Knowledge Creates Power
The title of this article is
correct. After having completed a more thorough review of the relevant
US Supreme Court cases discussing the Constitution’s natural-born
citizen clause, I have discovered precedent which states that a
natural-born citizen is a person born in the jurisdiction of the US to
parents who are citizens. Read that again. I said precedent,
not dicta. The precedent holds that Obama is not
eligible to be President of the United States.
Up until the publication of this report today, all discussion of the
natural-born citizen issue (from both sides of the argument) agreed there had
never been a precedent established by the US Supreme Court, and that the various
cases which mentioned the clause did so in “dicta”.
Dicta are authoritative
statements made by a court which are not binding legal precedent.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines “precedent”
as a “rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular
type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases“.
Precedent that must be followed is known as binding precedent.
Under the doctrine of stare decisis, a lower court must honor
findings of law made by a higher court. On questions as to the meaning of
federal law including the U.S. Constitution, statutes, and regulations, the U.S.
Supreme Court’s precedents must be followed.
It can no longer be denied that there is controlling US Supreme Court
precedent concerning the definition of a natural-born citizen according to
Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution. I predict satori will
overcome those of you who have labored over this issue. This is not a remote
obscure reading. It is, when revealed, a clear undeniable holding and binding
precedent established by the highest Court of our nation which specifically
defines an Article 2 Section 1 natural-born citizen as a person born in the US
to parents who are citizens.
Therefore, Obama – according to US Supreme Court precedent – is not eligible
to be President.
PRECEDENT ESTABLISHED BY MINOR V. HAPPERSETT
The direct US Supreme Court precedent is stated in Minor v.
Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875). Furthermore, the precedent stated in
Minor is consistent with other US Supreme Court cases – both before and
afterMinor – which discuss the natural born citizen issue. While that
part of the holding in Minor regarding woman’s suffrage was superseded by the 19th Amendment
– which Constitutionally established a woman’s right to vote – the rest of the
case is good law. And the remaining precedent stated regarding the definition
of “natural-born citizen” – with regard to Article 2 Section 1 of the US
Constitution – is still binding upon all lower courts.
Therefore, lower court decisions – such as the holding
in Arkeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana – which have misconstrued
the US Supreme Court’s holding in Minor v. Happersett are wrong.
Below, we will review what the Indiana Court of Appeals had to say and explain
why they got it wrong. But first we must revisit Minor v. Happersett.
THE SUPREME COURT IN MINOR V. HAPPERSETT DIRECTLY CONSTRUED THE US
CONSTITUTION’S ARTICLE 2 SECTION 1 NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CLAUSE
Before revisiting Minor, we must revisit Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S.
649 (1898) to review a clearly erroneous statement made by Justice Gray
concerning the prior holding in the Minor case:
“In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf
of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question,
said: ‘The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born
citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ “ (Wong Kim Ark
This unfortunate remark by Justice Gray contains a clearly erroneous
statement. The Supreme Court in Minor did not construe the 14th
Amendment as to the issue of citizenship. Gray is absolutely wrong. The Court
in Minor construed Article 2 Section 1, not the 14th Amendment. For over a
century, it has been wrongly assumed that the Court in Minor did
construe the 14th Amendment, and that the holding of Minor was later
superseded by Wong Kim Ark. This is not correct.
A more careful reading of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Minor makes it clear
that it did not construe the 14th Amendment with regard to the
citizenship of the woman who wished to vote. The question presented was
whether, since the adoption of the 14th Amendment, women had gained the right to
vote. The Supreme Court in Minor held that nowhere in the Constitution,
including the 14th Amendment, was anyone, man or woman, granted a right to
vote. And it was only this part of the Minor case which was superseded
by the 19th Amendment.
The other issue decided by the Court in Minor required the Supreme Court to
determine if the woman was, in fact, a US citizen. As to this determination,
the Court did not construe the 14th Amendment. In fact, the Court
specifically avoided construing the 14th Amendment with regard to her
citizenship. Instead, the Supreme Court in Minor chose to construe Article 2
“There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by
the fourteenth amendment ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ‘ are expressly declared to be ‘citizens
of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.’ But, in our
opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that
“The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any
more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of
Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a
citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of
citizenship. The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a
citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the
United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her. That she had before its
adoption. If the right of suffrage is one of the necessary privileges
of a citizen of the United States, then the constitution and laws of Missouri
confining it to men are in violation of the Constitution of the United States,
as amended, and consequently void. The direct question is, therefore, presented
whether all citizens are necessarily voters. (Emphasis added.)
