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


February 17, 2011

Jeffrey Toobin was editor of the Harvard Law Review and graduated from Harvard Law School in 1986. Both of his parents were reporters for major networks.

Dear Editor:

The following letter was sent by email to Jeffrey Toobin and Anderson Cooper of CNN in response to their coverage of the issue of Obama’s eligibility for the presidency (see video below):

Mr. Toobin and Mr. Cooper

I would like to point out that your intellectual dishonesty regarding the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama.

First, off Vattel is specific, § 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

continuing on in the same section;  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.

Let’s review what Obama says about himself.

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

What does the United States Constitution say;

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

What did the first United States Supreme Court Chief Justice state to George Washington?

Dear Sir,
Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.
I remain, dear sir,
Your faithful friend and servant,
John Jay.

How does Barach Obama with a foreign father, free from foreign influence?

Why does the Kenyan Government state that Barack Obama was born in Kenya?

James Orengo, full quote; “If America was living in a situation where they feared ethnicity and did not see itself as a multiparty state or nation, how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the President of America?

The current Gov of Hawaii Neil Ambercrombie has stated there is no proof that Obama was born in Hawaii. Tim Adams, former election worker in Hawaii has stated the same, there is no Birth Certificate in Hawaii for Barack Obama.

The COLB that has been posted is a fabrication and forgery. I have an extensive blog that covers the Obama COLB forgery, newspaper artciles that state ‘Kenyan-born’, statements from the Kenyan Parliment.

Next time when asked, please point to the extensive newspaper articles that state ‘Kenyan-Born’ Barack Obama even when running

CNN host’s and so called legal experts have time and again, proven their intellectual dishonesty and outright fabrication of lies regarding an illegal undocumented foreigner Barack Abdullah Hussein Obama.

Please advice when the United States Constitution was amended to allow ‘anyone born’ in the United States the right and privilege of the Presidency.

Where in the 14th Amendment does it grant ‘Natural Born Citizenship’ to anyone?

Alexander Porter Morse
A natural-born citizen has been defined as one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country. NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES. Eligibility for the Office of President. Alexander Porter Morse. 66 Albany LJ 99 [1904].

In Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94, 5 S.CT. 41, 28 L.ED. 643 (1884), the court ruled that native Indians were not U.S. citizens, even if they later severed their ties with their tribes. The words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” the court held, mean “not merely subjct in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiange.” Most Indians could not meet the test. “Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian Tribes, (an alien through dependent power,) although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more ‘born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’*** then the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government ***. Id. at 102.

“(CT:CON-349; 12-13-2010)
a. Acquisition of U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is governed by Federal statutes. Only insofar as Congress has provided in such statutes, does the United States follow the traditionally Roman law principle of ?jus sanguinis? under which citizenship is acquired by descent.

Per the Naturalization Act of 1790 the closest Act from the Adoption of the United States Constitution.
The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were “free white persons” of “good moral character”. It thus, left out 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.

Citizenship was inherited exclusively through the father, jus sanguinis.

Bloodright inheritance, Jus sanguinis (Latin: right of blood) is a social policy by which citizenship is not determined by place of birth, but by having a parent(s) who are citizens of the nation.

In closing take note from a recent newspaper article from Zanzibar; The Citizen

For more than 200 years US citizen could not pick a president who has roots outside the country.


also youtube video’s


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. For Tollgrade

    Regarding Blackstone [English Common Law] vs Vattel [Laws of Nations]

    From an attorney Apuzzo article:

    “It is therefore to be expected that, when terms of municipal law are found in the Constitution, they are to be understood in the sense in which they were used in Blackstone’s Commentaries; and when the law of nations is referred to, that its principles are to be understood in the sense in which Vattel defined them.” James Brown Scott, The United States of America: A Study in International Organizations 439 (1920). There is little doubt that citizenship properly falls under the law of nations and not under the rules of municipal law. Citizenship has always been recognized as a topic that affects United States relations with other nations………………… Given that citizenship affects “the behavior of nation states with each other,” ……………..the Founders would have looked to the law of nations to define it for the needs of the new nation. Clearly, citizenship is both a national and international matter which affects the relations among nations. The Founders and Framers would have looked to the law of nations to define citizenship in the new nation and not the English common law.

    Also there is Jay’s Letter to Washington regarding foreign influence, July 1787:
    “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

  2. Texoma,

    In your reply, “Obama has grown up with the foreign allegiance and influence of Obama Senior, and that is a fact that will not go away should Obama’s father turn out to have been an American.”

