Michelle Obama’s claim she’s being branded an ‘angry black woman’ underlines White House desperation

During the Press Conference the material that was used and discussed was broken by this blog.

Video: Press Conference with New Hampshire Representatives Regarding Obama Ballot Access Challenge and Fraud
BikerBillNH: NH state Representatives Laurence Rappaport, and Carol and Lucien Vita, and taxpayer Mark Rossetti, et al, deliver an affidavit to the NH Attorney General’s office regarding ongoing allegations of election fraud, followed by a press conference, 1/3/2012. – Video below and here.

Hat tip Gary. Prior reports on the NH ballot access challenge here.

UPDATE: Lawmakers dispute Obama ballot eligibility – ‘This isn’t partisan. This is a constitutional issue, pure and simple’ LINK.

Statements from the Kenyan Government on Barack Abdallah Husein Obama

Is Obama going to call his wife a liar?

Kenyan official: Obama born here, “not even a native American.”

Michelle Obama states Obama’s ‘Home Country’ is Kenya

Illinois State Senator Obama admits childhood in Kenya

“Only the Democratic Party of Georgia can determine qualifications of candidates named on the Presidential Preference Primary ballot. Furthermore, the citizenship issue the plaintiff seeks to raise was soundly rejected by 69,456,897 Americans in the 2008 elections, and it has been by every judicial body ever to have considered it. Every Georgia case considering the issue ruled against the plaintiff. Plaintiff’s challenge to Barack Obama’s qualifications should be dismissed.”

Lie; ‘Only the Democratic Party of Georgia can determine qualifications of candidates named on the Presidential Preference Primary ballot.’

Fact; 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.

Quote;  shall be eligible to the Office of President. 

Fact: Baracka Abdallah Husein Obama aka (unknown) is not eligible as he is not a ‘Natural Born Citizen of the United States’.

Just because as  Michael Jablonski contends ‘the citizenship issue the plaintiff seeks to raise was soundly rejected by 69,456,897 Americans in the 2008 elections’. 

This is Obama’s own lawyer admitting that Baracka Abdallah Husein Obama aka (unknown) does not meet eligibility requirements of for the Office of the President as required by the United States Constitution. To clarify Michael Jablonski argument, if the majority of drivers disregard the laws concerning speeding then the law is null and void. 

The eligibility requirements of the United States Constitution are clear and Michael Jablonski admits that Baracka Abdallah Husein Obama does not meet meet the requirement.

This is a national call to action to help ensure Article II, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution is upheld by stopping Obama from getting back in the White House for another 4 un-Constitutional years. The Obama State Ballot Challenge 2012 project was created to help organize and report on the Herculean effort to keep Obama off the Presidential election ballot in 2012 because he does not meet the Constitutional standard of Natural Born Citizen that was established by Minor v. Happersett, and because of his massive fraud crimes committed before and during his tenure in the White House.

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/

As stated here, Stanley Ann did not give birth to Obama.

http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2011/04/15/the-obama-nativity-fable-exposed/

REN-TV, Limanova’s network, is reportedly one of Russia’s largest privately-owned news channels, claiming an audience of 113 million.

While inadvertent gesticulations can at times occur, this particular finger-placement can hardly be construed as anything else:

October 18, 2011

Someone was incredibly busy in June 2008 working on an illegal front invisible to the public; searching and altering Supreme Court Cases published at Justia.com which cite the only case in American history – Minor v. Happersett (1875) – to directly construe Article 2 Section 1′s natural-born citizen clause in determining a citizenship issue as part of its holding and precedent.  In this unanimous decision, the Supreme Court defined a “native or natural-born citizen” as a person born in theUS to parents who were citizens; a definition which excludes from eligibility both Barack Obama and John McCain. 

In June 2008 no one was discussing Minor v. Happersett 88 US 162 (1875) with regard to Obama. In fact, those who were discussing the then Senator’s citizenship status had focused instead on his birth in Hawaii in a attempt to prove the future president was not born in the United States despite publication of the Senator’s short form computer generated Birth Certificate. It would not be until October of 2008 that Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility would be questioned as to his status as a dual citizen at the time of his birth.

NOTE: Although the author is correct that in June 2008, Minor was not being discussed. I did in fact publish the ‘Barack Obama Un-Constitutional‘ in Sept 2008, the exact date Sept 26th, 2008 which does list Minor as a reference.  Again, this blog is vindicated!

Meanwhile, at the “Supreme Court Center” of the influential legal research website Justia.com, efforts were underway corrupting at least 25 Supreme Court cases by erasing references to the words “Minor V. Happersett” along with references to other relevant cases on the issue along with the insertion of misleading numerical ciations.  And In two documented cases actual text was removed.

