know something that we don't, fine.

I've been following your comments on various sites dedicated to exposing Obama as the out-and-out fraud that he is.

Do you truly believe that your cute remarks, endearing voice, and chit-chat disguise your intent?

Do you really think that you will succeed in drawing out evidence not yet presented?

Your pretense of interacting with "authentic" others who deliberately provide distraction, doubt and false information is pathetic.

Have you ever stopped to consider that without deceit, your cause could not have advanced in America?

The game is coming to a fast close for you guys. Better not blink - you may miss the sky crashing down on your heads.

Doublee said...

Frankly, I am somewhat uncomfortable with all the speculation about who Obama's parents are.

However, I am convinced that no birth certificate released by Obama so far is legitimate, and there has to be a reason for that.

In spite of my uneasiness, the efforts to find the truth must continue even if it makes some of us uneasy.

Puzo1 said...


The investigation that we are embarked upon is more than reasonable given Obama's intransigence in releasing to the American people his birth, work, travel, education, and health documents.

By such refusal, Obama has thwarted the American people's ability to effectively vet whether he satisfies the eligibility requirements of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, i.e. that he is a "natural born Citizen," at least 35 years of age, and a resident of at least 14 years of the United States. All three of these factors are designed to give the American people the ability to learn who a would-be President really is and what he or she has accomplished during that time. Obama has prevented to date the people from learning this fundamental and critical information about him. Therefore, our investigation must and will continue.

Tiza said...


If you're implying that I'm an Obot, nothing could be further from the truth. I'm a conservative, and I love the truth. Also, in order to find the truth, one needs to search for the evidence. So far there is no evidence in this. Doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, just means none has truly been shown.

It may be true, it may not be, but it does needs to be searched out.

So do I think it's possible that BO is a fraud, a usurper? Yes, absolutely. But until I see the evidence on this Bari, Jo Ann stuff, then I'm not going to fall for this.

Good day

Tiza said...

Here's some photos, very interesting. I know it's not the picture of Stanley Ann in school, but I wanted too post these. Notice the comparison in BO's ears.


Tiza said...

I just found a few pictures of Stanley Ann. Look at these, but I think it reads in Oklahoma.


Tiza said...

When you start comparing the Obama pictures at WTPOTUS, it's almost like we have two different Obamas.

It's like there are two totally different individuals is what I'm saying. You have to spend some time in comparing. Go here:

Look under Photos and any place. It's so strange.


This is very interesting and plausible. Time will tell.


This is a very interesting theory, time will tell. It's plausible, all the more reason for full disclosure on Obama's part.
You called it.
1,2,3,4 responses, like bullets overhead ;)

Texoma said...


Below is a link with a photo of Ann Dunham as a 3rd grader in Vernon, TX.


Below is a link to a newspaper article featuring interviews of former classmates of hers in Vernon, TX.


Puzo1 said...


Thanks for sending us this article:

What strikes me is how Stanley Ann Dunham had "connections everywhere." The family sure moved all over the country.

What is also odd is why would the family move just before Stanley even finished her school years.

Then we add to all this how Stanley Ann Dunham was this sophisticated world traveler.

And how can we forget that she was an anthropologist.

The whole scenario sounds like a typical Obot description of himself/herself.

Let's see if this life story is for real or some made up fiction novel.

Texoma said...

Note that the article reports the marriage as taking place in 1960, and not 1961, according to the Obama narrative. This could throw some doubt as to the accuracy of other facts in the article.

If Dunham and Newman are two different people, which appears to be the case to me, could it be that Newman is the biological mother and Dunham the adoptive mother?

SaipanAnnie said...

Texoma says:

If Dunham and Newman are two different people, which appears to be the case to me

Perhaps I slept through the evidence that supports this.

Sounds to me like yet another desperate attempt to 'tweak' the story, so that, when Bari M. Shabazz's birth certificate is exposed to the public, "Obama" can claim that he was adopted.

That's the current plan, isn't it?

If I were "Obama" I'd be lifting a big white flag, and vigorously waving it.

Thinking.the.Unthinkable said...

Now there are reports that Obama's real mother was not Stanley Ann but it was really Obama Sr's wife Kezia back in Kenya. And in another twist, Obama Sr was not the biological father of his wife's baby. Kezia became pregnant and had her baby (whose name is reportedly unknown) while Obama Sr was in the US. "In her desperation to save her marriage, might Kezia have agreed to have the child and place it with her husband’s stepmother, Sarah, for adoption? ... In the context of receiving an honorary doctorate for her work with orphans in Kogelo, Sarah said that 'even the US president passed through my hands.'" Did Stanley Ann, who did not look pregnant in the summer of 1961, adopt Kezia's baby under the WAIF international adoption program? "Dr. Fukino’s statement in July, that there are “vital records”, in the plural, which establish his [Obama's] birth facts. (Hawaii law seals original certificate and regards the new one generated for adopted parents as the real one; replete with a new birth place and date of birth, ostensibly.)" Is that what state officials in Hawaii are really hiding, Obama's adoption records?


vrajavala said...

who is Martha Trowbridge? a PI?

MichaelN said...

Here's a 'Stanley A Dunham, born and died same year of 1970, ripe for ID theft?