    I disagree that this would make Obama ineligible if it turned out that his father listed on his B.C. is in fact an American Citizen – for the sake of argument per se.

    Although it is true, the NBC clause was – as you said – the strongest check they could possible leave us, they could not and is not any guarantee that zero foreign influence would be a result.

    For example, if 2 Mexican Citizens file for and accepted into the United States and become Naturalized Citizens here, then any child they have after that point in time, in the United States, is in fact a Natural Born Citizen child of those Mexican legal immigrants, now Naturalized Citizens.

    Would that child then be free from all foreign influence of his parents history/culture/family and love of Mexico? Of course not, and there will certainly be a strong tie from the parents to the child on such. But that child is still qualified to be the President and is a NBC.

    I know these facts well, as I grew up on the Border States and can attest to the fact that not only were my friends NBC and their children NBC, but their ties to another Country run very deep. This alone cannot and does not disqualify them to be President.

    1. William1,

      Obama Senior was never a US citizen, nor was he even an immigrant — he was temporarily in the US on a student visa with no intention of ever becoming an American. Obama Junior grew up knowing that this man (who he believed was his father, and with whom he identified with) had absolutely no interest in becoming an American and hence no allegiance to the nation.

      On the other hand, foreigners who come to the US and become citizens are required to take an oath of allegiance to our nation and renounce all allegiance to their former home country. Do they still have feelings for the home country? Of course, but their allegiance is to the US and not to the home country. Children born to such parents know that their parents purposely ditched their home country to become US citizens. These children know that their parents willfully swore their allegiance to their (the children’s) birth, and at the same time publicly renounced all allegiance to the home country. This is a significant fact.

      Furthermore, these children have to wait until they are 35 years old before they can be President, and their last 14 years had to have been in the US. These are additional conditions which make for a greater attachment to the nation.

  3. The left is not knowing how to handle the gaining momentum of “Birthgate”. Obama is not a natural born citizen and they all know it, but refuse to let go of the coverup. The harder they, the media, cover it up the bigger the interest grows for Obama to prove his eligibility.

    He will be unseated whether they like it nor not. It is not open for debate, it is just a matter of when.

    Excellent article Sharon and spot on.!!
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: Thank you, although I cannot claim credit for writing this one.

  4. Can I please remind folks of something that this fool Toobin probably knows but lacks the moral decency to publicly acknowledge because that might end up with him looking for a new job! The Supreme Law of the Land. The Constitution of the United States of America! ESTABLISHES TWO CLASSES OF CITIZENS! CITIZEN AND NATURAL BORN CITIZEN! You know the rest!

    1. Agreed. Citizens by natural law (natural born citizens) or citizens by human law (naturalized citizens). Natural born citizen are those born in the country to citizen parents, and as such, are born with exclusive allegiance to the nation. Naturalized citizens (either naturalized at birth or after birth) are not born with exclusive allegiance to the nation.

  5. Serious question: Why are so many of you and by extension sites you’re a part of still making getting the birth certificate that is alleged to be on file in Hawaii a priority? I don’t see the necessity for it.

    Toobin admits it, many Kenyans have admitted it, and 0bum0 admitted it on his ‘fightthesmears’ website, that he is the product of a father who was a native Kenyan with British citizenship.

    From everything I’ve read regarding 0bum0’s eligibility to be president there is no way he can be due to his father was never an American citizen, nor was he ever immigrant to the USA.

    Getting a copy of what’s alleged to be on file in Hawaii will never change the fact that 0bum0 didn’t have the required 2 citizen parents to be Natural Born.

    0bum0 must be removed from the White House – now, today!

    1. Question Ramboike,

      Assuming for a moment that there is a Long Form Birth Certificate on file in the State of Hawaii. Who is listed on it as Obama’s father?

      And there lays the problem which needs to be verified. Maybe Obama Sr. is listed as the father as Obama publicly proclaims, but knowing the Liar that Obama is, his word alone is not trusted. Maybe its listed as someone else as the father as many have suggested.

      1. If it turns out that Obama’s father was an American and not Obama Senior, per the intent of our Founding Fathers, Obama would still not be eligible to be President.

        See my reply earlier to ELmo for my explanation of the above.

