Spread the love

by John Charlton

Barack Hussein Obama, the recognized 44th President of the United States of America has a “shame crisis” on his hand — in my opinion.

He can either admit that according to the legal record, that he does not meet the qualifications of Article II, Section ii, paragraph 5 of the U.S. Constitution, which reads: No person shall be eligible for the presidency, who is not a natural born citizen and shall have attained the age of 35 years before assuming office, and be a resident for 14 years in these United States.

According to seven Supreme Court rulings (for cites see filingsin Kerchner et al. vs. Obama & Congress et al.), the definition of a “natural born citizen” is that cited by Emmerich Vattel, in his treatise, “The Law of Nations” (Le Droit du Gens”):  “A native or natural born citizen, is one born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof.”

Here we have a definition, long accepted without any other recognized as equivalent or authoritative, which conflicts directly with what Barack Hussein Obama states in his biographies about his background:  namely that his father was a British subject at the time of his birth, and not a U.S. citizen. Whether you accept that he was born in Hawaii on Aug. 4th, 1961, or believe he was born anywhere else on the globe on any other day, this one fact of his paternity, would disqualify him.  And this is the very basis upon which Attorney Leo Donofrio, Esq., first brought suit before the popular election in Nov. 2008 (cf. Donofrio vs. Wells, to download his appeal to Supreme Court).

There is no other core issue:  not the Birth Certificate, or Certification of Live Birth, not the birth alleged to be in Kenya or Canada, not the Indonesian citizenship he held as a child, nada, nothing.  The paternity of his father, who was a British subject is the sole issue, and it is sufficient alone to disqualify him.

As a constitutional scholar, Barack H. Obama should at least personally address this issue before the nation.  More than 9 months have passed, and still he pretends it does not exist.  Is the thought that the requirements of the constitution are irrelevant today, or is it the thought of the shame he would face in laying down the office of President that keeps him from speaking about this issue?


However, being a patriot who is concerned more in the rule of law and the truth, than in political loyalties to one candidate or another (I readily admit that Senator John McCain also did not meet the natural born citizen qualification, being that he was born in Panama), I think we need to also consider another possibility, which has gotten little attention, but which is also core to this controversy.

And it is this:  the historical record shows that Barrack Hussein Obama, the president’s father, was a Muslim and had 4 wives.  Elizabeth Sanderson describes the wives of Barrack Obama in an article she wrote for the London Daily Mail  (Jan. 2008).

It is also a legal fact, that marriages under Muslim law were recognized by British colonial authorities in Kenya,  (cf “The Nandi of Kenya”, p. 99 ff. )  Since the United States recognizes the principle of comity, the first marriage of anyone, of any citizenship, anywhere in the world, which is recognized as valid in the jurisdiction in which it was contracted, is recognized as valid in the United States.

However, Hawaiian Law, which follows the definition of marriage in the Christian tradition, does not recognize as valid, those marriages contracted by men who are previously married, and who have not divorced their previous wife or wives before marring in state. (See  HRS § 572-1 (3)).   If found to be such, Hawaiian law allows a decree of nullity to be sought in family court (cf. HRS § 580-21).

In fact in Hawaii if one attempts marriage when currently married, one has committed the crime of bigamy, even if it is only a petty misdemeanor in Hawaiian law to attempt such a bigamous marriage (cf. HRS § 709-900).

None of these legal facts however, should be construed to impugn the presidents parents:  because his father was Muslim, and perhaps did not even know that bigamy was illegal in Hawaii.  His mother probably did not even know that her husband to be was still married (cf. the Sanderson article above, regarding how Obama Sr. did not tell one wife of the existence of another).  So it can be presumed they were both in good faith and did not intend to violate the law.

The Law is the Law

But in the United States, even if you don’t intend to violate the law, and you do violate it, you break the law, and suffer the legal consequences, which in this case would entail the illegitimacy of Barry Jr..

Now I’ve known these facts for some time, but they did not seem crucial to the question of the president’s eligibility until Attorney Donofrio published the article by George D. Collins, “Are Persons Born Within the United States Ipso Facto Citizens”, which appeared in the American Law Review about 20 years after the civil war. (cf. reprinted in this Scrib Document).

Here Collins shows that illegitimate children are natural born citizens of the United States, if they are born in the USA and their mothers are US citizens at the time of their birth.  He writes:

This rule of international law that the political status of the father is impressed upon the child where legitimate, and that of the mother where illegitimate, is founded in reason and established according to the dictates of sound policy.” … “Birth, therefore, does not ipso facto confer citizenship, and it is essential in order that a person be a native or natural born citizen of the United States, that his father be at the time of the birth of such person a citizen thereof, or in the case he be illegitimate, that his mother be a citizen thereof at the time of such birth. (American Law Review, Sept/Oct 1884, Vol. 18, Amer. Period. Series, Online. pg. 831.)

Its seems indisputable then that if judicially reviewed, Obama would be a natural born citizen, on account of being an illegitimate child, if his parents marriage were annuled.