There you have it. The Court stops short of construing the 14th Amendment as
to whether the woman in question was a US citizen. The Court made a certain,
direct determination that Mrs. Minor was a US citizen before the adoption of the
14th Amendment and that she did not need the 14th Amendment to be a US citizen.
The Court then, having determined that she was a US citizen, avoided any
construction of the 14th Amendment as to her citizenship status. Therefore,
the holding in Minor is in no way superseded by Wong Kim Ark.
The Court in Minor went on to decide the issue of whether citizens are
granted a right to vote by the Constitution, holding that it did not. Again,
this part of the holding was superseded by the 19th Amendment, but the
determination that Mrs. Minor was a “natural-born citizen” is still controlling
Since the Court in Minor specifically avoided construing the 14th Amendment
as to citizenship, it is clear that Justice Gray’s statement – concerning the
citizenship passage by Justice Waite in Minor – was clearly erroneous. The
Supreme Court in Minor chose to construe Article 2 Section 1 instead of the 14th
Amendment. As such, Minor is the only US Supreme Court case which has directly
construed the Article 2 Section 1 natural-born citizen clause. Therefore,
Minor’s construction below creates binding legal precedent:
“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States
in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent
from the Constitution itself, for it provides that ‘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,‘ and that Congress shall
have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ Thus new citizens
may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
“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. Some authorities go further and include as
citizenschildren born within the jurisdiction without reference
to the citizenship of their parents. As to this
class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For
the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is
sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of
citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves
citizens.“ (Emphasis added.)
Whether the holding here was influenced by Vattel is not truly important.
Sure, it looks just like Vattel’s definition, but Vattel does not make legal
precedent – the US Supreme Court does. All that matters here is what the
Supreme court held. So we must carefully examine the actual words stated by the
Supreme Court. We must not allow ourselves to be guided by what the Supreme
Court did not say. What the Court actually said is what makes law.
In the above passage, the Court noted that Mrs. Minor was born in the US to
parents who were citizens. The Court stated that such persons were
“natural-born citizens”. The Court also stated – as to such persons – that
their “citizenship” was never in doubt.
By recognizing Mrs. Minor as a member of the class of persons who were
natural-born citizens, they established her citizenship. Establishing her
citizenship was required before they could get to the issue of whether she had
the right to vote. In doing so, the Court in Minor directly construed
Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution.
The Court also noted that some authorities include as “citizens” those born
in the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents. The
Court refers to these people as a different “class”. The Court in Minor refused
to comment on the “citizenship” of such persons since Mrs. Minor was not in that
class. They didn’t need to reach the 14th Amendment to determine if
Mrs. Minor was a US citizen since the Court previously established that she was
a “natural-born citizen”. Read the following again:
“It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all
children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves
This class is specifically defined as “natural-born citizens” by the Court.
The other class – those born in the US without citizen “parents” – may or may
not be “citizens”. But the Minor Court neversuggested that
this other class might also be natural-born citizens.
It’s quite the opposite. The Minor Court makes clear that this class are
not Article 2 Section 1 natural-born citizens. If this other
class were natural-born there would be no doubt as to their
The Minor Court refrained from making a “citizenship” determination as to
that class, but the Court did note that they were a different class.
Later, in 1898, the Court in Wong Kim Ark took the question on directly as to
who is a citizen under the 14th Amendment, but that case did not
directly construe Article 2 Section 1, whereas Minor did.
In order to avoid construing the 14th Amendment, the Court in Minor had to
define those who fit into the class of “natural-born citizens”. Mrs. Minor fit
into that class. Mr. Obama does not.
This is so very evident by the fact that the Minor Court specifically states
that the “citizenship” of those who have non-citizen parents was historically
subject to doubt. Whether the 14th Amendment nullified those doubts was
irrelevant to the Court in Minor, since Mrs. Minor was a natural-born citizen.