      2. Assuming that there is a possibility that a different father is listed on a Birth Certificate, that may or may not be on file with the State of Hawaii, is ‘after the fact’. That there has been for over 2 years – since 0bumm0 was put on the ballot – an ongoing crime against our Constitution is a present fact.

        You want or it looks like you’re suggesting, that we should wait around from now to possibly 10 years from now to get verification from something that might not even be there while the crime continues to go on.

        Don’t take it wrong, I’m not trying to belittle you, this site [which I think is a good one] or all the work that WorldNetDaily has done on this issue. I’ve put the same question to some others and basically got the same response. Up till the Lakin Case I was content to follow along with the Birthers on their quest for the Birth Certificate. That all changed after the Lakin Show Trial. He wanted a Birth Certificate too, and we know what it got him.

        I’m no expert on law nor even close to being one, but I do have enough intelligence & common sense to reason out what I’ve been reading from all the attorneys [Donofrio, Apuzzo, etc] who have been handling the lawsuits against 0bumm0. They have either all together told one huge lie or they, in what they presented on their websites, have confirmed what 0bumm0 admitted to on his website: Not a Natural Born Citizen, hence illegally put on the ballot [start of the crime against our Constitution].

        My opinion of those in pursuit of getting this Birth Certificate is they are operating bass ackwards. Why are the employers trying to track down the proof that 0bumm0 is or isn’t qualified to have the position when he has already told you he didn’t meet the requirements?

        Shouldn’t the focus be on the colluding criminal Congress who has caused this constitutional crisis? I like that letter that was sent to Boehner. Should do that with all of them everyday with an emphasis put on “2 citizen parents needed to pass the constitutional requirement to hold the office of president” till some of them get a spine and honor the oath they took to our Constitution. Not the DemoRATs, that would be useless, they are treasonous by nature. Send letters like that one to all the republican leadership, the so called protectors of our founding Freedom Charters.
        Mrs. Rondeau replies: The Post & Email is a First Amendment publication which presents news articles and citizen editorials from many different points of view. It is not our intention to place emphasis on any one aspect of the Obama eligibility controversy, but rather, to present as much factual information as possible to allow the readers to make up their own minds as to what could or should be done.

        Have letters to Congressmen and Senators yielded any results thus far?

  6. Vattel wrote in French, and all the English language translations before the Constitution was written said that “indigines”–whatever they are–had two citizen parents.

    1. In 1673, German political philosopher Samuel von Pufendorf defined “indigenes” as the society’s original founders and their descendants. Thus, in Pufendorf’s view, natives or indigenes were those born in a society, of parents who were, or were descended from, the society’s original founders.

      1. So, IF the writers of the Constitution had read both Pufendorf and Vattel they might have considered that a person who was an offspring of the society’s original founders (which in the USA were Indians) had two citizen parents. Why would they be interested in defining the number of citizen parents of an Indian?

        But, if they had read Blackstone, who was far more popular than Vattel and Pufendorf together, they would have read that:

        “The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is alien.” http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/

        In other words, Blackstone actually used Natural Born. Vattel didn’t. And, a search of the writings of Adams, Hamilton, Wilson, Jefferson, Madison, Etc shows that in their writings they never use the term Natural Born in the way that the post-US Constitution translation of Vattel used it and ALWAYS used it the way that Blackstone and the common law used it.
        (And the minor exceptions referred to in “generally speaking” refers to the children of foreign diplomats.)

    2. Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 22 November 1, 1784 – November 6, 1785
      Elbridge Gerry to Timothy Pickering

      Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 22 November 1, 1784 – November 6, 1785
      Elbridge Gerry to Timothy Pickering

      Dear Sir, New York 15th Octr 1785
      I am favoured with yours of the 11th, & have no Objection to your receiving the principal of my Debt, being £397.0.11/2,(1) provided I am secure for Costs in determining the Question of Interest—;but should not this Stipulation be made previously to your receiving the Money, & be inserted in the Receipt for it?
      I am in Want of the following Books from Messr Jackson & Dunn, & wish to know whether I must send the others to Phila., or deliver them to any Friend of those Gentlemen here. The Books wanted are Vattel’s Law of Nations.(2) Burlamaqui’s principles of natural & political Law 8 vo.(3) Burlamaqui’s Law of Nations(4) if the Reputation of it, is equal to his other works. Government of the Germanic Body, 8 vo. Grotius on War & peace 8 vo.(5) if it is a Translation of his Whole Work de Jure Belli & Pacis. St Evremond in French is not what I want.(6)