Tiza said...

Texoma states:
"If Dunham and Newman are two different people, which appears to be the case to me, could it be that Newman is the biological mother and Dunham the adoptive mother?"

Good point, Texoma.

Puzo1 said...


I went to your link and it says: "Memorial Not Found."

Can you check it again and let me know what you find.

MichaelN said...


Here's the info from the link.

Stanley A Dunham

Birth: 1970
Death: 1970

New Lancaster Cemetery
Miami County
Kansas, USA
Plot: Row L, Lot 12

Created by: Lost History
Record added: Apr 02, 2009
Find A Grave Memorial# 35444660

Here's some info on the person who created the memorial listing for this Stanley A Dunham.


MichaelN said...


Are you saying that you pasted the URL into your browser and you did not get to the page?

There is something wrong with your browser settings or you have a problem with access to web-pages.

You might need to check if you have a trojan or a malicious code in your PC system that has been set-up to block you in some particular instances.

I am in Australia and I get to the page without any difficulties.

(I'm using Norton 360 Premier Edition)

MichaelN said...

The Complete Kentucky Heritage
of Sen. Barack Obama


MichaelN said...

21 Death Records Found for Stanley Dunham in KS

(this is a pay site)


MichaelN said...

Everyname Index
Cemeteries of Miami Co., KS

Dunham, Stanley A. 157-V1


Rob said...

MichaelN, the link worked for me, i saw:
Stanley A Dunham
Birth: 1970
Death: 1970

New Lancaster Cemetery
Miami County
Kansas, USA
Plot: Row L, Lot 12

Created by: Lost History
Record added: Apr 02, 2009
Find A Grave Memorial# 35444660

Cemetery Photo
Added by: Marianne

cpanon said...

Hi All
Lets not get too excited about this. Remember EVERYTHING on the Internet is fungible. Note it was place in the system allegedly on April 2 [a day after Aprils Fools day] in 2009. Also it was placed by some pseudonym of "Lost History" which is too cute. The start==stop is also suspicious.

What really needs to be done is one of us needs to go there and confirm with a picture,record and post that picture(s). Also deliberate transpositions need to be checked, gee like Miner for Minor, etc.

vrajavala said...

The PI who owns this website http://webofdeception.com/obamamother%27sssapplication.html
Points out that there is no @ death certificate" for Stanley Ann's Soc Sec #, I'n fact, still being used by Kelly Dunham I'n NYC.

MichaelN said...

Lame Cherry ^ | 5/30/2100 | Lame Cherry

Posted on Thursday, 2 June 2011 1:23:40 AM by mojitojoe

There has been so much written and conjecture on the forced out into the open Obama passport documents that I have not had much interest in exploring them in the name Soebarkah which appears on the document as one of the listed names of Barack Hussein Obama.

As an exclusive as only found here though, the name Soebarkah is a confirmation of adoption, Obama's Muslim status and a sort of strange Islamic prophecy of the day Barry was adopted by Lolo Soetoro in that it was not in the stars to last.

Soetoro in the name, in the prefix of SOE links the name to Javanese roots and not Indonesian alone. Why this matters is that Indonesian names reflect region, family and often religion. It is quite obvious or should have been by now in no one has noted it, that the name Soebarkah is a combination and not one word. The name is Soe Bar Kah.

Soetoro signifies the adoptive father as Lolo Soetoro. Bar is obvious in Barack, but also links to the Islamic Aramic in bar means SON. So we have confirmation of this is the Son of Soetoro.

The Kah is interesting in Indonesian, KAH translates as WAS. In names, KAH is added as a suffix to form a question of "Who?"

(Excerpt) Read more at lamecherry.blogspot.com ..."


SaipanAnnie said...

I am especially grateful this Thanksgiving that The Ways Of The Deceivers have not only been identified, they've been exposed.

Soon, one by one, they will be rounded up, prosecuted and imprisoned.

God does indeed Bless America with people such as Attorney Apuzzo, who stand up for integrity, and remain staunch in the face of attack and ridicule.

Happy Thanksgiving, Mr. Apuzzo!

chagavin said...

I guess nothing should surprise us, but Obama does look like Stanley Dunham, putative grandfather; ergo, he looks like "Stanley Ann." The eyebrows, eyes, general outline of the face, looks like the Dunhams. He doesn't look like the African, B.O. Sr. though. Don't see that at all.

chagavin said...

Maybe. Anything is possible, but, well, thing is--Obama does look a lot like his putative grandad, Stanley Dunham; ergo, he looks like Stanley Ann. Eyebrows, eyes, general outline of the face, the ears. So you're going to have to explain how they managed that. There is a limit to photoshop.
Personally I wonder if this is not some ridiculous red herring.
I know there are secrets surrounding this fraudulent person who they call the POTUS.
I read the Trowbridge material on that woman, Jo Ann Newman. Her devotion to someone so basically anti-white was pretty sickening. I got an idea of what blacks feel about the term "Uncle Tom." ewww.
But until there's more evidence, I think this is one dark alley they're heading up.

SaipanAnnie said...

chagavin says:

Anything is possible, but, well, thing is--Obama does look a lot like his putative grandad, Stanley Dunham ... until there's more evidence, I think this is one dark alley they're heading up.

