Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [catapultthenwopolicestatedepopulation] George Soros on the kenyan

Expand Messages
  • Supreme Law Firm
    If both parents needed to be Citizens then both needed to be State Citizens, because federal citizenship did not exist when the Qualifications Clauses were
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 1, 2011
      If both parents needed to be "Citizens" then both needed to be
      State Citizens, because federal citizenship did not exist
      when the Qualifications Clauses were first ratified into Law ...

      We now regard the following documentation to be essential, if one is

      correctly to understand the intent of the Framers when they drafted those
      Qualifications Clauses:

      http://www.supremelaw.org/ authors/mitchell/citizenship. for.dummies.htm  (and all links at the end)
      http://www.supremelaw.org/ authors/mitchell/comments.on. citizenship.for.dummies.htm
      http://www.supremelaw.org/ press/rels/correct.amendment. htm

      My office legally represents the United States ex rel. at the Third Circuit in Philadelphia,

      in the case of Berg v. Obama et al.:

      http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/ obama/third.circuit/

      A CERTIFICATE OF BIRTH has already been verified and entered into evidence
      at the U.S. District Court in Santa Ana, California.  It was also an Exhibit attached
      to the following SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE, the answer to which is now PAST DUE:

      http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/ obama/third.circuit/subpoena/
      http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/ obama/third.circuit/subpoena/ subpoena.kenya.ambassador.1. jpg
      http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/ obama/third.circuit/subpoena/ subpoena.kenya.ambassador.2. jpg
      http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/ obama/third.circuit/subpoena/ delivery.instructions.htm
      http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/ obama/third.circuit/subpoena/ LucasSmith01.png
      http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/ obama/third.circuit/subpoena/ LucasSmith02.png
      http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/ obama/third.circuit/subpoena/ LucasSmith03.jpg  (CERTIFICATE OF BIRTH)
      http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/ obama/third.circuit/subpoena/ letter.to.consul.general.htm

      Please be advised of the following VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT,
      ON INFORMATION, which was required by 18 U.S.C. 4 (misprision of felony):

      http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/ obama/third.circuit/vcc.htm
      http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/ obama/third.circuit/nad02.htm  (no rebuttal(s))
      http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/ obama/Kenya/National.Assembly. Official.Report.2008-11-05.pdf
      ("son of the soil" with "Kenyan roots":  cf. "jus soli" in Black's Law Dictionary)

      My office has arguably done more research into the correct construction
      of the Qualifications Clauses than any other lawyer or law firm in America:

      http://www.supremelaw.org/ authors/mitchell/quals.htm

      We now regard the following documentation to be essential, if one is
      correctly to understand the intent of the Framers when they drafted those
      Qualifications Clauses:

      http://www.supremelaw.org/ authors/mitchell/citizenship. for.dummies.htm  (and all links at the end)
      http://www.supremelaw.org/ authors/mitchell/comments.on. citizenship.for.dummies.htm
      http://www.supremelaw.org/ press/rels/correct.amendment. htm

      The decision in Pannill v. Roanoke is definitive, and dispositive:

      http://www.supremelaw.org/ rsrc/twoclass.htm#pannill
      (summarizing:  federal citizens were not even contemplated when
      the organic, organizing version of the Constitution was first being drafted)

      If my office can be of any further assistance to you and/or your associates
      in this matter,
      please don't hesitate to contact us here via email (preferred).

      Mr. Obama's claim to occupy the office of President of the United States of America
      now assumes facts not in evidence.
        His failure to deny, rebut or otherwise challenge
      verified facts that have been entered into evidence, has activated legal estoppel against him. 
      Such silence can also be construed as fraud:

      http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/ fox2/insolvency.htm  (see Exhibit "K"  in this context)

      Thank you.

      Sincerely yours,
      /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
      Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
      http://www.supremelaw.org/ decs/agency/private.attorney. general.htm
      http://www.supremelaw.org/ reading.list.htm
      http://www.supremelaw.org/ index.htm (Home Page)
      http://www.supremelaw.org/ support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
      http://www.supremelaw.org/ guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
      http://www.supremelaw.org/ support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

      All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

      From: Phil Holtz <philholtz54@...>
      To: PAUL ANDREW MITCHELL <paulandrewmitchell2004@...>
      Sent: Fri, April 1, 2011 6:39:36 AM
      Subject: Fw: [catapultthenwopolicestatedepopulation] George Soros n the kenyan