      Page 688

      OCTOBER 15, 1785

      I have some loan office Certificates issued from Thomas Smith’s Office, the Interest of which must be paid as soon as the State of Massachusetts have passed an Act complying with the Requisition. I shall send a Copy of the Act when it passes, & in the Interim propose to leave the Certificates in your Hands, if You should come here before my Return, if not, I can send them by the post, & wish to have the Interest Certificates sold at the current Exchange When issued & the proceeds vested in Flower & sent to Boston—;the Interest due is about 500 Dollars.
      When the Suit is terminated with Mr Willing, please to send me an Account of the Money in your Hands after a Deduction of all Charges.
      Adieu Dear sir & be assured I am, Yours sincerely, E Gerry

      [P.S.] Mr H—;—;(7) is here & wishes to keep his office here & do the Busi-ness by proxy; but if this is his Condition I think Congress will choose another Treasurer.(8)

      RC (DNA: RG 93, no. 30059).
      1 At this point in the margin Gerry wrote: “In memo gave Mr Lewis by P[ickering] & H[odgdon] the balance is set @ £396.8.11/2 Barbadoes Cury. Dollar @ 6/3 which requires to add 20 Per Ct. £79.5.71/2 to make, in Pensyla. currency £475.13.9. Interest required from Nov. 14. 1772.”
      2 Two London editions of Emmerich de Vattel’s The Law of Nations were in circulation at this time: a 1759–;60 edition in 2 vols., and a 1760 edition in one.
      3 Jean Jacques Burlamaqui, The Principles of Natural Law, In Which the True System of Morality and Civil Government are Established, 2 vols. (London, 1763).
      4 As Burlamaqui wrote no such work, Gerry may have had in mind the one volume edition of the first half of the preceding work published under the title The Principles of Natural Law, which had been issued in various printings by J. Nourse at London in 1748, 1752, 1762, and 1780, or of the second half published under the title The Principles of Politic Law by Nourse in 1752.
      5 Hugo Grotius, The Rights of War and Peace, 3 vols. (London, 1738).
      6 Gerry was apparently misinformed about the French editions of Grotius’ Le droit de la guerre et de la paix. Those available in his time were translations by either Antoine de Courtin (1622–;85) or Jean Barbeyrac (1674–;1744), not Charles de Marguetel de Saint-Denis, seignur de Saint-Evremond (1613–;1703).
      7 That is, Michael Hillegas, the Continental treasurer.
      8 Gerry also wrote the following letter to Pickering on October 26.
      “In Answer to your Favour of yesterday, there is an additional Charge of 12/ in my Account against Philips & Willing, being the Balla of their Account with Mr Samuel R Gerry, if I recollect the Matter: but I am not sure that the charge is not for some other Consideration, his Ballance is also due to a larger Amount. The Matter is explained in some of my Letters in 1783 to You or Mr Hodgdon on the Subject. I have never had the Account of Sales & Acct currt from Mr Lewis, & they must be in his Hands, yours, or Mr Hodgdon’s—;the £396.8.11/2 Barb Curry is I conceive the same as our lawful Money, to reduce which to Pennsylva Curry You must add 1/4, altho lawful is only 20 Per Ct better than your Curry—;[£396.8.11/2] + 99.2.01/4 = £495.10.13/4. If I rightly remember, the Account Currt. & Account of Sales, were in a Letter from Philips & Willing, & made part thereof, & the Copy was sent by me to You from Annapolis.
      “Mr Rivington informs me General Greene will probably want ‘Stewards political OEconomy,’ [James Steuart, An Inquiry into the Principles of Political oeconomy, 2 vols. (London, 1767)], & if Messieurs Jackson & Dunn can leave the Books till the General’s Answer is obtained, it is probable they will be sold.”

      Quote: 2 Two London editions of Emmerich de Vattel’s The Law of Nations were in circulation at this time: a 1759–;60 edition in 2 vols., and a 1760 edition in one.