The only dark alleys are the ones Obama & Company inhabit.

SaipanAnnie said...

chagavin says"

I read the Trowbridge material on that woman, Jo Ann Newman. Her devotion to someone so basically anti-white was pretty sickening. I got an idea of what blacks feel about the term "Uncle Tom." ewww.

No where in Miss Newman's Tribute To A Black Man were there anti-white statements.

Nor were there dispersions against blacks who held pro-white sentiments.

rvail317 said...

Of course, the only method of discovering the true facts is by way of DNA testing of Obama and his purported biological parents.
Any other solution is nothing but unprovable guesswork and gossip. To be carried out by a trusted 3rd party, or at least as trustworthy as Maury Povitch and his daytime syndicated TV show. If Justin Bieber's DNA can be tested for paternity, why not the POTUS?

Tiza said...

Someone on here had kind of the possible right idea, maybe Stanley Ann adopted BO. Maybe Jo Ann had him. That's possible. I can see that. Especially because of the evidence that's been reported and then some of the pictures that haven't turned up of SAD pregnant on a beach in Hawaii when she should have been extremely pregnant, but she wasn't. And I've heard about those pictures for years now since I've been following this, and I've never witnessed those pictures of her on a beach in July of 1961.

Also what she said when she stated something about I'd not have to get pregnant to have a baby. Well, maybe she already had one coming to her from someone, and she knew it. Of course, the years don't figure out.

My guess is that someone knows something that happened somewhere. It's no doubt that BO's book is a fairytale.

Stacy said...

I am open to any possibility when it comes to Barack Obama's parentage, but Trowbridge offers not a shred of evidence. None. Not even one photo of this "Jo Ann" who was at Malcom X's heels everywhere he went? Then there should be PLENTY of photos.

I've never bought the Malcom X as Daddy angle. It makes no sense, and there's no evidence.

However, there is LOADS of evidence that Frank Marshall Davis could be his father, and he actually resembles Davis. Obama even has some of Davis's mannerisms, if you watch videos of Davis.

Now, if you want to speculate that Stanley Ann may not be his bio mother (a very real possiblity, considering there are NO pregnancy photos and that she abandoned Obama by age 2) I think it would be better to speculate that Obama's mother could be Madelyn Payne Dunham (only 38 years old at his birth, and he resembles her) or Helen Canfield Davis (Frank M. Davis's wife, who also resembles Madelyn P. Dunham). Helen Canfield Davis was a wealthy socialite who met and married Davis in Chicago and she was from Connecticut, and had politician family members.

Isn't Obama using a SSN issued from the state of CT? Perhaps he had some "assistance" from CT?

DEBBIE said...


Puzo1 said...

WND published an article on November 18, 2011, entitled,
"New Hampshire board decides Obama eligibility," accessed at http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=369241.

The title of this article, "New Hampshire board decides Obama eligibility," is incorrect and misleading. On the contrary, the Board did not decide Obama's eligibility to be President.

The Board, like every other state and federal court in the land which has been presented with the question, did not decide whether Obama is eligible to be President under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of our Constitution, which among other things, states that “[n]o person except a natural born Citizen. . . shall be eligible to the Office of President.” The Board only decided that Obama filed a ballot application and paid a $1,000.00 fee, all in compliance with one specific law of New Hampshire. The title of this article only serves to give credibility to Obama and his enablers which they surely do not deserve as Obama is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” because he was not born to two U.S. citizen parents which in the eyes of the Founders and Framers was the only way to inherit the right to be eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

Stacy said...

Oddly enough, if you think about it, if his parentage is revealed to be anyone other than BO, Sr. (Davis, Madelyn, Helen, or even Malcom if you want to go there) this would make him a natural-born citizen, wouldn't it? It would render the eligibility question moot.

Puzo1 said...


You said that Stanley Ann Dunham "abandoned Obama by age 2." Where did you get that fact from? Please provide a link or a source.

Puzo1 said...


We officially know that Barack Hussein Obama is Obama's legal father. How do you then go from him being the legal father to someone else being the legal father so as to make Obama an Article II "natural born Citizen?"

SaipanAnnie said...

Tiza says:

Also what she said when she stated something about I'd not have to get pregnant to have a baby.

Her alleged statement was: she didn't have to get MARRIED to have a baby.

Texoma said...

Debbie, before you write off Obama Senior as being the biological father, you ought to check out photos of Mark Obama. He is the son of Obama Senior and another white woman named Ruth Nidesand. Below is one photo. There is definitely a likeness to Obama.


Tiza said...

"Her alleged statement was: she didn't have to get MARRIED to have a baby."

Well, I knew it was something similar to that, it's just that I couldn't think of it. I think that I said something like not get pregnant to have a baby.

Anyway, what do we know about Frank Marshall Davis, and has this been proven one way or another with "Anna"?

Someone here mentioned him, so I was curious.

BTW, I've been following all this stuff since BO was elected and since I heard the first things about it, which I think were from WND reporting about Berg and his cases.

Also, what about this birth date for BO? Someone on a message board way back told me about this date and gave me the link at FR:


Look at post 2141. What do you think about a July 18th birth date for BO?

MichaelN said...

This is off topic, but it would be buried in archives, if I didn't post it here.

