by Tom Arnold, ©2020


I urge you to read this carefully.  See if you agree that the things I am going to tell you are some of the biggest reasons for the civil unrest and divisiveness today in our country.  I contend that if it were not for “Obama” (and others, some of whom I will name), the United States of America would be in a much better place today.  “Making America Great Again” would be achievable and quite possibly well on the way to becoming a reality.

So, how do you feel about the fact that we had a president whose birth certificate was a forgery?  That he used a dozen or more different Social Security Numbers, including one belonging to a dead man which he, “Obama,” used while president in 2010 to file his year 2009 tax return with the IRS.  That is called Identity Theft.  He (or someone directed by him) backdated and forged his Selective Service Registration Form to make it appear that he was in compliance with military draft regulations when he was not.  By law, anyone convicted of this offense can never become commander-in-chief of our country’s armed forces (president).  These are just a few of many crimes that “Obama” committed in an attempt to cover up his real identity and background, and to give the appearance that he was someone qualified to run for and become president.  He knew, and you should know, too, that someone seeking the presidency must be a natural born American citizen with both biological parents also being American citizens (“Obama,” however, likely was born in Kenya according to a bio published in 1991 which remained intact and undisputed for sixteen years until 2007, and “Obama’s” father, assuming the father is who “Obama” says it is, was Barack Obama Sr, a Kenyan British subject and never an American citizen).

How, you ask, could these things have resulted in such damage to our country?  Elementary!  Everyone in the federal government knew about it, but were spineless and rendered too afraid to do anything about it.  They would not, and to this day still will not, even talk about it!  It’s called the “open secret.”  SO MUCH FOR COURAGE, PATRIOTISM, OATHS TO HONOR AND PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION, AND LAW AND ORDER.  Many of us who are civilians also knew these things about “Obama” and were silenced, ridiculed, and, for all intents and purposes, disenfranchised.  Meanwhile, “Obama” and those who supported him in government and throughout the country (including many minorities) began denouncing the accusations and “conspiracy theories.”   They began calling it “racism” (most of them without even knowing “Obama’s” true Arab American ethnicity).  The political left and the political right became more and more polarized, and eventually the situation spiraled out of control and turned violent. I always like to point out that this ugly chapter in our country’s history (which, sadly, could turn out to be the last chapter) was centered around and led by “Obama.”  He has no one to blame except himself!  Obviously, too, there have been others who played lesser but nonetheless anti-American and traitorous roles.  Some of them are deserving of special mention, and you can read about them below.

Possibly the most egregious of them all is our country’s very own Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).  Their advertised purpose is to gather intelligence on foreign threats against our country.  So, the question arises-  WHY DID THEY HANDPICK, GROOM, FUND, AND CONSPIRE WITH SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE NANCY PELOSI AND THE DNC TO HAVE PLACED ON THE 2007-08 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION BALLOT “BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA?”  To say that it was none of the CIA’s business is an understatement!  Their actions arguably were even unlawful.  One interesting fact which is not widely known is that, despite what he claimed, “Obama” did NOT attend Columbia University in New York during the years 1981-1983.  Instead, he was a CIA agent/operator who was a student sponsored by the agency during those same years at Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow, Russia.  Considering some of the other things that the CIA has done in its history, I suggest you should not be surprised at their effort to have a president of their own choosing elected, so as to re-make our country to conform with the agency’s world view and plans.

The next culprit is one that you probably would seldom suspect.  I’m talking about the United States Supreme Court and, in particular, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr.  In 2008, Chief Justice Roberts swore in as president “Barack Hussein Obama.”  There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that Roberts knew about “Obama” and the fact that he was not constitutionally eligible to be president.  The rest of the high court, the Associate Justices, also must have been briefed on, or had learned about, “Obama.”  As the years of the “Obama” administration went by, one of the Associate Justices, Clarence Thomas, even commented that the court was “EVADING THE ISSUE” of what constituted a natural born American citizen.  Nothing could be more true!  No cases brought to the court and seeking to reaffirm or define the meaning of natural born American citizen were ever (2008-2020) heard or ruled upon.  Any petitioners were told that they did not have “standing.”  Oh, really!  I myself contend that even I have standing, in view of the circumstance that I am a tax-paying American citizen and a voter!  So, our Supreme Court and its politically correct and corruptible Chief Justice have failed to reaffirm or resolve this the possibly most important and relevant constitutional issue of them all.  To me, it’s shameful, and that’s putting it mildly.  It’s beginning to look like anybody from any foreign country in the world with one or both biological parents not being American citizens, and who as a candidate has philosophies and world views which are not compatible with ours, can become our country’s president and commander-in-chief.  IN FACT, IT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED ONCE, i.e., “OBAMA,” AND LOOK HOW THAT TURNED OUT!