  7. Time is a wasting folks, and we are rapidly losing our freedom, as many are now finding out; just ask Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, or Cmdr. Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III for confirmation of that. We are being intentionally deceived by the lame-stream-media, (LSM), and with every word out of Obama’s treasonous mouth being a lie, a fraudulent deception or a gross exaggeration. If we have to choose between having riots in the streets, by getting rid of him; then I’ll happily take the riots thank you. Speaking about riots; how about the rioting in Wisconsin by every Union member – being promoted and pushed by Obama, and how about Obama’s promoting rioting in Egypt, BUT EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE IN IRAN, (of course), where he/they all support and promote Jihad and Sharia Law. Good People of America, does this not clearly prove “beyond any doubt” that we have someone in the White House who doesn’t belong there??? nor is he “in any way acting – in our best interests”. What do you think that Obama’s “SPENDING US into oblivion” means? Where is that supposed to end up??? Yes – he will change America alright… to the point where we cannot recover, and we will then be just like Cuba or Venezuela, with Obama the wealthy, narcissistic, Communist-Dictator-King at the helm. Now that he is in OUR White House we may never get him out; because he is positively following the Hugo Chavez’s formula, using George Soros, and Saul Alinsky rule-book. IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT AMERICA?????

    1. to bob 39 —– that is exactly what i keep telling people including ret. gen. vallely and j. b. williams of the patriots union. if we do not move to get obama out now we may not ever get him out. he will ignore or wipe away the 8 year law and stay there for life and we will be under a communist dictatorship and nobody will be able to do anything about it. i just get silence as if they do not believe me when i point this out to them.

      1. And here’s how he will do it Johnny; as soon as there is a real threat of his removal by way of “Law or Election”, he will declare Martial Law and try to hang onto power that way, while further obfuscating and eroding away OUR CIVIL RIGHTS “just watch and see”. We know how they think…”never let a crisis go to waste”. HE REALLY DOES NEED TO GO NOW, so we can get started on rebuilding America.

  8. Keep it simple-use their own hammer against them-SR511 has a useful definition-“born to American citizens”-they cannot refute it-it is what it is-if an inquiry into McCain was appropriate-than “fairness” which every Dem is born to preach-demands the same treatment of Obama.

  9. Great work from nobarack08.

    ELmo, below, is wrong when he says, “WHERE Obama was born is irrelevant.” To the contrary, if Congress or a federal court investigates the facts and finds that Obama has no American birth certificate, GAME OVER.

    Legalistic fencing over the meaning of nbC would also become moot if the Kenyan birth cert obtained by Lucas Smith were found to be authentic: again, it would be GAME OVER.

    ELmo does us all a disservice by dissing the quickest, easiest way to dispose of the Obama fraud. If Obama is not even a plain citizen, he is obviously not a natural born citizen, so the birth cert issue most certainly is relevant. If Obama does have an American birth cert (which he obviously does not), then the entire burden of proof falls on the original intent of the Framers when they created the nbC requirement for office. Clearly Obama is not nbC, but so far that has not been enough to stop him.

    The birth certificate question is therefore sufficient by itself to resolve the Obama eligibility issue, but not necessary to do so. The bc is certainly relevant, ELmo. The nbC question is likewise sufficient to settle the issue, but not necessary unless Obama has an American bc, which he doesn’t. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

    Actually, there are numerous paths of investigation that would lead to resolving Obama’s fraud, including the birth certificate question, the definition of nbC, Obama’s fraudulent Social Security numbers, Obama’s passport record, Obama’s admission to Occidental College as a foreign student, and Obama’s non-attendance at Columbia University. Congress and the courts have simply refused to subject Obama to the rule of law. No public official has the courage to speak the truth about the naked emperor. Thus our entire system of governance is undermined by ignorance and cowardice.

    1. Harry,
      What you say is true IF you can prove he doesn’t have a Birth Certificate or that he was born elsewhere. I misspoke when I said it was irrelevant. It is not totally irrelevant, but it is irrelevant in the face of what has already been admitted by Obama – His purported father Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was not a citizen of the USA at the time of Obama Jrs. Birth. No discovery needed, no search warrants, nothing – just Obama’s word. If a court will hear it, GAME OVER with or without the birth certificate. The Birth Certificate is the hard way. Obama has already admitted (by admitting his father was NOT a Citizen) that he is INELIGIBLE. It is in that circumstance that I see the Birth Certificate as unnecessary. IF it turns out Barack Hussein Obama Sr. is NOT the father (Not beyond Obama to lie about anything), then the other documentation comes into play of course. What I should have said was “If Obama is telling the truth regarding who his father is, the Birth Certificate is irrelevant” – otherwise I concede your point. Relax dude – we’re on the same side :-)

      1. OK, ELmo, we are on the same side, and I’m pretty relaxed, but you see establishing Obama’s lack of nbC status as the easy way to solve this crisis. Problem is, eligibility attorneys have been pushing that case for well over two years with disappointing results, although I understand SCOTUS will re-confer in March on the Hollister case it earlier discussed in conference and rejected.