Re: 14 Amendment.

The language "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is an ADDITIONAL QUALITY to that of 'born' or 'naturalized', so my question is:

Who are those persons who might be born or naturalized in the US that are NOT "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"?

Why bother saying "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" if those who are born or naturalized in US already are subject to the jurisdiction thereof?
Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

vrajavala said...

Children of diplomats born I'n the US on soil are "jus soli". The are not citizens of the US. They are not "subject to the jurisdiction of".

Puzo1 said...


The easier one to answer regards born in the United States and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark says that this jurisdiction clause was included in addition to birth in the United States because the framers did not want to make citizens out of children who may be born in the United States to diplomats or members of invading armies. The Court said that these persons are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, for they are not bound to adhere to our laws given their immunities from prosecution. So, Wong Kim Ark interpreted “jurisdiction” as meaning laws rather than meaning political and military jurisdiction. I believe that the Court did that just to arrive at a convenient political solution, i.e., avoid having to declare so many children born in the United States of white European aliens themselves aliens. Such judicial activism should be declared unconstitutional at it extends beyond the U.S. Supreme Court’s Article III “judicial Power” and is therefore a violation of separation of powers. Article III “appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact” does not include the power to make new laws based on public policy and political considerations which power only Congress has. The U.S. Supreme Court has many times declared Congress’s actions unconstitutional when warranted. I have never seen it declare the actions of the Supreme Court itself unconstitutional. But then what is good for the goose should be good for the gander.

Given Wong Kim Ark’s interpretation of the meaning of “jurisdiction,” the one that is difficult to understand is how someone could be naturalized in the United States and not be subject to the jurisdiction thereof. One would think that to become naturalized one would automatically have to be subject to that jurisdiction, i.e., to its laws. Hence, here there appears to be redundancy given what Wong Kim Ark has held.

On the other hand, if we were to read "subject to the jurisdiction" as meaning not subject to any foreign power which requirement was included in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, i.e., subject to the complete political jurisdiction of the United States and not owing allegiance to any foreign power, then I could make sense from requiring jurisdiction for both those who are either born or naturalized in the United States. Those born in the United States would have to be born to citizen parents to cut off acquiring any foreign allegiance, jurisdiction, and citizenship in a foreign nation by way of jus sanguinis. And those naturalized in the United States would have to swear allegiance solely to the United States to cut off claims over their allegiance from any foreign nation. Note that under the tortured decision of Wong Kim Ark, we do not require swearing off allegiance from those who by accident or design are born in the United States to one or two alien parents, but under our naturalization laws existing since the Founding, we do require such from those who are born in foreign nations to two alien parents.

MichaelN said...

Puzo! said

"So, Wong Kim Ark interpreted “jurisdiction” as meaning laws rather than meaning political and military jurisdiction. I believe that the Court did that just to arrive at a convenient political solution, i.e., avoid having to declare so many children born in the United States of white European aliens themselves aliens."

How then would you explain that if those (non diplomatic & military warriors) parents of those persons born in the US were fully "subject to the jurisdiction", then would that not make those parents 'US citizens'?

Who else, aside from naturalized alien parents, would be parents fully "subject to the jurisdiction"?

i.e. an alien visiting USA (who is not a diplomat and not an invading warrior) would not be fully "subject to the jurisdiction" therefore his children if born in USA would not be 'citizens' nor 'natural born citizens'.

So who are the non-citizen parents who ARE fully "subject to the jurisdiction" whose children if born in US are merely 'citizens' under the 14th Amendment but not 'natural born citizens'?

Would this not make the 14th Amendment to be actually referring to those "persons born" as 'natural born citizens', seeing as they are born in US to parents who are fully "subject to the jurisdiction" whom it seems can only be US citizens.?


Puzo1 said...


The Founders and Framers defined an Article II “natural born Citizen” as a child born in the country to citizen parents.

We cannot simply assume that the Fourteenth Amendment amended Article II and its “natural born Citizen” clause. There is no such evidence that the Fourteenth Amendment framers did or even intended to amend the meaning of an Article II "natural born Citizen." Amending the Constitution is a very serious and solemn undertaking. We surely cannot have constitutional amendments by assumptions or implications. The more this is true when we are concerned with the eligibility standards for the President and Commander in Chief of the Military and the Vice-President. Rather, Article V of the Constitution must be followed to have any such amendment to the Constitution.

If Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" were to be interpreted and applied as fully and completely “subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, including its political and military authority and not just its laws, then the child's parents would have to be either "natural born Citizens" or "citizens of the United States." Under such an interpretation of the jurisdiction clause, the amendment would actually define a "natural born Citizen."