Clearly this was done in these specific cases in order to prevent their being found by internet researchers long before anyone had even begun to look for them, even before Obama would win the Democratic Nomination at the DNC Convention inDenver,Colorado in August ’08. This is premeditation and intent to deceive.

So far, 25 corrupted SCOTUS have been identified, and this number may continue to rise as the scope of the tampering becomes apparent. These cases all relied upon Minor, some specifically referencing its definition of Natural Born Citizen – a definition which makes Obama ineligible to be President as that definition is part of the holding and continuing precedent, issued from the highest court in our nation making it the law of the land, even now.   

The most extreme sabotage so far discovered appears to have been done to the landmark decision United States v. Wong Kim Ark which was sabotaged to remove “Minor v. Happersett” three times, along with one reference to “Scott v Sandford”, another to the Slaughterhouse Cases  and some accompanying text relevant to the issue. These surgical alterations would alter and shape the national dialogue; leaving a persistent and  incorrect interpretation of the meaning of the ‘natural born citizen’ clause. There is no doubt whatsoever that this was the specific intent of those responsible for this illegal editing of American history and law.

As previously mentioned, the specific distinction between Citizen and Natural Born Citizen made in Minor v. Happersett is in the holding of the case, the section which creates the Law, and it is this Law which has been repeatedly cited over the decades since. In order to minimize the importance of Minor, someone at Justia deliberately decided to make these supporting citations as difficult as possible to find.

This has had the desired effect, diluting the importance of Minor v. Happersett in the national dialogue across the blogosphere’s political spectrum ever since. The end result: the one case which defines Natural Born Citizen was reduced to seeming irrelevance, and thus the conversation never got past doorkeepers already in Obama’s camp in the mainstream media.

Of course, a lawyer going into Court would never rely upon anything but an official source for Supreme Court law, but 99.9% of the population have no access to dusty law texts, or expensive legal research services such as Lexis and Westlaw. Those who committed these crimes were well aware of this, and used it to their advantage.

The manipulation at Justia.com diluted the importance of Minor by killing the citations in Supreme Court cases spanning over 100 years. Since Google most often returns Justia.com’s version of the case being searched for as the first or second hit, Justia’s version of Supreme Court opinions are most influential in the blogosphere’s forums and comments. Erasing those citations and text on the internet literally erases the importance of Minor and its precedents to millions of Americans otherwise unlikely to ever step into physical Law Library.

This is nothing short of appalling. Justia swapped their tampered versions of the cases for the actual Supreme Court opinions and then pawned them off as if the tampered versions contained the “Full Text” of the Supreme Court’s opinions. Yet Justia CEO Tim Stanley claims that making case law available to the public for free is the mission of Justia. In reality, Justia has been re-inventing our legal history and passing it off as genuine.

Attorney Donofrio’s Full report “Justia.com Surgically Removed “Minor v Happersett” from 25 Supreme Court Opinions in run up to ’08 Election”,  published today explains that exposure to criminal punishment is a direct result of not just the tampering, but more specifically, as a result of placing text on every tampered page which states, “Full text of case”:

Regardless of who you supported in 2008, or whether you agree with the assertion of Minor’s relevance, every American should be outraged that 25 Supreme Court cases were surgically sabotaged and then passed off to the public as if the tampered versions contained the “Full Text of Case”.  This is the very definition of “Orwellian” fascism.  It’s propaganda.  And there is no place for it in the United States.  The sacrifices for truth and justice which created and have sustained this nation are wantonly debased by the subversive deception emanating from Justia.com servers. – Leo Donofrio Esq.

Clearly, the corruption of Supreme Court Cases was systemic and surgically targeted within Justia.com, one of the largest and best known legal research sites on the internet. Justia is nothing if not efficient in driving traffic to its site; this is after all their business. Today they partner with Google and have Google Analytics within their site which does two things; it increases Justia’s visibility on Google searches, and it pushes their website to the top of those searches done on legal issues. When specific search terms are erased out of a document, naturally that document will not appear on a search. Anyone searching for the case name “Minor v. Happersett” and “citizenship” would never see the dozens of cases manipulated by Justia.com.

Justia founder Tim Stanley has for years prided himself and his companies on principles of ‘freedom of information’.  On June 19th, 2008, Stanley addressed the Legislative Council Committee at the Oregon State Legislature with the following statements:

“Our goal is to provide academic researchers, government officials, attorneys, and the public with advanced features, including full‐text search, annotations by legal professionals, and comparison tools to visualize the differences in the law between the individual states…”

And

“In the end, we both recognize the importance of providing the public with online access to our nation’s laws because such actions promote understanding, participation in and respect for our democratic institutions and legal system.”

To describe these comments, made at roughly the same time Supreme Court Cases were being scrubbed and deliberately altered at his site as ironic, is an understatement of gross proportions.