        Let’s face it, if Slick Willy could defend his perjury and obstruction of justice by questioning the meaning of “is,” Obama’s lawyers can occupy a lot of time arguing about nbC, and Congress is not likely to debate the issue. That path is certainly desirable and possible, but it does not seem like the easiest way. Besides, many Obama supporters will never understand nbC and woud probably consider that if Obama is found ineligible on that basis, he was disqualified by a mere technicality.

        In contrast, everyone can understand that a non-citizen should not be our Commander-in-Chief. Since I believe Obama is not even a citizen, much less nbC, I think the easiest, surest way out of this mess is to indisputably verify where the sucker was born. If he was undoubtedly born in the U.S., the nbC question still has to be answered.

      2. If it turns out that Obama’s father was an American and not Obama Senior, per the intent of our Founding Fathers, Obama would still not be eligible to be President.

        The intent of the natural born citizen clause was for it to be a “strong check” against foreign influence in the Commander in Chief and President. The strong check against foreign influence is further evidenced by the 14-year US residency requirement (the 14 years prior to election). Obama has grown up with the foreign allegiance and influence of Obama Senior, and that is a fact that will not go away should Obama’s father turn out to have been an American.

        Furthermore, in the days of our Founding Fathers, if a man claimed to be the father of a child (which Obama Senior did do), then he was the father of record, and that was good enough for purposes of inheritance, land grants, and especially citizenship.

  10. It really is sooooo easy to destroy the Obscurantist, Ignoramus’ perversion of the true meaning & intent of the 14th Amendment.
    Just “hit ’em” with the ol’ -‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ means complete….
    Cue Lyman & Co—What do we mean by subject to the complete jurisdiction? NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANYONE ELSE. THAT IS WHAT IT MEANS.


  11. It’s progress even if the AC and Toobin talking heads have to smear and misstate the issue. At some point the real qualifications of this man must be weighed against the constitutional mandate. Obama has laid claim to so many falsehoods it is impossible to know if he even knows who his parents really are or where he was really born. The actual process of protecting the highest office from a secreted usurper have all been violated. Not only has the constitution been violated but the process of media investigating his past has also been thwarted by a law firm, Perkins & Coie. All taken together it is a coup. After we get the birth certification and it shows his ineligibility we should next focus on Perkins and Coie and the records hidden by them. Then and only then will the real danger of this coup be realized.

    1. What if we annoy Perkins & Coie. Could we sue them under anything legal like obstructing juistice! Maybe they would drop the case. Who would be dumb enough to defend “him” now? Just a thought.

  12. It’s arrogant mouthpieces like Anderson and Toobin who are paving the way for something to happen like we saw occur in Egypt. The people are not deceived by anyone, least of all the Pharobama, whose infernal intransparency when it comes to his papers shows he cannot and should not be trusted. His day of reckoning is coming … and fast.

  13. Cooper almost seems to be a secret birther, by bringing out facts, and showing the absurdity of Obama not backing up a document, but acting otherwise. He now brings up the parent issues. It almost makes me wonder if he is a secret birther, acting for the network like he is anti-birther, yet going on and on about the serious issues! No matter what he says, I think he is widening the circle of people aware there is a real problem!! He has not yet come up with a simple answer of why no long form! Maybe he should try comedy instead of news reporting.

  14. Good Letter. To my mind though, aside from the obvious misquoting of Vattel, the other error Toobin and Cooper make is to (either mistakenly or purposefully – it’s hard to know which) confuse a 14th amendment “Naturalized Citizen” with a “Natural Born” Citizen. The 14th amendment really has little to do with Obama’s Constitutional Qualification to be President (Since the Citizenship of his mother and the Citizenship of his father are apparently not being disputed). There is NO way possible for Obama to use the 14th Amendment to qualify himself under Article 2, Section 1. His father was NOT an American Citizen – WHERE Obama was born is irrelevant – The fact that he cannot satisfy the Jus Sanguinis requirement (assuming his father is really Barack Senior) disqualifies him beyond redemption. This (Confusing 14th Amendment “Citizenship” with “Natural Born Citizenship”) is a confusion that seems to keep popping up. It’s almost as if it is done on purpose to obfuscate and confuse. The truth will find the light.