If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!

Welcome Back!


by John Charlton

Lou Dobbs, arguably the most famous CNN journalist, recently resigned from the cable news station to pursue a career in public service.

(Jan. 12, 2010) — Yesterday Lou Dobbs countered the extreme criticism he has received for merely asking to see documentary evidence as to where the man who goes by the name Barack Hussein Obama II was born.

His comments appear in yesterday’s edition of Esquire Magazine, in an interview he granted that publication.

Politco.com reported the news under the infantile category title: “Birther News.”

Former CNN host Lou Dobbs is standing by his questioning of President Barack Obama’s birthplace.

Dobbs told Esquire in an interview posted on the magazine’s website Monday that questioning whether Obama was born in Hawaii — as a certificate of live birth and state officials confirm — is “common sense.”

“I ask a question, and I am attacked from the extreme left as a quote-unquote birther,” Dobbs told the magazine. “I mean, what the hell is that? When you can create a controversy by asking what seems to me still a perfectly common sense question?”

“It has been used in the extreme left to create a toxicity that is just unbelievable,” he added.

Seeing that there are numerous facts which support a reasonable basis of doubt about Obama’s place of birth, the virulence of the attack waged upon Lou Dobbs is just another nail in the coffin of Obama’s credibility.  If you were born in Hawaii, then show your original vital record!

If you have been caught in a big lie, come clean and resign! For goodness sake.

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published.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. Lou Dobb, Hannity, Congressman Nathan Deal, even Sarah Palin have agreed that it is a legitimate question. Now let us strike while it is hot: demand Rep congress address this issue!
    OBOGO (Operation BO has to Go) is on!

    OBOGO Petition – The Petition to your Senator that gets to the ROOT OF THE OBAMA “plant”

    This is what every single American can do that will put the House and the Senate on Notice for a “specific” remedy, without further delay. A Senate Trial takes 30 days..the courts can take years. So.. this is given to empower the People with a specific set and very specialized focus relating facts that are not ” alleged” but already proven.
    Anyone can copy paste and print this out..and Take A Stand for the Constitution with some authority as an American!



  2. Imagine (just for arguement) that proof comes out that Obama is not eligible to be POTUS ….do we charge him with fraud in the U.S. courts or should we consider him an enemy combatant and send him to Gitmo?
    The distinction between ‘natural born’ vs plain old ‘citizen’ vs ‘non-citizen’ could be the deciding factor.

  3. Glad to see that Lou is back on this issue but as we know it’s much more than a birth certificate. I hope that Lou will give us insight of how media outlets have been forbidden to discuss Obama’s eligibility. Other than cable channels giving the impression that birthers are crazy we have not had competent attorneys like Mario Apuzzo or Leo Donofrio make their case to the American public.

  4. This country needs to know the truth. People are beginning to feel they are being scammed by Obama. I do not know why Congress has not formally requested to see the proof of his citizenship. Representative Deal’s request will probably go unanswered, but maybe it will be the start of other Congress members to put the pressure on him.
    I do not know what the big deal is with Obama. If you are eligible to be Pres., then show it! By refusing to show the papers, it appears he has something to hide. Over the years I have had to show my birth certificate to prove I am who I say I am. It is past the time for Obama to prove who he really is.

  5. The keynote address at the 2004 Democratic Convention (printed below) in Boston was delivered by Barack Obama, who was about to become only the third African American since Reconstruction to be elected to the U.S. Senate. The child of an estranged Kenyan father and white Kansan mother and raised mostly in Hawaii, Obama—a one-time community organizer, law professor, and author—became an instant national figure with his eloquent address, in which he debunked the country’s artificial red-blue division and offered ‘‘the audacity of hope,” a phrase that would become the title of the book he published shortly before becoming a candidate for the 2008 presidential election.

    Tonight is a particular honor for me because, let’s face it, my presence on this stage is pretty unlikely. My father was a foreign student, born and raised in a small village in Kenya. He grew up herding goats, went to school in a tin-roof shack. His father, my grandfather, was a cook, a domestic servant to the British.

  6. Dear Mr. Dobbs,

    The issue is not simply whether or not Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii, the issue is whether or not Barack Hussein Obama is “eligible to the office of President”. This is the issue you should be addressing…

    Article II, Section 1, Clause 5: No person except a natural-born citizen …shall be eligible to the office of President.

    The issue of whether or not Obama is “eligible to the office of President” depends upon whether or not he is an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States.

    The phrase “natural born citizen” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution”.

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark., 18 S. Ct. 456, 169 U.S. 649 (U.S. 03/28/1898)


    16] The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [“citizen of the United States,” and “natural-born citizen of the United States”], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this, as in other respects, it [The Constitution] must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274.

    The “common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution” was plainly expressed by the Supreme Court of the United States in the dissenting opinion of Scott v. Sandford, which quoted Vattel, and explicitly stated, “The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…”

    Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (U.S. 01/02/1856)


    [418] …The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…

    Furthermore, the Supreme Court of the United States in 1814 relied upon Vattel’s “Law of Nations” as the authority on citizenship issues, and stated in The Venus, “The natives, or indigenes [natural-born citizens], are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

    The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 1814

    “Vattel, …is more explicit and more satisfactory on it [CITIZENSHIP ISSUES] than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, [Vattel] says, ‘…The natives, or indigenes [natural-born citizens], are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.’ ”

    Vattel’s Law of Nations: § 212. Citizens and natives

    …The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

    Finally, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Minor v. Happersett, confirmed the definition of a “natural born citizen” as “children born in a country of parents who were its citizens”.

    Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 162 (1874)

    ‘No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President’… The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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.”

    Suffice it to say, Article II “natural born citizens” are those citizens who are “born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

    Hence, Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States, even if he was born in Hawaii, as his father was a “foreigner”…

    To reiterate, Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. Therefore, Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States. Thus, Obama is not “eligible to the office of President”.


    1. Excellent post. To the list of US Supreme Court cases, you might want to add the 1939 case of Perkins v. Elg. In this case the court affirmed a declaration that Miss Elg was a natural born citizen. Elg was born in New York to citizen parents — both of which had become naturalized before Elg’s birth.

  7. Lou is the sole and only reporter who has the courage to say what 50% of our fellow citizens are thinking and what 50% know to be a massive problem. THANK YOU, Lou!!

    It would be a gigantic public service by Lou to us if he would spell out who and what has been done to attempt to silence him.

  8. Remember that Obama can not resign because; he never was. he “never was” eligible to run for the U.S. Pres. and he “never was” eligible to be the U.S. pres.; a “never was” is a never could be. So he would just move out of the Trojan Horse (White House). Any and all orders he has made are null and void; no one can change that.

  9. You’re damned right it’s a legitimate question!! Especially in light of the fact that Obama has sealed virtually ALL of his records. In fact, his first official act in office, on January 21st of 2009 was to sign an executive order doing just that. He himself has repeatedly admitted that his father was a British subject.
    in 1961 Hawaii it was a common practice to issue certificates of live birth (COLB) to babies regardless of PLACE of birth.
    after graduating from college in 1981, Obama travelled to Pakistan… at a time when Americans were restricted from travelling there.
    As I see it, if Obama has nothing to hide, why is he hiding virtually EVERYTHING??
    My hat goes off to Lou Dobbs… he’s shown more integrity and courage than anyone else in the broadcasting media. I agree completely… SHOW ME THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE!!! AND all of the other records and documents Obama is hiding. The American people have a right to know whether or not the person in the White House is legitimate, or a treasonous usurper.

    1. Does anyone know of a compilation of statements from Obama which attempts to document every statement he has made where he has admitted that his father was a foreign student?