Finally I have to call out the news media.  Journalists are supposed to be independent watchdogs over our government on the people’s behalf.  This duty is called the 4th Estate.  Well, then, take note that there is no, or very little, bipartisan or politically unbiased reporting being done by our once-trusted news media today.  The TRUTH about “BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA” has been covered up and withheld from the public.  It is not an exaggeration to say that America has been LIVING A LIE.  At some point, our historical record must be corrected.  As for the specific identities of those at fault, I could give you names and networks but you should already know who they are.  If only these phony journalists and pretend patriots had told the American public about “Obama” from the beginning, I firmly believe that things would have taken care of themselves, justice served, and the compounded problems being experienced by our society today would likely never have happened.

Before I close, I do not want the following to go blameless.  The mostly do-nothing Congress.  The FBI that unlawfully infiltrated itself into the Trump campaign and presidency for little or no reason at all (except politics).  The Joint Chiefs of Staff who have publicly spoken out against and criticized our president and commander-in-chief.  Do you suppose they forgot who their highest ranking superior officer is!  The sniveling obstructionist Democrat Party and its leaders and those who want to be.  I am terribly sorry if I forgot any of you.  There are so darn many, but you know who you are!

Written by:  A military veteran, retired law enforcement and criminal court officer, registered INDEPENDENT voter from a long family line of DEMOCRATS, a 4-year college degree plus post graduate classes in Law Enforcement Education, an honored and distinguished member of The Society For The Preservation Of Our American Republic, and author of “The Sick Treasonous Truth Surrounding Barack Hussein Obama” “As Witnessed & Experienced By An Ordinary American Citizen” which, despite my effort to “get it off my chest,” never became a bestseller!

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. No one said the Indiana and Georgia courts’ rulings superceded the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings. State courts interpret U.S. Supreme Court rulings all the time; it is part of their job. No court has said the Indiana and Georgia courts interpreted Wong Kim Ark incorrectly, and some expressly said they got it correct. This consensus among courts isn’t legally binding, but it is persuasive.

    And court decisions are, at a minimum, binding on the parties. Which is how we know Laity lost his cases: He sued New York to remove Cruz from the ballot, but the court rejected Laity’s argument that Cruz was ineligible, and Cruz appeared on the New York ballot. Laity appealed, and every appellate court denied his appeals.

    The Georgia court accepted Obama’s birth certificate, which is not surprising because in the United States birth certificates are legally sufficient evidence of place of birth. Obama’s birth certificate was moved into evidence, the judge ruled against the challengers’ evidence, and he wrote that Obama was born in the United States.


  2. Jeff F, Davis said:
    “And, as an aside, the Georgia court in 2012 accepted into evidence Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate as proof of his birth in the United States.”

    Obama’s actual Hawaiian birth certificate has never seen the inside of courtroom. What that Georgia court accepted into evidence was a printed version of a PDF which, according to Obama, was generated by scanning a Xerox copy of his original Hawaiian birth certificate.

    On Saturday, July 18, 2020 at 1:22 PM Jeff F. Davis posted: http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/2012/120208/frontpage-Georgia.html

    From the link above:
    “In Part I, Malihi basically discredited the eight witnesses and said he found their testimony, as well as the exhibits tendered, ‘to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support plaintiffs’ allegations.’

    He stated, ‘None of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony,” and said none of the written submissions had any probative value.’ ”

    In other words, Malihi (the Georgia court in 2012) did not accept Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate as proof of his birth in the United States.

  3. “Even more interesting how judges at the state level “interpreted” language in US v Wong Kim Ark to have said something it did not in order to make Obama eligible”

    This is not true.

    Both the Minor and the Wong Kim Ark decisions say the term natural born citizen was derived from the Common Law. Vattel is not mentioned by either. Minor does not mention Law of Nations and Wong Kim Ark mentions it to say it was not the source for the definition of citizenship.

    Wong Kim Ark says that the Common Law definition of natural born means anyone born in a country regardless of the status of the parents.

    Both Minor and Wong Kim Ark say that citizens are added by birth or naturalization.

    Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark says this about Virginia Minor;

    “a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States”. He does not use the term natural born citizen. He described Wong Kim Ark in the same way.

    How many types of citizens are there?