      Justice Hugo Black in DUNCAN v LOUISIANA Indicates Obama Would Not Be Eligible: Ineligibility Echoed by Former Attorney General Jeremiah Black

      United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Hugo Black, in a concurring opinion in Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968), emphasizes his reliance upon the statements made by Representative Bingham and Senator Howard in Congress which pertain to the drafting and adoption of the 14th Amendment.  Justice Black stated that “it is far wiser to rely on” the words of Bingham and Howard when analyzing the 14th Amendment.
      This is crucial to understanding that Obama is not eligible to be President as it provides the strongest Supreme Court statement – post Wong Kim Ark – indicating that the current occupant of the White House is not in legal possession of the office of President.
      Here is the relevant statement by Justice Black:

      “Professor Fairman’s “history” relies very heavily on what was not said in the state legislatures that passed on the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead of relying on this kind of negative pregnant, my legislative experience has convinced me that it is far wiser to rely on what was said, and, most importantly, said by the men who actually sponsored the Amendment in the Congress. I know from my years in the United States Senate that it is to men like Congressman Bingham, who steered the Amendment through the House, and Senator Howard, who introduced it in the Senate, that members of Congress look when they seek the real meaning of what is being offered. And they vote for or against a bill based on what the sponsors of that bill and those who oppose it tell them it means.” (Emphasis added.)

      A few weeks ago, I published a report entitled, “The House of Representatives Definition of “Natural Born Citizen” = Born of Citizen Parents in the US“.  (Please review that report now as I have directly re-posted from it below.)
      During a debate (see pg. 2791) regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen.  Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:
      “As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States.  That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt.  He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.” (The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”.  Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872.)
      Notice that Bingham declares Houard to be a “natural-born citizen” by citing two factors – born of citizen parents in the US.
      John Bingham, aka “father of the 14th Amendment”, was an abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln’s assassins.  Ten years earlier, he stated on the House floor:
      “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.(Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))
      Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:
      Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.(Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
      According to Justice Black, Bingham’s words uttered on the floor of the House are the most reliable source.  Bingham made three statements, none of them challenged on the Floor, which indicate that a natural born citizen is a person born on US soil to parents who were US citizens.  Obama does not fit that description since, at the time of his birth, his father was a British subject.
      Obama’s own web site, throughout the entire 2008 Presidential campaign, stated that his birth status was governed by the United Kingdom:
      “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.”

      QUESTION: How can a person whose birth status was governed by the United Kingdom be considered a natural born citizen of the United States?
      ANSWER: It’s not possible.
      Such a person is born with divided allegiance.  Such a person is born owing fealty to the monarchy of the United Kingdom.
      According to a July 18, 1859 official proclamation by former Attorney General Black (as reported in the New York Times on July 20, 1859), only those who never owed fealty to another nation may be President:

      “Here none but a native can be President…A native and a naturalized American may therefore go forth with equal security over every sea and through every land under Heaven…They are both of them American citizens, and their exclusive allegiance is due to the Government of the United States.  One of them never did owe fealty elsewhere, and the other, at the time of his naturalization…threw off, renounced and abjured forever all allegiance to every foreign prince, potentate, State and sovereignty whatever, and especially to that sovereign whose subject he had previously been. “


      Here again we see a person in high office stating that to be President one must never have owed fealty to another nation.  We see the true legal requirement that the President never owed allegiance to any foreign sovereign.  This clean natural citizenship is one which can only be present at birth.  Since the naturalized citizen can’t be President because he once owed allegiance to a foreign nation, the same goes for any other citizen who owed allegiance to a foreign nation.
      Obama admits to having owed fealty, aka allegiance, to the United Kingdom at the time of his birth.  Therefore, upon the authority of Representative Bingham, Justice Black and Attorney General Black, Obama is not eligible to the office of President.
      But there’s even more authority to be heard from regarding Obama’s unconstitutional occupation of the White House.  Justice Black also told us that we must consult with Senator Howard since he was Bingham’s counterpart in the Senate relating to the 14th Amendment.  Bingham and Howard are the two that ushered the 14th Amendment into the Constitution.
      As to the meaning of the term “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment, Senator Howard stated:

      “The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all “persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. (Congressional Globe, 39th Congress pg. 2890 (1866))

      Notice that Howard lists several classes of persons who are not citizens under the 14th Amendment:
      - foreigners
      - aliens
      - families of ambassadors or ministers
      The statement was clarified a few days earlier when Howard stated:

      “That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” (Congressional Globe, 39th Congress pg. 2893 (1866))

      Those who owed allegiance to “anybody else” are not natural born citizens of the United States. 
      Examine the following statement by Representative Thayer from the same period:

      “To accomplish this great purpose, the bill declares, in the first place, that all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign Power, are citizens of the United States. Now, I do not regard that as the enunciation of any new principle. It is, in my judgment, but declaratory of the existing law. According to my apprehension, every man born in the United States, and not owing allegiance to a foreign Power, is a citizen of the United States.” – Rep. Thayer, March 2, 1866. (Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session, p. 1152 (1866))

      The same sentiments were also uttered by Senator Trumbull who stated that it meant “Not owing allegiance to anybody else.”
      Obama supporters cling to a desperate argument.  They claim that another country’s nationality laws should not have any bearing in the US.  But this is clearly false.  In a previous article entitled, “The State Department Has “Always” Recognized And Abided By Foreign Laws Concerning US Citizens Born With Dual Nationality“, I highlighted an official letter from Secretary of State Lansing to Senator Dodge wherein Lansing educated the Senator regarding the requirement of citizen parents so that children born here not be subject to foreign military duty.
      If a child is born in the US to a father who owes allegiance to a foreign power, that child also owes allegiance to that foreign power.  This was always our law.  It was US law at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, at the time Obama was born, and it is US law today.  Nothing has changed.
      Obama admits his birth status was governed by the United Kingdom.  I think it’s very important to note that Obama himself gave preference to the United Kingdom in his statement at Fight The Smears.  Notice that he didn’t say his birth status was governed by both United Kingdom and the US.  Obama chose to give preference to his father’s nationality by stating that his birth status was directly tied to his father and not his mother.
      Read the quote from his web site again:

      “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.”


      I will finish this report with a question:

      Why did Obama feel compelled to state that his birth status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 rather than the 14th Amendment?

      Hat tip to reader Linda for Attorney General Black’s quote.
      Hat tip to my infamous anonymous researcher for the Duncan v. Louisiana quote.
      by Leo Donofrio, Esq.
      2 bloggers like this post.

      37 Responses to “Justice Hugo Black in DUNCAN v LOUISIANA Indicates Obama Would Not Be Eligible: Ineligibility Echoed by Former Attorney General Jeremiah Black”