The 14th Amendment specifically confers only “citizenship”. In
Minor, the US Supreme Court directly recognized that natural-born citizens were
a class of citizens who did not need the 14th Amendment to establish
citizenship. The class of natural-born citizens was perfectly defined in the
Therefore, we have a direct determination by the US Supreme Court which
defines a natural-born citizen as a person born in the US to parents
who are citizens. The citizenship of this class has never been in doubt. The
citizenship of the other class was in doubt. But even if that doubt was erased
– as to their citizenship – that they are notnatural-born citizens was
established as precedent by the Supreme Court in Minor. In order for that
precedent to be reversed, one of two things are necessary:
– a Constitutional amendment which specifically defines “natural-born
Citizen” more inclusively than Minor did , or;
– a Supreme Court case which overrules the definition of natural-born citizen
in the Minor case
We have neither.
Minor was decided seven years after the adoption of the 14th
Amendment. The Supreme Court in Minor did not consider anyone but those born of
citizen parents on US soil to be natural-born citizens. Later, in Wong Kim Ark,
the Supreme Court stated that persons born on US soil to (some) alien parents
were “citizens”, but that case specifically construed only the 14th Amendment.
Read again Justice Gray’s statement as to Minor, “In Minor v. Happersett,
Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision
of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said…“ Nope. Not true. Gray
was wrong in that Justice Waite did not construe the 14th Amendment in the
quoted passage. Chief Justice Waite construed Article 2 Section 1. Whereas,
Justice Gray construed the 14th Amendment. Therefore, the two cases are not in
ARKENY V. GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF INDIANA
The Minor case has been severely misconstrued in the Arkeny opinionissued
by the Indiana Court of Appeals. That court quoted Minor’s natural-born citizen
language, then stated:
“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
False. The Minor Court did not leave that question open. Nowhere
in the Minor opinion does it state that the class of persons who are
natural-born citizens is an open question. The Arkeny Court has it backwards.
The Supreme Court in Minor stated that the “citizenship” of persons
who were not natural born citizens was an open question.
That is the most important sentence I’ve ever written at this blog. So
please read it again.
The “citizenship” of those born to non-citizen parents was a question that
the Minor Court avoided. But they avoided that question by directly construing
Article 2 Section 1. In doing so, the Supreme Court in Minor defined the class
of persons who were born in the US to citizen parents as “natural-born
Since Minor, no Amendment has been adopted which changes that definition, and
no other Supreme Court case has directly construed Article 2 Section 1.
The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark only construed the question of who was a
“citizen” under the 14th Amendment, it did not construe Article 2 Section 1.
Therefore, Minor and Wong Kim Ark do not compete with each other at all. Minor
is the standing precedent for construction of the natural-born citizen clause in
Article 2 Section 1, and Wong Kim Ark is the standing precedent as to
“citizenship” under the 14th Amendment.
WONG KIM ARK SPECIFICALLY DEFERRED TO PRIOR PRECEDENT REGARDING THE
DEFINITION OF NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
That the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark limited its holding strictly to the
issue of 14th Amendment citizenship – and did not make any new determination as
to Article 2 Section 1 – is evident from the following statement by Gray
regarding the dissent by Justice Curtis in the Supreme Court’s earlier
ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford:
“In Dred Scott v.
Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, Mr. Justice Curtis said:
‘The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the
language, ‘a natural-born citizen.’ It thus assumes that citizenship may be
acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in
reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at
the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the
place of birth.’
19 How. 60 U.
S. 576. And, to this extent, no different opinion was expressed or intimated
by any of the other judges.”
At first glance, Gray’s reliance upon the dissent’s passage in the Dred Scott
case would appear to contradict everything I have written above. But it
doesn’t. It actually confirms my analysis.
Justice Gray chooses his words carefully and so we must examine them
carefully. Note where Gray says, “And, to this extent, no different opinion
was expressed or intimated by any of the other judges.” Well, if we are
talking only about “citizenship”, then – to this extent –
Justice Gray is correct. But if we are talking about the definition of a
“natural-born citizen”, then Gray is grossly mistaken.
The Dred Scott majority may not have expressed a different opinion as to
“citizenship”, but the majority’s definition of a natural-born citizen is vastly
different than that of Justice Curtis in his dissent. The majority opinion in
Dred Scott, citing Vattel directly, stated:
“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. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than
by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition
of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.”