  4. Jeff, You get an “F-” on Presidential eligibility. Indiana Court decisions as well as Georgia State Court decisions do not supersede SCOTUS rulings. Just because Cruz won votes does not give affirmation that those votes were legitimate. Obama got millions of votes and actually usurped the Presidency. This even though those votes were given to an unconstitutional candidate. McCain was also ineligible. That made the entire 2008 Election a fraudulent scam perpetrated on “we the people”. You say the Georgia Court accepted Obama’s BC as proof of birth in Hawaii. That BC has since been shown to be a forgery. Furthermore, as I told you. Mere birth in the U.S. is NOT sufficient to be President or VP. One MUST BOTH be born in the U.S. AND be born to parents who are both U.S. Citizens themselves.

  5. Robert Laity believes Ankeny was incorrectly decided, but no court that reviewed its work came to that conclusion. No later court ever said that Ankeny misinterpreted Wong Kim Ark or Minor.

    And no court has ever said that Wong Kim Ark or Minor said that birth in the United States to two U.S. parents is required for natural-born citizenship.

    It is confusing how Robert Laity thinks he won his ballot challenges against Obama, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, and McCain when every court ruled against him in every challenge. And Cruz received around 15% of the vote in the 2016 New York Republican primary.

    And, as an aside, the Georgia court in 2012 accepted into evidence Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate as proof of his birth in the United States.

  6. Jeff F. David said:
    “Interesting how Robert Laity adds the word “sole” to the Rhodes language quoted in Wong Kim Ark.”

    Even more interesting how judges at the state level “interpreted” language in US v Wong Kim Ark to have said something it did not in order to make Obama eligible, especially since US v Kim Ark cites language in Minor v Happersett which makes Obama ineligible. Of course, there’s always the possibility that the latter is precisely why judges at the state level “interpreted” language in US v Wong Kim Ark to to have said something it did not.

  7. Sharon, thanks for reminding me. I was going to point out that since Obama can be proven to have proffered forged documents to claim that he is eligible to be President,Obama committed multiple felonies. One is making a false statement. 18USC,Sec.1001. He also committed the crime of Impersonating a public official based on the fact that he fraudulently entered into the Office of the Presidency,by fraud. (Usurped the Presidency by fraud). Furthermore, the fact that he did so during time of war,makes Obama a Traitor under 18USC as well as a spy under 10USC, the UCMJ, Sec.103-Spies. If convicted he would face the death penalty.
    By law anyone guilty of such crimes would also be prohibited from holding any office under the U.S. By extrapolation, Joseph Biden is complicit and is likewise guilty of abetting treason and espionage against the U.S. Pelosi is also an accomplice to said crimes and subject to the same penalties. This is a MAJOR crime against the United States of America that cannot be ignored if this country is to survive.

  8. Jeff Davis, You continue to grasp at straws. The court in Ankeny was not correct. There is a plethora of U.S. Supreme Court precedent that incontrovertibly affirms that a NBC IS one born in the U.S. to parents who are both U.S. Citizens themselves. The Georgia court cannot properly rely on Ankeny since that case misinterpreted U.S. Supreme Court precedent as well as the Constitution.

    As far as losing my cases against Obama,Cruz,Rubio,Jindal and McCain. I did not lose my cases. I take it as a win that the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to revisit the more then (6) cases in SCOTUS that have already immutably defined NBC as “One born in the U.S. to parents who are both U.S. Citizens”. Cases that the powers that be choose to malfeasantly ignore to the detriment of our nation.

    See: Laity v. NY,Obama and McCain,USSCt. (2014) Cert. Denied and Laity v. NY,Cruz,Rubio and Jindal,USSCt. (2018). Cert. Denied

    Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States
    Requires that only a „natural born Citizen‟ be eligible for the Office of President
    (and Vice President)

    by: Neil B. Turner, Citizens for the Constitution

    I. „Natural Born Citizenship‟ as required and defined by the Constitution.

    Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution says: No Person except a natural
    born Citizen, … shall be eligible to the Office of President;

    The last sentence of the Twelfth (XII) Amendment (ratified in 1804) says: But no
    person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible
    to that of Vice-President of the United States.

    „Natural born Citizen‟ is a condition at birth (jus soli and jus sanguinis). It cannot be
    changed by new statutes and laws, nor by Senate Resolutions like SR511 for Senator John
    McCain (a Congressional act of Treason to the Constitution).