      1. Leo,
        Another brilliant piece to the argument vs Obama’s usurpation of the presidency! And, a thank you for adding a screen shot of Obama’s compelling statement preferring British citizenship of his father rather than that of his mother’s U.S. birth. I have reserved that screen shot of FactCheck.org in my files and pull it out when presenting an argument to the “unbelievers.” You end your post with a very interesting question which will require some deep reflection!
      2. Title 8 Section 1401 of the US Code last published 2006 by the Office of the Law Revision Council of the US House of Representatives states that a natural borne citizen is:
        a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
        whereby “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes children born to foreign diplomats et al.
        Translation: A person born in Hawaii to parents of ordinary citizenship of any other country makes that person a natural born citizen of the US. Being as Obama was born 2 years after Hawaii became a state, I believe that fits.
        Unless you intend to challenge the constitutionality of that provision of the US Code, I believe your entire argument is debunked. Current law is so fun isn’t it? Emphasis on current.
        ed. Your post contains a clear falsehood. Nowhere in the US Code is “natural born citizen” defined. The code does not include the words “natural born” in any section. It simply defines those who would be nationals and “citizens” of the US. There is no statute defining nbc. Furthermore, every other route to citizenship is defined in the US Code except nbc. For example, the US Code says nothing about persons born in the US to parents who are citizens because such persons do not need the code or the 14th Amendment to define their route to citizenship… it is natural born and therefore self evident. The Constitution makes a distinction between those eligible for Senator and Representative – citizens – and those eligible for President – natural born citizens. – Leo
      3. Leo, there is no doubt that Obama is not a NBC. We all know it and all of Congress know this. Only the ignorant will not know other wise. since those in power including the media want nothing done about this, what can you or others suggest the common citizen do about it?
        ed. I don’t know. It’s up to each person to do what their conscience allows within the law.- Leo
      4. Very good question. The Obama camp could have simply stated that Obama had a U.S. citizen mother, and that he was born on U.S. soil in the state of Hawaii—leaving an investigation of British or Kenyan citizenship law to the blogosphere as fodder for more “conspiracy theory.” In addition, the statement’s inclusion of the term “native citizen” versus “natural born citizen” surely was intentional.
        When Obama supporters offer statements such as “What right does another country have to impose their citizenship on citizens of the U.S.,” the Obama campaign openly admitted that both Great Britain and Kenya did indeed have the right, through the citizenship of the father of the child.
        My (non-legal) opinion on this admission is that Axelrod was aware that at various points in his life, Obama had alluded to, or perhaps actually used, foreign citizenship. The “Dreams” book had already been published, which admitted a Kenyan father. At various times in his life and perhaps to advance his public career, Obama may have found an advantage or a certain glamour in having dual citizenship. And a complete “scrubbing” in today’s information age is near impossible.
        The campaign statement was very effective–a lie contained in, and hidden by, the wrappings of truth.
        The lie: Obama is eligible under the Constitution.
        The truth: He was born in Hawaii with dual citizenship. (And this wrapping paper is decorated with today’s “politically correct” notion that everyone born in the US is automatically a US citizen.)
        When the long-form is finally released, it will simply become the bow on the beautifully packaged lie.
      5. An article like this aught to make democrats so nervous that they can barely function.
        It doesn’t even register on them, though.
        Such is the state of our country.
      6. witch_wyzwurd Says:
        Person 1: “Here is a door and on the other side of it is the inside of my house.”
        Person 2: “No. There’s no inside.”
        Person 1: “But I live in it everyday.”
        Person 2: “You can’t prove it.”
        Person 3: “That guys a whack-job. The inside of his house. Weirdo.”
        Person 1: “The inside of my house is on the other side of the door regardless if you say it is or not.”
        Person 2: “Isn’t this guy weird.”
        Person 3: “Get your head checked!”
        Person 1 walks passed the door and into his house, turns on the TV, and sees that the altercation he had with Persons 2 and 3 was filmed for a News broadcast….
        Anchorman 1: “What you are about to see is a crazy man saying that the inside of his home is on the other side of his front door…to his home.”
        Anchorman 2: “How proposterous. He’s not really saying that, is he?”
        Anchorman 1: “Watch and see…”
        (Scene of Persons 1–3 talking about front door plays on screen. Cut to Anchorman 2 shaking his head in deisbelief at Person 1′s claim.)
        Anchorman 1: “Pundit-man, what do you think of this?”
        Pundit-man: “Obviously, the guy is bonkers. He has a front door…to his home nonetheless, and he claims that if you walk through it you end up in his home.”
        Anchorman 2: “What do you make of all this?”
        Pundit-man: “It’s hard to make anything really of it. Any kind of sense that is. The guy obviously should seek professional care. (And I’m a really smart guy.).”
        Anchorman 1: “And there you have it. Guy is nuts!”
      7. witch_wyzwurd Says:
        NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, that is!
      8. I will finish this report with a question:
        Why did Obama feel compelled to state that his birth status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 rather than the 14th Amendment?
        British Nat 1948;
        5.—(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;
        It would be helpful to know by which Treaty with Britain, or other lawful means, that “His Majesty then has or had jurisdiction over British subjects;..” while the Big 0 Sr was here……….would the ‘evidence’ of the Big 0′s ‘Student Visa’ be considered as difinitive…?
      9. The Big Boo Says:
      10. constitutionallyspeaking Says:
        It would seem to me that the decision of this case also renders to the states constitutional authority to define “natural born”. Per the congressional records of those that authored the bills (Bingham & Trumbull), the new state election laws requiring proof of citizenship for presidential candidates would be deemed constitutional rather than in conflict with it. That the states are not usurping federal power or authirty in this matter.