But Congress used an ambiguous clause, "subject to the jurisdiction." Depending how the courts interpret and apply that clause, the amendment will or will not define an Article II "natural born Citizen." Again, the amendment did not amend Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause. Hence, we cannot indirectly or by implication allow such an amendment by giving the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause a watered down meaning, i.e., subject to the laws of the United States, and then declare that all “citizens of the United States” under the amendment are also “natural born Citizens.” So, under the amendment as currently interpreted by the courts a la Wong Kim Ark, if a child is born in the United States to one or two domiciled alien parents who are neither diplomats nor military invaders, that child is a “citizen of the United States,” which you will note under the amendment itself is the same citizenship status as that of a naturalized citizen. That alone tells us that a “citizen of the United States” under the amendment is not necessarily the same as an Article II “natural born Citizen,” for to equate the two classes of citizens would also make naturalized citizens eligible to be President when we knew they are not. On the other hand, if a child is born in the United States or its jurisdictional equivalent to parents who are either “natural born Citizens” or “citizens of the United States, then that child is not only a “born . . . citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment, but also an Article II “natural born Citizen” which status was included in the Constitution since it adoption in 1787. This all means that simply having the status of a “born . . . citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment, without also showing that one satisfies the original American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen” does not bestow upon someone the status of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

MichaelN said...


Then logically, USC 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
must only mean partially subject to the jurisdiction.

With "and subject to the jurisdiction" mentioned as an additive to the 'born' criteria by the use of "and" is only to exclude foreign diplomats, invading warriors and native american indians whose children might be born in US.


MichaelN said...

What I find interesting from all of this is that the 14th Amendment has this "partial" jurisdiction requirement as well as being born in the land, to make an ordinary US 'citizen'.

So even 14th Amendment does not rely solely on the principle of jus soli, but requires a degree of reciprocal "allegiance" between the parent and the US, this tends to suggest that the alien parent within the territorial limits of the US "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" would need to be legally present in US.


The application for legal entry into US was a clause where the applicant states that they understand they are subject to legal proceedings.

On the other hand the illegal alien would make no such statement or undertaking.


Those aliens who legally enter US commit to a contract.


It is reasonable to consider that illegal aliens in US are not and have not been made aware of any obligation of temporary allegiance and therefore maybe should not be considered as "subject to the jurisdiction" at all, given that "subject to the jurisdiction" implies and appears to actually mean a reciprocal allegiance between legal visitor and US.



Texoma said...

MichaelN and Mario,

Do you believe that the US Supreme Court, in the 1964 case of Schneider v. Rusk, clarified what a born citizen was under the 14th amendment? I think they did. Their reference to native born and naturalized citizens seems to come right out of the 14th amendment’s wording “All persons born or naturalized in the United States …”
The court said this:

“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President.”

Here, the court is telling us that while all natural born citizens are native-born, not all native-born citizens are natural born. Both the native-born citizen and natural born citizen are born in the country, but the natural born citizen is also born to citizen parents, and it is this additional attribute that makes him eligible to be President.

Puzo1 said...


I agree with you interpretation of what Schneider v. Rusk meant when it said:

“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President.”

I have an essay that I will be publishing shortly which you should find very interesting. In my essay I have the following argument on what the Court meant by its statement:

"In this sentence, the Court explained that just being a “native born” citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment, which is equivalent to being a naturalized citizen, is only a “start” and not the same as being a “natural born Citizen” because the Constitution says that only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be President. Hence, the Court also said that after that “start,” we must move on and recognize that a “natural born Citizen” is different from a “native born” citizen in some material way. That material difference can only be that not only is a “natural born Citizen” born in the United States (making him or her “native born”), but he or she is also born to citizen parents (making him or her a “natural born Citizen”)."

Bill Cutting said...

Military laws of the United States (Army) By United States, United States. Army. Office of the Judge Advocate General.



1870. All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.

Interesting that the Military did not accept the veiw of SCOTUS in WKA.

vrajavala said...

Again, Bill, we are talking about "natural born citizens". Just as there are a group called trees, there are subcategories, called "apple", oranges, etc. Natural born citizen, denotes a specific type of citizen as defined by Minor v. Happersett to have two American parents and born on American soil.
This particular type of citizen, i.e., "NBC", is the only type who can be Commander-in-Chief, because the Founding Fathers doubted that any other type of "citizen" would be an effective POTUSA.
It's a National Security issue.

Bill Cutting said...

Looks like they did not change their veiw until 1912. Notice they did not say Natural Born. It would be interesting to see the J.A.G. opinion referenced below.

A native-born minor is a citizen of the United States under the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution. (Id., par. 737.)

See Dig. Op. J. A. G., pp. 20, 613, 614, 617, 834, edition 1912.


Puzo1 said...

Bill Cutting,

The confusion comes in when someone confounds an Article II "natural born Citizen" with a Fourteenth Amendment "born . . . citizen of the United States."

There never has been any doubt what a "natural born Citizen" is. See Minor v. Happersett and Wong Kim Ark. The doubts during our history have been about who is a "citizen of the United States."

Hence, these statements by authorities that have been made throughout our history as to U.S. citizenship has been mostly about what is a "citizen of the United States," and not about what is a "natural born Citizen."

The reason for that is that citizenship or simple membership in the United States is highly coveted by persons in order to gain privileges and immunities offered by the federal and state constitutions and laws. On the other hand, being a "natural born Citizen" only applies to being eligible to be President and Vice-President. Throughout our history, virtually all our Presidents and Vice Presidents who were born after the Constitution was adopted in 1787, have been persons born in the United States to citizen parents (Chester Arthur and Barack Obama are the exceptions). Hence, we have not had to debate much (some limited debate has occurred regarding candidates for the office of president) what the meaning of a "natural born Citizen" is as is applies to being eligible to be President.