    „Natural born Citizen‟-ship is specified and defined in the Constitution:

    1. Article II, Section 1:5 says that only a „natural born Citizen‟ shall be
    eligible to the Office of President;

    2. Article I, Section 8 says that Congress (under the authority granted by the
    People) shall have the power to… define and punish… Offenses against the
    Law of Nations;

    3. The Law of Nations says that:

    a. „The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country
    (jus soli), of parents who are citizens’;

    b. „As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by
    the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the
    condition of their fathers (jus sanguinis), and succeed to all their

    c. ‘The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children’;

    d. „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.‟

    This requirement can only be changed by a Constitutional Amendment, which has yet to
    occur. The 14th Amendment does not mention „natural born Citizen‟, and is therefore
    unrelated to and has no bearing on the Constitutional requirement for the Office of the

    Since Obama has repeatedly identified his natural birth father as Barack Hussein Obama I
    of Kenya, who was at no time in his life a citizen of the United States, we do not need a
    Hawaiian birth certificate; we only need a leader who will insure enforcement of the
    supreme law of the land, The Constitution of the United States of America – NOW!

    II. „Natural Born Citizenship‟ as defined and adjudicated by the Supreme
    Court of the United States.

    4 Supreme Court Cases define „natural born Citizen‟:

    1. The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
    Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd
    paragraph from the French edition of Vattel:

    “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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are
    citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the
    children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers,
    and succeed to all their rights.”

    2. Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

    Justice Story, who gave the ruling, cites the principle of citizenship enshrined in his
    definition of a “natural born citizen”:

    … she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the
    citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under
    age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen
    of that country.

    3. Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

    The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in that year, wrote the majority opinion, in
    which he stated:

    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.

    4. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

    In this case, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S.
    Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In
    this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record,
    He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:
    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

    This (flawed, to many) decision extended citizenship to all born in the country
    (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies, etc.); but it did not
    extend the meaning of the term „natural born citizen‟.


    Finally it should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things
    which it signifies. In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never
    applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in
    the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

    Hence every U.S. Citizen must accept this definition or categorical designation, and fulfill his
    constitutional duties accordingly. No member of Congress, no judge of the Federal
    Judiciary, no elected or appointed official in Federal or State government has the right to
    use any other definition; and if he does, he is acting unlawfully, because unconstitutionally.

    This requirement can only be changed by a Constitutional Amendment, which has yet to
    occur. The 14th Amendment does not mention „natural born Citizen‟, and is therefore
    unrelated to and has no bearing on the Constitutional requirement for the Office of the

    Since Obama has repeatedly identified his natural birth father as Barack Hussein Obama I
    of Kenya, who was at no time in his life a citizen of the United States, we do not need a
    Hawaiian birth certificate; we only need a leader who will insure enforcement of the
    supreme law of the land, The Constitution of the United States of America – NOW!

    [Written] by:

    Neil B. Turner
    Citizens for the Constitution
    Carlsbad, CA

    To download documentation: 4 Supreme Court Cases Define Natural Born Citizen:

    # # #

    Or: https://www.scribd.com/document/55105383/Executive-Summary-Re-NBC-Defined-in-Constitution-Plus-4-SCOTUS-Cases

    Additional applicable U.S. Supreme Court Cases can be viewed here: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

  10. In Wong Kim Ark, the U.S. Supreme Court quoted language that everyone born in the allegiance of the United States is a natural-born citizen.

    And there is no verbiage in Wong Kim Ark that says that only those born in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents are natural-born citizens.

    Which is why courts in Indiana, Georgia, and elsewhere ruled Obama was eligible.

    Commander Kerchner brings up Cruz. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled Cruz was a natural-born citizen, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied the challenger’s cert. petition.


    1. Observation: All of the rulings are based on the presumed accuracy of Obama’s life narrative. The evidence gathered by the Arpaio/Zullo investigation brings that into question for many people. Perhaps it equates to the FBI using the Steele dossier as the basis to obtain surveillance warrants while knowing it was unverified, “with the intent to deceive.” https://www.thepostemail.com/2019/04/21/mike-zullo-describes-collusion-with-media-executives/

  11. See this page about “of trees and plants” and logical fallacies: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/tag/trees-and-plants/ and Euler Diagrams and logical fallacies: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/tag/euler-diagram/ The constitution “natural born Citizen” Article II clause abrogators trying to make the term “Citizen” of the United States identically equivalent to the term “natural born Citizen” of the United States, constitutionally in and only used in Article II of the U.S. Constitution are engaging in logical fallacies. Every word and adjective used in the constitution has meaning and cannot be ignored. The adjectives “natural born” cannot be ignored. They refer to Natural Law not man-made laws. See this: https://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/ Also see this regarding the Constitutional Convention as to how the “natural born Citizen” clause was put in for presidential eligibility and only “born a Citizen” was rejected. Adjectives mean something: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