So the legal fact seems to impress themselves upon one’s consideration, that if Obama Jr. sought a decree of nullity in HI Family Court for the bigamous marriage of his natural parents, he would then be a natural born citizen in law: but until he does this, he has a legal impediment to the presidency, on account of the fact that the marriage of his parents in Hawaii is still recognized by that state as valid; though it was bigamous.

But the price to seek such a sanitation of his birth record would be very great.


Shame that his father apparently deceived his mother.

And Shame that he would be, in law, illegitimate.

And most of all the shame of appearing to deny his African and Black heritage to obtain the Presidency.

Was he willing to pay that price, to be eligible?

Is he hiding his vital records, because they were amended to reflect the decree of nullity he has already sought in secret?

It would appear that if he did this, he denied his Kenyan ancestry, and Black Ancestry, at least according to the law.

And that would make him a non-player in any race-politics game.

And perhaps that is the simple reason for 12 months of stonewalling.  And why his lawyers do everything to avoid the issue which it at the root of keeping his past secret.

At least there is some indication that he has sought such a judgment in Family Court in Hawaii and subsequently amended his vital records, because in October of last year, Hawaiian officials spoke of his vital records in the singular, but in July spoke of them in the plural. And that can only be if an amendment was filed.

The Price of Shame.  The price of the Presidency for Barack H. Obama?

A man with a past conflicted with differences in legal customs, religious customs, differing citizenships, who never had a place to call home town for long, who lived in Hawaii, Washington State, Indonesia, California, New York City, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Chicago, Illinois, and now the White House.

Do the right thing, Mr. President:  be transparent, and tell us if you have removed the legal impediment to your eligibility:  if you won’t do that, quiet the nation by stepping aside, and letting Mr. Biden assume the Presidency.

A patriot should do no less…


Mr. John Charlton is not an attorney, and will graciously accept any evidence that his reading of the facts or law are in error.  Post your comments below:  if they are very germane, they will be published.

Join the Conversation

No comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. Links about Obama’s personal history, which have been scrubbed from their original internet sites:

    Michael Sheridan’s report on Obama, Feb. 2007

    Archived at:





    was reported in the Sunday Times of London, but has been scrubbed, and the wayback machine indicates that the Times site robot.txt blocks a retrieval attempt.

    Interesting to note in the scrubbed article is this quote:

    “The Chicago Sun-Times columnist Lynn Sweet was the first to spot in 2004, when Obama burst on the national stage at the Democratic party convention, that his memoir,Dreams from My Father, contained “composite” characters and changed names.

    “Except for public figures and his family, it is impossible to know who is real and who is not,” she pointed out.

    Obama admitted as much in his introduction, saying he had altered characters “for the sake of their privacy.” As with the revelation that he took cocaine in his youth, he appears to have been candid about potential areas of controversy.

    Obama’s African family is particularly complicated. By his own account, his father never really left Kezia, his first wife, in Kenya. She bore Obama Sr two children, Roy and Auma, who now works in social services in Berkshire. “

    Perhaps the reason for the article being scrubbed is that it quotes Obama as being uncertain whether his parents were ever married, and thus implies he was illegitimate. Also confirms that his father’s marriage to Kezia was one the British Colonial authorities did not record, as was the case with Muslim marriages.

  2. Obama owes us proof of eligibility. The burden of proof is on him, not some third party like the Annenberg Foundation, on the board of which Obama used to sit. He owes this nation, especially our military, absolute assurance that his authority is lawful.

    So, yes, let us call for Obama to open the Hawaiian vital records and the Kenyan birth record and the passport record and the college records (as a foreign student?). Time for truth and let the chips fall where they may.

    Where is the vaunted transparency Obama promised? And where is the birth certificate? (Maybe in Kenya, as nontrivial evidence indicates.)

    Given his mother’s youth, if Obama was born in Kenya, and if his parents were not legitimately married per your editorial, I think he would not even be a U.S. citizen, much less a natural born citizen. This may turn out to be the case, if the truth is ever known.

  3. Great article, Suggesting, Obama, do something honorable, and resign, is a noble gesture on your part. The part, of this story, people fail to understand, is the criminal nature, of this usurper. Obama has forged multiple, fraudulent documents, along with the DNC, that have been filed, during the election, including a forged COLB, a birth document, supposedly, from Hawaii. Also there is document fraud on behalf of factcheck, and their batch of phony photos, of the fraudulent “birth certificate”. I think it will take a small army, of law enforcement personnel, to arrest these thugs, and traitors, and eliminate, those, enemies domestic, from our government. They will not admit to fraud, and they will not go away without force. This is truly, a Constitutional crisis, and Obama, the usurper, has put this country, in a very precarious position, and the future looks very troubling.

    Mr. Charlton replies: I am not a criminal attorney, and frankly am one of those who does not understand the nature of the crime of fraud involved; if you are, I would greatly appreciate it if you would consider writing a detailed article on the crime of fraud and how extensive the list of crimes and criminals in this regard might be in the past election cycle. You have to understand, that in a public forum, if you are going to do this, to respect persons rights and nuance your statements, as neither I nor you want to appear in court for work we have done without payment or gain.