Note that Chester Arthur's being born to an alien father was probably not known by the public and with Obama, while the issue of his alien father was raised both before and after his election, the courts simply refuse to exercise their constitutional obligation as defined by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison to enforce the Constitution and tell us what the law is which is their duty in a constitututional republic and rather expect “mob democracy” at the voting booth to decide the constitutional question.

Bill Cutting said...

Mario said
[The confusion comes in when someone confounds an Article II "natural born Citizen" with a Fourteenth Amendment "born . . . citizen of the United States."

There never has been any doubt what a "natural born Citizen" is. See Minor v. Happersett and Wong Kim Ark. The doubts during our history have been about who is a "citizen of the United States."]

I agree

To add to the confusion,we now have this.

"citizenship at birth" born abroad.

This presents an interesting question. Would a "citizen at birth" born abroad be considered
A2S5 NBC ? I would think not.

More evidence that there are more than one type of "US citizen by birth" recognized by the USG.

7 FAM 1441.1 Summary
(CT:CON-362; 03-01-2011)
a. Form FS-240 ,Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America, is a formal document certifying the acquisition of U.S. citizenship at birth of a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent(s). Under U.S. law (22 U.S.C. 2705) it is proof of U.S. citizenship—in legal terms, it establishes a “prima facie case” of U.S. citizenship. Records of the issuance of Form FS-240 are maintained in the Passport Information Electronic Records System (PIERS) feature. Vital Records in PIERS are proof of U.S. citizenship and may be accessed by consular officers and passport specialists for emergency verification of citizenship. (See 7 FAM 1300 Appendix I)


Puzo1 said...

Bill Cutting,

Citizenship “at birth” does not equate to being a “natural born Citizen,” which exists only under natural law and the law of nations and needs no positive law for its creation. Through naturalization, Congress has the power to create through its laws citizens “at birth.” The First Congress did just that with the Naturalization Act of 1790, stating that children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents shall be “considered as natural born citizens.” This act was a naturalization act and was only retroactive. I consider the “natural born citizen” provision of the 1790 Act to be a grandfather clause similar to what the Founders and Framers inserted in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 for themselves, needed to benefit the children born abroad to various Founders during the revolutionary period. Hence, those children born abroad were naturalized to be “considered as natural born citizens” just like “Citizen[s] of the United States” who were also naturalized citizens were allowed to be eligible to be President, but only if born prior to the adoption of the Constitution. My theory is that with the need for any grandfather period to have passed, the 1790 Act was repealed by the Third Congress which passed the Naturalization Act of 1795, which replaced the status of “natural born citizen” with “citizen of the United States.”

Also, Congress, under the Naturalization Act of 1802, declared children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents who became citizens after 1802 to be aliens. It was not until 1855, that Congress again considered children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents to be “citizens of the United States.” So, for 53 years, children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents were aliens. This legislative history informs that just gaining the status of a U.S. citizen “at birth” from positive law (Congressional Act) does not make one a “natural born Citizen,” for Congress does not have the power to deny or deprive any person who is a constitutional “natural born Citizen” that special status.

James said...


I am sure you have following what has happened in New Hampshire regarding Orly Taitz's election complaint. Have you thought about launching an election complaint in New Jersey where you live for the primary? It would be a great second front for the eligibility issue.

Bob said...

This is what the United States Supreme Court has already penned concerning Fourteenth Amendment citizenship, in a case of fairly recent history --

SCHNEIDER V. RUSK, 377 U. S. 163 (1964)

'We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the "natural born" citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.

Page 377 U. S. 166

MichaelN said...


I found something very interesting to do with the definition of a 'citizen' in England dating back to at least the 13th century.

There is no way that 'subject' has the same meaning as 'citizen' in England, and there can not possibly be any comparison or similarity between an English 'citizen' (which is a civic member of an English township - alien or native born) and a US 'citizen' which is an equal sovereign member of a republic.


"The third method by which citizenship was acquired was payment or redemption. An adult person, who was not qualified for enfranchisement either by patrimony or apprenticeship, was by City custom regarded as a foreigner. To some extent this class of freemen was recruited from born Londoners, who raised themselves by thrift and industry from the unenfranchised labouring class. But the majority of new citizens by payment were undoubtedly newcomers to the City, attracted there by the opportunities which it afforded. If they were aliens by birth they were described as alien-born (alienigene) or strangers (estraunges), while native Englishmen were "foreigners" (forinseci) or denizens (indigene)."

cfkerchner said...

A new Congressional Research Service (CRS) Memo. Jack Maskell is at it again. Confusing the issues by false premises and omissions of key Supreme Court case law on the meaning of natural born Citizen of the United States.


CDR Kerchner (Ret)

HistorianDude said...

In case you haven't seen it yet, Mario.


HistorianDude said...

In case you haven't seen it yet, Mario. here's a new Congressional Research Service white paper on "natural born citizenship." Enjoy!!!


MichaelN said...


Have you seen this new from the Congressional Research dated Nov 14 2011



James said...


Can you provide a rebuttal to the Congressional Report? It's long and very complex but we are counting on you.

Puzo1 said...