    Those who think and argue that U.S. Senator Duckworth (who was born in Thailand) and U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (who was born in Canada), and others born with multiple citizenship and allegiances to foreign countries, and thus foreign influences and allegiance requirements on them by birth, … who think they are eligible to be the President and Commander-in-Chief of our military are engaging in logical fallacies in their arguments. See for more on some ineligible people suggested for Pres and CinC or VP: https://www.scribd.com/lists/22182725/Some-Politicians-Seeking-High-Office-Who-Are-Not-A-Natural-Born-Citizen-of-U-S

  12. Interesting how Robert Laity adds the word “sole” to the Rhodes language quoted in Wong Kim Ark.

    The Ankeny court didn’t “overrule” the U.S. Supreme Court precedent or the U.S. Constitution, nor did it claim to have done so. Rather, the Ankeny court in 2009 read Wong Kim Ark and concluded it supported the proposition that birth in the United States was enough for natural-born citizenship.

    The Georgia court in 2012 then read Ankeny, agreed with it, and adopted its analysis and conclusion. And other courts also have done the same.

    Robert Laity and Commander Kerchner, on the other hand, have lost every eligibility challenge they ever filed.

  13. Since no one here has yet quoted verbiage in US v Wong Kim Ark saying a “natural born citizen” is other than someone born in the country to citizen parents of the country I am left to assume said verbiage is not in said case.

    Every 1962 Ferrari GTO SWB is a Ferrari but not every Ferrari is a 1962 GTO SWB Ferrari.

  14. The real “squad”
    Aka Obama nominated district judges usdc dcd

    Beryl Howell CJ
    Amy Berman Jackson
    Ketanji Brown Jackson

    It’s all about the judges.

    Every art III federal chief judge including Art III USC chief judge and 1789 scotus

  15. Jeff Davis, People who are born of a foreigner (Born with dual citizenship) are NOT “born in the allegiance” solely to the U.S. Obama is a citizen but he can never be a “Natural Born Citizen”. He was not born under 100% allegiance to the U.S.

    Bud White, the Court in Minor said that they had “NO DOUBT” that an NBC involved being born in the US to citizen parents. They DEFINED NBC unanimously. The fact that they actually defined what an NBC IS is sufficient to determine that Obama and Arthur did not meet that criteria.

    The Court also say that the other statuses, without regard to the Parents nationality WAS “IN DOUBT”!!

    Other cases cite Minor’s definition of just what an NBC is. They cite the above definition. Obama is NOT an NBC.

    BTW, Barack Obama was a Government Official of Kenya. He served in the Kenyan Ministry of Transport. Barack Obama, Jr. is a “Child of a foreign Minister”. Also, Sr. was STILL married to Kezia Aoku of Kenya when he committed Bigamy and “Married” Stanley Dunham.

    No one really can be sure WHO Barack Obama,Jr. really is. His BC is forged.

    I have been having this very same discussion for (12) years. I am on solid legal ground.

  16. Jeff Davis, Give up Jeff. NO State court can overrule U.S. Supreme Court Precedents, let alone Constitutional language.

  17. To understand the Wong Kim Ark decision, you need to read in their entirety both the majority opinion and the dissenting opinion.

    Justice Gray goes through the derivation of the term natural born citizen. He examines what it meant to be natural born from the 1600s in England through the Declaration of Independence and the Constition. He comes to the conclusion the term natural born citizen is based on the concept of natural born subject from English Common Law.

    In his dissent, Chief Justice Fuller complains that the majority opinion makes English Common Law not Vattel the source for the term natural born citizen. He goes on to say it made the children born in the US to aliens eligible to be President.


    If CJ Fuller is not the first OBOT then William Dameron Guthrie (a prominent 19th century attorney) must be. Guthrie in 1898 shortly after the Wong decision was published wrote:

    “The Supreme Court held that a child born in this country of Chinese parents domiciled here is a citizen of the United States by virtue of the locality of his birth. The whole subject is discussed at length in the opinions of this case. The effect of this decision is to make citizens of the United States, by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, all persons born in United States of alien parents and permanently domiciled here, except the children of the diplomatic representatives of foreign powers; and therefore, a male child born here of alien Chinese subjects is now eligible to the office of President, altho his parents could not be naturalized under our laws.”

    Lectures on the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution By William Dameron Guthrie.