        ed. I was thinking the same thing but haven’t really had the chance to go deep on it… will do in time. -Leo
      11. Chester Arthur had to have been aware of these remarks made in Congress in 1866 as he attended the 1880 RNC where he ended up accepting the VP slot to compromise Presidential candidate Garfield. He knew he had an NBC problem and developed a strategy to distract inquiries from the fatherhood issue to the birth location issue. He was successful. His deception was only discovered recently through efforts of this blog. Note Arthur was one of three Presidents repeating the oath taking ceremony: Coolidge and Obama did also.
        ed. It’s really spooky how similar the Obama and Arthur sagas really are. Too similar if you ask me. – Leo
      12. Leo;
        “An American Citizen” was the pseudonym of Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania, a member of the Annapolis Convention and the Continental Congress, and author of a number of pamphlets on the finances and commerce of the United States. The four letters written over that signature were among the first to appear in favor of the Constitution, and were reprinted in many of the newspapers of the day.
        An Examination of the Constitution for the United States of America, Submitted to the People by the General Convention, At Philadelphia, the 17th Day of September, 1787, and since adopted and ratified by the Conventions of Eleven States, chosen for the purpose of considering it, being all that have yet decided on the subject. By an American Citizen. To which is added, A Speech of the Honorable James Wilson, Esquire, on the same subject. Philadelphia: Printed by Zachariah Poulson, Junr. in Fourth-Street, between Market and Arch-Street. M. DCC. LXXXVIII.
        The President of the upper-house (or the chancellor) in in England, is appointed by their king, while our Vice-President, who is chosen by the people, through the electors and the Senate, is not at all dependant on the President, but may exercise equal powers on some occasions. In all royal governments, an helpless infant or an inexperienced youth may wear the crown. Our President must be matured by the experience of years, and being born among us, his character at thirty-five must be fully understood. Wisdom, virtue and active [8] qualities of mind and body can alone make him the first servant of a free and enlightened people.
        Quote: ” being born among us”
        1. This was written in 1787, during the time that the United States Constitution was being discussed by the People. Just like the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers were written during this time.
        During this time, the United States was under the Articles of Confederation and under the Constitutions of the individual States and were no longer under British Law and as such were Americans and no longer British subjects.
        2. The people, were the citizens of the States. This did not include foreigners. Citizenship was a right for the decendants of citizen fathers, as stated in the Naturalization Act of 1790, and did not include indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and later Asians. While women were included in the act, the right of citizenship did “not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States….”
        Citizenship was inherited exclusively through the father. This was the only statute that ever purported to grant the status of natural born citizen.
        3. So being born of us, equates to being born of the citizens, of the body politic. Which ‘excluded’ foreigners and children born of foreigners [like Barack Abdullah Hussein Obama, spawn of a 'FOREIGN national].
        As again, per the Law of Nations; I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
        Not his country, not a citizen.
        Thank you Leo.
      13. I believe it is not just the Democrats that should be shaking in their boots. Is it not the responsibility of all elected officials to uphold the Constitution of the United States? Aren’t they all liable? Congress/Senate: If you ignore the issue, it will just go away… Put your fingers in your ears and say na-na-na-na-na. —– And we the people will make sure you get voted out of office!
      14. Leo,
        I have created a graphic using Bingham’s photo, two of his quotes which you cite above, and a link to your site. You will find the graphic at http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2011/03/father-of-14th-amendment-defined.html. Cick on the image to enlarge it to full-page size.
        Feel free to use the image as you please.
      15. Am I Natural Born Citizen?
        Father=Born in Ireland, later naturalized in USA all before I was born
        Mother= born in USA
        Me=born in the USA
        Ireland offers children of one parent born in ireland, Irish citizenship. I say offer, because I had to apply for Irish citizenship which they did give me.
        Am I a Natural Born Citizen?
        ed. Yes, you are a natural born citizen. – Leo
      16. This ain’t 1884, and this issue is not going away. We have more potential usurpers on the Horizon. After this Soetero buisness is finished there will be more frauds to unmask. Great Article, Thanks Leo
      17. Why would Nobama leave it up on his own web site that he is a dual citizen when they have scrubbed almost evertyhing else? Don’t get me wrong he ig dirty,I am just confuzed. http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html
        ed. It would draw more attention if he scrubbed it since it’s been saved a million times… – leo
      18. Donald Trump today released a copy of his original long-form birth certificate to ABC news. It shows his mother was born in Scotland and that she was resident in the U. S. 15 years before his birth. Perhaps he either is 1) stumbling into the natural born citizen issue unaware of the intent of the founding fathers, 2) certain that his mother became a naturalized citizen before his birth, or 3) certain his mother was not naturalized prior to his birth and he a] wants his own eligibility validated by the public in light of the natural born citizen requirement or b] wants to validate Obama’s eligibility by getting everyone to think, “Donald Trump is elgible. If Obama’s birth circumstances are similar, he must be eligible too.” (That is, assuming Obama can show a birth certificate showing he was born in the USA.)
        ed. Trump’s mother was naturalized four years before he was born. – Leo
      19. Leo,
        Any clue as to what Trump is up to?
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.