“I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who
is a citizen, for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place
of his birth, and not his country. The inhabitants, as distinguished from
citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to settle and stay in the
Vattel, Book 1, cap. 19, p. 101.
From the views here expressed, and they seem to be unexceptionable…”
Unexceptionable is defined as; ”
not open to any objection or criticism.” The Supreme Court majority,
in the Dred Scott case, clearly states that a natural-born citizen is a person
born in the US to parents who are citizens. Therefore, Justice Gray’s reliance
upon the dissent in the Dred Scott case is strictly limited to its discussion of
“citizenship” by Gray’s very choice of the words, “to this extent”.
Since Gray stated that none of the other justices in the Dred Scott case
expressed a different opinion than Curtis did in his dissent, it is obvious that
Gray’s statement only applies to general citizenship, and not to the
definition of those who fall into the class of natural-born citizens.
The majority in Dred Scott did, in fact, express a completely different
opinion than Curtis on the issue of who was an Article 2 Section 1 natural-born
Gray’s use of the words, “to this extent” – with regard to the dissent by
Curtis – indicates that the extent to which the holding in Wong Kim Ark
applies is to the definition of “citizenship”, not to the definition of who is a
natural-born citizen eligible to be President. The precedent stated by the
Court in Minor still stands to this day.
THE US SUPREME COURT DEFINITION OF PRECEDENT
In 1996, the US Supreme Court’s majority opinion by Justice Breyer inOgilvie Et Al., Minors v.
United States, 519 U.S. 79 (1996), stated that when the Court discusses a
certain “…reason as an ‘independent’ ground in support of our decision”, then
that reasoning is not simply dictum:
“Although we gave other reasons for our holding in Schleier as well, we
explicitly labeled this reason an ‘independent’ ground in support of our
decision, id., at 334. We cannot accept petitioners’ claim that it was simply a
The Supreme Court in Minor specifically construed Article 2 Section 1 by
defining – as natural-born citizens – those persons born in the US to parents
who were citizens.
Again, the Supreme Court specifically avoided the 14th Amendment, by
specifically construing Article 2 Section 1.
In order to determine whether Mrs. Minor had the right to vote, the Court
first needed to determine if she was a US citizen. They determined that she was
a citizen because she was in the class of “natural-born citizens”. And, in
doing so, they made it clear that persons born of non-citizen parents were not
The Court left open the question of whether those born of non-citizen parents
were “citizens”. But the Court did not leave open their specific construction
of Article 2 Section 1. Their definition of a “natural-born citizen” was the
core reason they found Mrs. Minor to be a citizen. Therefore, the Minor Court
established binding precedent as follows:
“…[A]ll 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
Please also note that the Court here makes specific reference to both aliens
and foreigners as distinguished from natural-born citizens. Aliens are just
that, aliens. They are not citizens. But we have always had many foreigners in
this country who were citizens. Those who came here from foreign lands were
foreigners naturalized as citizens. Some who were born in the US with dual
citizenship – like Obama – were also citizens of the nation of their parents.
These are citizens, but also foreigners. The Court in Minor made the careful
distinction that a natural-born citizen is not an alien or a
CITIZENS MAY BE BORN OR NATURALIZED
A common misconception of those who argue in favor of Obama’s eligibility is
that if one is, at the time of their birth, a US citizen, then that
person is also a natural-born citizen. False. This was unequivocally
established by the majority holding in Minor, which states:
“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States
in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent
from the Constitution itself, for it providesthat ‘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,’and
that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’
Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”
Again, at first glance this appears to provide a neat little soundbite for
Obama supporters. But it doesn’t. The quote above is taken out of context.
The Court’s opinion goes on to state:
“Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as
early as 1790, provided…that the children of citizens of the United States that
might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should
be considered as natural-born citizens.These
provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the
naturalization laws adopted since.”
Here, the Minor Court cites the first naturalization act of 1790 to the
effect that persons born of US citizen parents – outside the jurisdiction of
the US – are “considered as natural-born citizens”. So, here we can see
that while the Minor Court only recognizes two paths to citizenship, birth and
naturalization… it is clear that some persons who, at the time of their birth,
are US citizens, require naturalization for such status.