  18. The Indiana Court of Appeals after citing the famous Minor v. Happersett paragraph explains with the following statement;

    “Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born
    within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.

    And in Footnote 12;

    “12 Note that the Court in Minor contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens
    or aliens, rather in the case of President Obama, whose mother was a U.S. citizen and father was a citizen
    of the United Kingdom.”

    The Minor opinion never decided if someone like Obama was a natural born citizen.

    There is a link to the Appeals Court opinion below in an earlier comment.

  19. It Was interesting watching NYSUCS (state trial court) (Weinstein acting state Supreme Court Justice i think) handling Ted Cruz NBC eligibility situation in 2016 primary Election Cycle.

  20. U.S. v. Rhodes (1868) stated, “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.”

    Wong Kim Ark (1898) on page 662 approvingly quoted Rhodes, and Ankeny (2009) approvingly quoted Wong Kim Ark’s quoting Rhodes.

    I don’t know what an “OBOT” is, but Indiana Judges Brown, Crone, and May in Ankeny had no problem concluding from this plain statement that birth in the United States alone was enough for natural-born citizenship. Judge Brown, who wrote Ankeny, was appointed by Republican Governor Mitch Daniels.

  21. Wong Kim Ark WKA (1898) at U.S. Supreme Court: ” … 93 The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ‘strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.’ It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides, seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when secretary of state, in his report to the president on Thrasher’s case in 1851, and since repeated by this court: ‘Independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance, or of renouncing any former allegiance,—it is well known that by the public law an alien, or a stranger born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason or other crimes as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations.’ Executive Documents H. R. No. 10, 1st Sess. 32d Cong. p. 4; 6 Webster’s Works, 526; U. S. v. Carlisle, 16 Wall. 147, 155; Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a; Ellesmere, Postnati, 63; 1 Hale, P. C. 62; 4 Bl. Comm. 74, 92. … ” Read the entire case at this link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649

    The key phrase in the above conclusion in the WKA case by the Supreme Court and that the OBOTs and progressive movement hang their argument on to abrogate the true meaning and understanding of who is a “natural born Citizen”, i.e., a child born in the USA to two U.S. Citizen parents, using their logical fallacy types arguments in debates from WKA is: ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.’ They incorrectly logically argue that being a Citizen is the same as being a “natural born Citizen” by misreading that sentence in WKA and ignoring the adjectives “natural born”, which said phrase points to a different way of obtaining citizenship other than the 14th Amendment. Let me rephrase the key sentence in the court’s holding to more clearly point out the fallacy of the OBOT and progressive movements arguments.re WKA. Consider this: “If made in this country, a Toyota is as much a car as a red convertible Ford”. A Toyota and a Ford are both cars BUT a Toyota is NOT a “red convertible Ford”. A 14th Amendment Citizen of the United States is a Citizen but a 14th Amendment Citizen is NOT a “natural born Citizen” of the United States. See more on logic and language and logical fallacies (frequently used by the left) see this essay about Euler Diagrams to prove the truth or falsehood of an argument at this link: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/tag/euler-diagram/

    Also read the legal essay by Attorney Mario Apuzzo re the 14th Amendment and the WKA decision: https://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/neither-14th-amendment-nor-wong-kim-ark.html

    In addition to “logical fallacy” type arguments by OBOTS, Harris, Duckworth, and Ted Cruz online operatives, but most often the far-left progressive movement disinformation specialists, they use other tactics such as these: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/tag/gas-lighting/

    CDR Kerchner (Ret) – http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

  22. Would someone please quote the verbiage in Wong Kim Ark which describes, defines. implies, rules, or says that a “natural born citizen” is other than someone born in the country to citizen parents of the country.

    Thank you.

  23. Bud White, Obama NEVER HAD Natural Born U.S. Citizenship. Besides, his Birth Certificate is a proven forgery. Obama, as Trump is 43 states, may have even been born IN Indonesia to Mohammad Sumohadiwidjojo. In any event, Obama was NOT born IN the USA to parents who were both US Citizens themselves. The US Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett, 88 U.S.,162,USSCt.(1874) DID indeed unanimously define what an NBC was. It also stated as I repeated, that there was “NO DOUBT” that people born under those circumstances are NBCs. One is either an NBC or one is not. Water without TWO Hydrogen molecules and one Oxygen molecule is NOT Water!! A child born in the USA to only one US Citizen or no US Citizen is NOT an NBC.