Commander Kerchner,

This new Jack Maskell memo is nothing but a cut and paste from Obot web sites. He stamps everything that breathes as a "natural born Citizen." Mr. Maskell is a master at hiding how he confounds and conflates a "natural born Citizen" with "citizen of the United States. I am working on some essays right now which I will be publishing shortly. After doing that, I will address Mr. Maskell's new memo.

Puzo1 said...

Chris Strunk has left a new comment on your post "Members of Congress Internal Memo--What to Tell Yo...":

Fr. Jack Maskell SJ hard at work in Congress spreading disinformation http://www.scribd.com/doc/74176180/

cfkerchner said...

An initial reply to this latest CRS Memo disinformation piece of Jack Maskell's. From Don Frederick, author of The Obama Timeline book:


CDR Kerchner (Ret)

MichaelN said...

There is a need to counter the mis-information of the deceiving Jack Maskell.

A well worded "white paper" pointing out Maskell's deception and providing correct information must be prepared and sent to every member of Congress and the Senate members also post haste.

James said...

I agree MichaelN. Mario should contact Leo Donofrio and try to reach out to Constitutional lawyer Herb Titus and work together in a colaborative report that directly refutes Jack Markell's report. It will have a very detailed and expansive report and Markell's report is very detailed.

MichaelN said...

James said...
"I agree MichaelN. Mario should contact Leo Donofrio and try to reach out to Constitutional lawyer Herb Titus and work together in a colaborative report that directly refutes Jack Markell's report. It will have a very detailed and expansive report and Markell's report is very detailed."

Hear, hear James.

Why is this not happening?

It is obvious that the congress have an escape-hatch on the eligibility controversy whilst Maskell's garbage is their official source for "legal" definition.

Patriot lawyers must UNITE and get the job done ASAP.


Robert said...

If Roger Clemens had lied to Congress as boldly as Jack Maskell, he would be in prison and they would have thrown away the key.

If only the Constitution were as important as baseball to our Congress.

Let your Congressman know that Mr. Maskell's open deceit will not serve as an acceptable excuse for their own behavior. They have all been fully and accurately informed. They all know that Obama is ineligible. Like the Obama birth certificates, the Maskell notice is not worth the paper it's written on. They need to find another researcher and send this one to jail.

Carlyle said...

Yep, they're comin' after 'im.

Sheriff Joe recently opened a formal investigation into Commander Zero's background and bona fides.
That was probably a bad career move.


Puzo1 said...

I have been trying to post this response to the below The Washington Post article but have been unsuccessful. Maybe someone will have better luck than me.

So here we have our illustrious media, which instead of doing an honest and competent job investigating who Obama is, is going around spreading misinformation about what a “natural born Citizen” is. Here is what Margaret Webb Pressler has to say in The Washington Post:

“If you were born in this country, or born outside this country to at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen, then you are what’s known as a natural-born citizen, or a citizen from birth. But someone born outside this country to parents who are not U.S. citizens has to go through a process to become a citizen. This person would be known as a naturalized citizen. Both have all the rights, freedoms and protections offered in the U.S. Constitution, but only natural-born citizens can be elected president or vice president of the United States.”

Ms. Pressler gives us a definition of a "natural born Citizen" which has no basis in history or any decision of our U.S. Supreme Court. During the Founding, a “natural born Citizen” was defined as a child born in the country to citizen parents. This American common law definition, confirmed by Congressional Acts and our U.S. Supreme Court, has never been changed. See Minor v. Happersett (1875) (while not relying on the Fourteenth Amendment but rather American “common-law” to define citizenship, held that a child born in the country to citizen parents is a “natural-born citizen” and that while Viginia Minor was a “natural-born citizen,” the Constitution’s privileges and immunities which were granted only to citizens did not grant her the right to vote); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) (citing Minor and quoting its definition of a “natural-born citizen” and relying on the Fourteenth Amendment and the colonial English common law, held that a child born in the United States to domiciled alien parents who were neither foreign diplomats nor members of an invading army is born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore a Fourteenth Amendment “born . . . citizen of the United States”).

A “born citizen,” “citizen at birth,” “citizen by birth” or “citizen from birth,” if he or she does not satisfy this original American common law definition, is an Article II “Citizen of the United States” as defined by the Fourteenth Amendment, Congressional Act, or treaty, but not an Article II “natural born Citizen” as defined by natural law and the law of nations. Let us not accept that the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” has somehow been changed to some other phrase such as a “citizen at birth” or “citizen by birth” without seeing any evidence of that ever happening. Let us not because of political expediency take someone who may at best be an Article II “Citizen of the United States” and convert that person into an Article II “natural born Citizen.” The burden of proof is on those seeking to change the Constitution and its original and long-standing definition of a “natural born Citizen,” not on those who are fighting to preserve, protect, and defend them.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Mick said...

Mario do you know Herb Titus?


cyberord said...

Mario, I wasn't able to post a comment to the Washington Post article you mentioned but I did send the following correction:

The error is the article's definition of the term "natural born citizen". The correct definition is that a natural born citizen is a person born in the country to parents who are themselves citizens of that same country. The source for this definition is the important reference work used by the founding fathers, Emmerich de Vattel's Law Of Nations (1758).

James said...