So, it’s clear that while there are only two paths to US citizenship, birth
and naturalization, those two paths sometimes merge. But naturalized citizens
are not eligible to be President. (The Minor Court failed to mention that the
words “natural-born” were repealed from the naturalization act of 1795.)
Additionally, the current US Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual, at
“7 FAM 1131.6-2
Eligibility for Presidency“, comments on the 1790 act as follows:
“This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not
included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is
a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he
or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.”
This is most likely because the statute did not actually deem such a person
to be a natural-born citizen, the act simply stated that such a person
was to be “considered as” a natural-born citizen.
The Minor Court also noted that the “substance” of the 1790 act, which
granted US citizenship at birth via naturalization, had remained as law up until
1875 when the Minor case was decided. So, clearly, while citizens may either be
born or naturalized, some born citizens are simultaneously naturalized at
birth. Naturalized citizens are not natural-born citizens. Therefore, they are
not eligible to be President.
I am not arguing that Obama was naturalized. But Minor does establish that
not all “born citizens” are “natural-born”. Minor also gives an unequivocal
definition of who fits into the class of natural-born citizens. Obama does not
fit into that class. Born in the US to a citizen mother and a British/Kenyan
father, Obama was born with dual nationality and dual allegiance, part US
citizen, part foreigner. Minor makes a clear distinction between natural-born
citizens and aliens or foreigners.
No Constitutional amendment supersedes Minor by defining natural-born citizen
in a more inclusive way. No US Supreme Court case has overruled it. Justice
Gray’s statement that the Court in Minor construed the 14th Amendment in the
passage quoted is wrong. The Court in Minor directly construed Article 2
Section 1 while directly avoiding construction of the 14th Amendment.
The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark directly construed the 14th Amendment and
specifically avoided construction of Article 2 Section 1. The two case are not
in contradiction. They are consistent.
Wong Kim Ark is specifically limited to determining who is a citizen
under the 14th Amendment.
Minor is specifically limited to determining who is a US citizen,
According to the US Supreme Court precedent established
by Minor, Obama is not eligible to the office of President of the United States.
Leo C. Donofrio, Esq.
Add This to the Newest Information:
Obama’s Occidental College transcripts provides concrete evidence to annul his
Anyone Wonder Why They’ve Been
Occidental Registration transcript states ~ Name:
Barry Soetoro – Religion: Islam – Nationality: Indonesian
The smoking gun evidence that annuls Obama’s presidency is Obama’s college
transcripts regarding his application for and receiving of foreign student aid.
Obama’s college transcripts from Occidental College indicates that Obama, under
the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from
Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school. The transcript from Occidental
College shows that Obama (Barry Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was
awarded a fellowship (scholarship) for foreign students from the Fulbright
Foundation Scholarship program – an international educational
exchange program sponsored by the U.S. government. Grants are available for U.S. citizens to go abroad and for non-U.S. citizens with no U.S. permanent residence to come to the U.S. To qualify, for the non-US citizen scholarship to study in the U.S., a student applicant must claim and provide proof of foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama’s detractors have been seeking. The United States Constitution requires that Presidents (and Vice Presidents) of the United States be natural born citizens of the United States.
“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.”
Obama hasn’t met and doesn’t meet the basic qualifications for the presidency
– must be natural born citizen.
Obama has been named in dozens of civil lawsuits alleging he is not eligible
to be president, with many filing a criminal complaint alleging the
commander-in-chief is a fraud.
The filed indictments disputes Obama’s eligibility to be president under the
U.S. Constitution which requires that eligible candidates for the United States
presidency be “natural born” citizens.
U.S. soldiers including a general refuse to recognize Obama as their
Commander in Chief since he is not a U.S. citizen. The soldiers have challenged
Obama’s legitimacy by filing federal lawsuits against Obama.
On such soldier was U.S. Army Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook who was given orders
to deploy to Afghanistan. Cook refused to deploy stating that he shouldn’t have
to go because Obama is not a U.S. citizen and therefore not legally President
and Commander in Chief. The military revoked the orders with no reason given.
Speculation is that Obama would rather not see this thing go to court before a
“In the 20-page document — filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Georgia — the California-based Taitz asks the court to consider
granting his client’s request based upon Cook’s belief that Obama is not a
natural-born citizen of the United States and is therefore ineligible to serve
as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces,” the Ledger-Enquirer reported.