  24. Jeff Davis, I’ve had this discussion many times. Ankeny is a State Court. It misinterpreted the more then (6) cases that affirmed that an NBC IS one born IN the US to parents who are both US Citizens themselves. Had the Indiana Court properly quoted Wong Kim Ark they would have seen that the definition of an NBC which was unanimously arrived at in Minor v Happersett is CITED word for word. One born in the U.S. to parents who are both U.S. citizens themselves.

  25. Here are quotes and links for Allen v Obama, Fair v. Obama and Ankeny v Daniels

    Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court, Judge Richard Gordon presiding.

    “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co., 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986 (1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 69 U.S. 649, 702-03 (1989) (addressing U.S. Const. amend. XIV); Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678, 684-88 (Ind. App. 2010) (addressing the precise issue). Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”


    Fair v. Obama Maryland Circuit Court for Carroll County, Judge Thomas Stansfield presiding.

    “The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [US v Wong Kim Ark], and as this Court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. While Ms Fair and Ms. Miltenberger may disagree with the holding of the Supreme Court, from a perspective of stare decises, the only means by which an opinion of the Supreme Court concerning substantive law can be overturned is either by a subsequent holding of the Supreme Court or an Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Both have occurred in the past on very rare occasions, but this Court does not believe that it has the discretion to simply disregard a holding which clearly applies to the definition of “natural born citizen” as it applies to President Obama.”


    Ankeny v. Daniels, Indiana Court of Appeals, published decision.


    Do you need the links for Apuzzo’s cases in Vermont and New Jersey?

  26. Perkins v Elg does not overturn the Wong Kim Ark decision because she was born in the US to two citizen parents. Had her parents been aliens and the Court ruled she was not a citizen even with birth in the US, you might have something.

    Perkins v Elg is important to Obama because the Court ruled that parents can not give up a minor child’s citizenship. Thus Obama could not have lost his US citizenship after the move to Indonesia.

  27. In Perkins v. Elg, it was undisputed that Marie Elg was born in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents. The family then moved out of the United States, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that she had kept her U.S. citizenship despite her parents renouncing theirs.

    The U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that only those born in the United States to two U.S. citizens are natural born citizens.

  28. Bud White said:
    “The lower courts are interpreting the Wong Kim Ark decision in a way that made Obama a natural born citizen.”

    They are indeed. I think it would be very interesting to find out why.

  29. WKA (1898) was not the last U.S. Supreme Court re “natural born Citizen”. Why do they not mention Perkins v Elg (1939), a very relevant case as to the definition of who are a “natural born Citizen” of the United States. Those who say WKA was the last case are engaging in deception by omission. Typical OBOT tactic. They want people to miss Perkins v Elg (1939).

    Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),

    was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child’s natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents’ origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship “and to return to the United States to assume its duties.” Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a “natural born Citizen of the United States” because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.

    “But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg ‘solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.’ The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg ‘to be a natural born citizen of the United States’ (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary’s discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship.”

    See this site more more information on the six relevant SCOTUS cases: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

    Also read this white paper about the “natural born Citizen” term and presidential eligibility clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution here: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/The-Who-What-When-Where-Why-and-How-of-NBC-Term-in-Constitution.pdf

    CDR Kerchner (Ret) – http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

  30. “Lower court rulings do not override US Supreme Court rulings.”

    The lower courts are not overriding Supreme Court rulings, they are applying them to the cases they are reviewing.

    The fact is Mario Apuzzo made the same argument about the (6) Supreme Court cases and the lower courts disagreed with his interpretation of their holdings.

    Remembering that the Wong Kim Ark case is the last one of the (6) Supreme Court cases, it would be the precedent the lower courts are bound to follow. Here is what the Indiana Court of Appeals wrote:

    “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance
    provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the
    United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of
    the citizenship of their parents.”

    In footnote 14 of the Ankeny decision, the Court said it was immaterial that the Supreme Court did not specifically call Wong Kim Ark “natural born”.

    The lower courts are interpreting the Wong Kim Ark decision in a way that made Obama a natural born citizen.

    There are several cases (Allen v Obama and Fair v Obama) where the judges said they were bound by the precedent of the Wong Kim Ark decision.

  31. I thought I was aware of all things Obama, including his non-attendance at Columbia University in the early 80’s, but was actually surprised to learn that he was a CIA sponsored Student Operative at a University in Russia. That is something I must have missed. I would like to review the documentation about that, if someone could please post it? Thanks.