Herb Titus is one the country's top constitutional lawyers. It is Titus opinion that Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen. Mario should get with Herb Titus to see if he will help with a report that directly refutes Jack Maskell's report. Further, Mario should team up with Titus and launch an election complaint that Obama is ineligible to be on the ballot because he is not an NBC.

Puzo1 said...


I do know Professor Herb Titus. I agree with everything he says in his Two Part YouTube presentation on the meaning of a "natural born Citizen." In fact, in my many essays published on this blog, I have echoed the same as what Professor Titus so clearly and eloquently expresses in his audio presentations.

James said...

This is what should be done. Mario should team up with Herb Titus, Leo Donofrio, and Phil Berg. Together they can all research and put together a report that directly refutes Jack Maskell's report. The lawyers can address the following:
Mario - Can tackle the precedent cases on NBC and Obama's birth certificate from Hawaii.
Herb - Can address NBC in terms of the 2 parent requirement and its relationship to the 14th Amendment.
Leo - Can address Obama's dual citizenship and allegience with the British Nationality Act.
Phil - Can address Obama's Indonesian citizenship problem.

This completed report along with Sheriff Arpaio's coming report can be important elements in the coming election challenges to keep Obama off the ballot.

MichaelN said...

Hear hear, James

MichaelN said...

If you have the time available, come on down and confront these agents of deception.



cyberord said...

James: "Mario should team up with Herb Titus, Leo Donofrio, and Phil Berg."

Phil Berg! That would be a mistake. Berg is a criminal who does not use the correct definition of "natural born citizen". I became rather surprised when in contact with Wayne Madsen he too didn't seem to know the real reason Obama is illegal.

William said...


What are you thoughts pertaining to this new CSR report?

Are you under the impression its analysis is correct and in full, without intentional deviations?

You are in fact (in my opinion) intelligent enough to analysis known supreme court decisions. The avoidance of this reports known findings - yet fails to report - which otherwise and conclusively proves otherwise its conclusions by means of intentional skewed misinformation, or the lack thereof, as anything but truth is intellectual dishonesty.

If this person worked for you and intentionally attempted to mislead you as a Director of a Business in the same manner, you would terminate said person.

William Richardson

Chief said...

A little DNA testing could uncover the real truth, there must be DNA evidence in the archieves of histroy that can prove up matches, or unmatches. Obama's DNA should be readily available from his public appearances where he leaves behind cups, and glasses he has used during his visits.

William said...


With all due respect, DNA is not required when the Historical provisions of the U.S. Constitution are stated and the U.S. Supreme Court has already defined - what a NBC is not.

Obama needs not a blood test to pass such provisions; its already been declared and he has failed such test.

William Richardson

vrajavala said...

His staff cleans up after him.

vrajavala said...

The DNA testing has been thought of before. However, you forget that. The staff around him are not going to let anyone near anything like that,i.e. A cup, etc.

jrl503 said...

This seems pretty far fetched however I did read that Percy Sutton was the lawyer for Malcolm X and is it just a coincidence that Percy Sutton also wrote the letter of recommendation for Obama's entrance into Harvard?

yukidongo said...

All the digging...? It will come out, but in the meantime, all that is required to know is that Occidental said he attended there as a Fulbright Scholarship recipient. It is impossible to attend college in the USA if you are a US citizen, on the Fulbright Scholarship. While a US citizen may be granted the Scholarship, it is SOLELY for exchange of students internationally. AND, a passport from you native country must be provided, and in order to get the passport, there must be a birth certificate. I filled out the Fulbright Scholarship. I know what it grants, what the rules are, and what proof is required to receive it. Occidental was trying to tell us something by releasing that one fact. BHB aka whatever else he has been called, is not a US citizen, and evidently had the proof--passport (and by inference, Birth Certificate)to qualify as a student with a foreign nationality.

Helen said...

I guess my question to the people that try to believe he is legal is this... If I had all the evidence to prove that I was a FOREIGN NATIONAL TO THE FULBRIGHT FOUNDATION TO GET THAT SCHOLARSHIP, WHICH INCLUDES PRESENTING THE PASSPORT, (meaning that a birth certificate from that country was used to get the passport), how is it that anyone can believe he is a Natural Born citizen. It is already a moot point. He could not have gone to school here with the Fulbright Scholarship, if he were an American Citizen. He would have been disqualified, automatically. It doesn't even matter, after that, who his parents are...It matters what proof he HAD to give showing he was a foreigner.

vrajavala said...

The problem is that both parties seem to want to do away with the "natural born citizen" by this "backdoor" method, i.e. instead of amending the Constitution. I believe they want to trade our sovereignty for NWO, because they feel that National sovereignty is "old fashioned".
So many of our senators and congress people have studied law, so it is not that they don't know what they're doing.
The supreme Court has not taken any "birther" cases because of the so-called "lack of standing" issue.
However, practically every judge who has dealt with the issue has acted in a treasonous manner.
Look at what the NJ Judge did in the Mario Apuzzo case where his client questioned Obama's eligibility to be on the ballot. Obama's lawyer admitted that the birth certificate is a forgery. The Judge said it didn't matter. All that matters, Obama's attorney argued, is that Obama is popular and was elected.
We the people are being screwed.