Cook “would be acting in violation of international law by engaging in
military actions outside the United States under this President’s command. …
simultaneously subjecting himself to possible prosecution as a war criminal by
the faithful execution of these duties,” Taitz stated.
Obama says he was born in Hawaii in 1961, just two years after it became a
There are many lawsuits and claims that Barack Obama was never eligible to be
president because he wasn’t born in the United States. And there is credible
evidence that suggests he is not legally eligible to serve as President of the
Numerous official government documents records Obama being legally registered
as Barry Soetoro. School registries shows the registration of Barack Obama under
the name Barry Soetoro. During his Occidental College days he is registered as
Barry Soetoro. An entry in the journal of the California assembly in reference
to grants given to foreign exchange students (this official government
document lists Obama as a foreigner not a US citizen. A US citizen wouldn’t
qualify for foreign exchange student funding) states Obama as Barry Soetoro from
The first name of a child is always the same from birth. If throughout his
childhood Obama went by the first name of Barry then legally his birth name
would have to be Barry. In order to register any child for school an official
birth certificate must be presented. To receive a government grant proof of
citizenship and birth must also be submitted. All of the evidence is stating
that Barack Obama’s legal first name is Barry not Barrack.
A biography of Obama’s Occidental College days states that when Obama was
18-19 he attended school as BARRY SOETORO. And it wasn’t until he met a girl by
the name of Regina that Obama started using the name Barack. Regina was the
first to start calling him Barack. There seems to be no record of Obama legally
changing his first name from Barry to Barack.
While being sworn in as an attorney in the State of Illinois, Mr Obama had to
provide his personal information under oath. He was asked, if he had any other
names, he responded none. In reality, he used the name Barry Soetoro in an entry
in the journal of the California assembly in reference to grants given to
foreign exchange students. Mr. Soetoro/Obama clearly defrauded the State Bar of
Illinois and perjured himself while concealing his identity. Anybody else
would’ve been disbarred for this and the matter would’ve been forwarded to the
district attorney for prosecution for perjury and fraud, however nothing was
done to Mr. Obama. More importantly, why did he conceal his identity?
If Obama didn’t legally have his name changed from Barry to Barack then the
birth certificate he passed to Congress is a fake, a forgery. If his name was
registered as Barry Soetoro even though Obama claims his real name is Barack
Obama then Obama defrauded the state of California in order to receive college
funding. Obama knowingly presented a false document to the state wherein he
claimed to be a foreign student in order to illegally acquire financial aid.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47—FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS
§ 1015. Naturalization, citizenship or alien registry
(a) Whoever knowingly makes
any false statement under oath, in any case, proceeding, or matter relating to,
or under, or by virtue of any law of the United States relating to
naturalization, citizenship, or registry of aliens; or
(b) Whoever knowingly, with
intent to avoid any duty or liability imposed or required by law, denies that he
has been naturalized or admitted to be a citizen, after having been so
naturalized or admitted; or
(c) Whoever uses or attempts
to use any certificate of arrival, declaration of intention, certificate of
naturalization, certificate of citizenship or other documentary evidence of
naturalization or of citizenship, or any duplicate or copy thereof, knowing the
same to have been procured by fraud or false evidence or without required
appearance or hearing of the applicant in court or otherwise unlawfully
(d) Whoever knowingly makes
any false certificate, acknowledgment or statement concerning the appearance
before him or the taking of an oath or affirmation or the signature, attestation
or execution by any person with respect to any application, declaration,
petition, affidavit, deposition, certificate of naturalization, certificate of
citizenship or other paper or writing required or authorized by the laws
relating to immigration, naturalization, citizenship, or registry of aliens; or
(e) Whoever knowingly makes
any false statement or claim that he is, or at any time has been, a citizen or
national of the United States, with the intent to obtain on behalf of himself,
or any other person, any Federal or State benefit or service, or to engage
unlawfully in employment in the United States; or
(f) Whoever knowingly makes
any false statement or claim that he is a citizen of the United States in order
to register to vote or to vote in any Federal, State, or local election
(including an initiative, recall, or referendum)—
This evidence is sufficient to annul the presidency of Obama. Official
Occidental College transcripts registered with the state declares that Obama is