    And I believe barry soetoro’s real father MAY be that cult leader in Indonesia that barry’s mammy was a member of, Muhammed Subud.
    Little boy barry looks just like him. While his mother was in Indonesia she was a member of his cult. Is this why, perhaps, when Mike Zullo’s team went to check micro-ficeh records of inbound citizens from overseas, the first couple of weeks in August, 1961, they were blacked out…gone…? See, that would’ve placed little boy barry most likely being born in Indonesia and not Hawaii, like his fabricated birth certificate states.

  33. Vattel treatise re Principles of Natural Law and “natural born Citizen”: https://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/

    Thomas Jefferson and Vattel and Natural Law: https://www.thepostemail.com/2010/05/03/jefferson-used-vattels-the-law-of-nations-to-write-our-founding-documents/

    Benjamin Franklin and Vattel and Natural Law: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/benjamin-franklin-in-1775-thanks.html

    George Washington and Vattel and Natural Law: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/george-washington-consulted-legal.html

    John Jay recommending to Washington the “natural born Citizen” qualification for the President and Commander in Chief office in our new Constitution: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/04-05-02-0251 and why he suggested it.

  34. Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen: https://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/neither-14th-amendment-nor-wong-kim-ark.html

    Also see the six relevant SCOTUS cases re their citing “natural born Citizen”. Adjectives mean something. The adjective “natural” refers to Natural Law: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

    Adjectives mean something. See: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2011/07/07/trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab-are-nbc-2/

  35. The Ankeny case in Indiana cited Wong Kim Ark, and then the Indiana court concluded that Obama was a natura-born citizen.

    In the George eligibility challenge, that court cited Wong Kim Ark and Ankeny, and then the Georgia court concluded that Obama was a natural-born citizen.

  36. Bud White said:

    “I believe there are about one dozen cases where courts ruled on the merits and found Obama to be a natural born citizen.

    Most, if not all, cited US v Wong Kim Ark (1898) as binding precedent.”

    I believe Robert Laity has repeatedly cited at least six (6) SCOTUS cases which either described, defined or ruled “natural born citizen” as “born in the country to citizen parents of the country”. Lower court rulings do not override US Supreme Court rulings.

    I don’t believe US v Wong Kim Ark either described, defined or ruled Wong Kim Ark a “natural born citizen” but, rather, a “citizen” per the 14th Amendment…which does not contain the verbiage “natural born citizen”.

  37. Every point brought out in this article is correct. Fuhrer obama’s candidacy and regime were clear violations of the Constitution but the “supreme court” either was in on the scam or cowards afraid of being called “racist” to do their duty. The nation may never recover as fuhrer obama is still committing sedition and treason without any repercussions.

  38. Lloyd Carter said: “A wound that will never heal.”

    Indeed. Just as how our fellow Americans and our government treated we Vietnam Veterans upon our return and for decades thereafter is a wound that will never heal.

  39. “Wong Kim Ark is one of those (6) cases.”

    And yet when Judges read that decision, they come to a different conclusion.

    Mario Apuzzo made that same argument in New Jersey and Vermont and lost.

    Why hasn’t even one judge accepted it?

    Is it possible he misread the Wong Kim Ark decision?

  40. Bud White, It is an immutable fact that Obama is NOT nor has he ever been a “Natural Born [U.S.] Citizen”. Lower courts or Judges who stated that he is are not correct.

    The U.S. Supreme Court has already decided no less then (6) cases supporting the incontrovertible, apodictic and irrefragable fact that an NBC IS one born IN the U.S. to parents who are BOTH U.S. citizens themselves. Wong Kim Ark is one of those (6) cases.

  41. For the past week the USCA DCC #20-5143 Flynn dismissal order by full en Banc panel has had the Obama eligibility issue in their mail room inbox if not yet clearing security to allow Covid 19 dispersed clerks to process the reconsideration en banc

  42. “not all were.”

    I believe there are about one dozen cases where courts ruled on the merits and found Obama to be a natural born citizen.

    Most, if not all, cited US v Wong Kim Ark (1898) as binding precedent.

    In New Jersey, Mario Apuzzo’s arguments were said to be without merit by the New Jersey Court of Appeals.

  43. — Never let a constitutional crisis go to waste three months before a POTUS / CINC quadrennial National Election.

    All things are still possible if Flynn Rejoins the Trump campaign and investigates the aka Obama Potus CINC vetting – eligibility matter

  44. Although many eligibility cases were dismissed for lack of standing, not all were.

    Ankeny in Indiana, for example. Orly Taitz’s 2012 ballot challenge in Georgia was another.

  45. If anyone thinks we are having a “constitutional crisis” (and we obviously are), just wait until November 3rd! What will we call it then? I’m afraid there may not be adequate words to describe it.