Only a person thoroughly educated in the law would know precisely which cases to look for in order to direct the changes to be made to those cases. Furthermore, only someone with access to Justia.com’s database could physically make these changes from inside the website. This artificially created a near empty result set and the cases which did turn up led those inexperienced in the law, nowhere.

This appears to violate every principle Tim Stanley and Justia.com have built their business upon.

The manipulations at Justia.com were initially discovered by Attorney Leo Donofrio on July 1, 2011, when he published his initial report, “Justia.com Caught Red Handed Hiding References to Minor v. Happersett In Published US Supreme Court Decisions,”. Upon publication of his original discovery documenting the sabotage of Boyd v. Nebraska, and Pope v. Williams, two Supreme Court cases which cite to Minor v. Happersett as precedent on citizenship, two things happened almost immediately: First, the altered pages were returned to their original versions at Justia within an hour or so of Donofrio’s publication. Second, despite Justia CEO Tim Stanley’s cries for freedom of legal information (and law suits compelling the same), robots have now been placed on the Justia URL’s for the Boyd and Pope cases at InternetArchive.org, also known as the Waybackmachine.  These robots make it impossible to see the tampering as it unfolded in mid-2008… with those cases. 

So much for freedom of information. 

One can, however, still see the tampering from screenshots taken by Donofrio and are attached to that original report on July 1, 2011 at his blog, Natural Born Citizen, which has been singularly focused on the issue of Presidential eligibility since late 2008.

As Donofrio documents in his article today, when he discovered a third tampered case, instead of rushing to publish it, he contacted a number of other bloggers and reporters to help document the evidence before Justia dispersed their robots to block it.  While Donofrio originally only discovered two cases of tampering, somebody at Justia knew where the bones were buried and went about reinstating “Minor v. Happersett” in the at least 25 cases which it had earlier sabotaged.  It appears that whoever knew about these additional despoiled cases, must have believed by fixing them before the corruption was exposed no one would ever suspect they too had been altered.

What tipped Donofrio off last week to the extent of Justia’s tampering was the case “Luria v. United States”. This case also firmly supports Minor on citizenship, and he double checked the text to see if it included references to Minor. It did… something he had not noticed upon previous readings of the case at Justia.com.

With his new insight into SCOTUS case tampering, he plugged the URL into the Waybackmachine to see if it had been altered in the past. Bingo. It had. Furthermore there was nothing blocking his ability to see those snapshotted pages, and how they had been altered compared to the original text. The gun wasn’t just smoking, the bullet was still flying.

A brief explanation of the how the Waybackmachine works. It takes snapshots of internet pages. It may not record the day a given webpage changed, but it documents the changes when it does hit that page. Thus a date on the Waybackmachine of April 13, 2004 means this was the date the snapshot was taken, not when the changes were necessarily made. There is no way of knowing precisely when the change occurred as the waybackmachine does not record the precise instant the change is made, it is only sometime later when the Internet archive records it.

The evidence he discovered there, at the time of publication of this article, is still available and shows the same exact same pattern of behavior – deception – that Justia exhibited with the Boyd and Pope cases Donofrio published back in July.

If Justia hasn’t blocked access to the WaybackMachine for their publication of Luria v. US, 231 U.S. 9 (1913) by the time you read this, then it continues to be evident and accessible that on Nov. 4, 2006 the Waybackmachine recorded  Justia published the true original opinion issued by the Supreme Court with no tampering evident. Minor v. Happersett is cited on page 22 directly referencing Presidential eligibility as follows:

“Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 165, 22 L. ed. 627; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101, 28 S. L. ed. 643, 645, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 41; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 827, 6 L. ed. 204, 225.”

The July 6, 2008 Waybackmachine snapshot of Luria v. US is the first snapshot that shows the tampering:

“Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society.  These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other.  Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.   88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; 22 U. S. 827.”

Notice that “Minor v. Happersett” has been removed along with the reference to “Osborn v. United States”, another case which causes trouble for Obama (and McCain).  All of the WaybackMachine snapshots between July 6, 2008, and April 13, 2010 for this case, show the same tampering.  The current, live Justia page for Luria v. US has been un-scrubbed and shows the original Supreme Court text. It is only with an archival resource such as the Waybackmachine that the alterations can be seen.

At publication, insertion of the URL into the Waybackmachine for this page at Justia still reveals the changes made to this page over time. Repeat this entire process with 25 Supreme Court cases and the extent of the tampering becomes evident.

This is disturbing enough, yet there was another subtle and insidious layer of deception. In every single instance of tampering, the numerical citation attached to Minor V. Happersett, has also been altered.  (See Donofrio’s blog for a complete break down of this.)  Changing these numbers is yet another layer of deception practiced at Justia.

While Donofrio documents in detail what the finer points of law in both versions mean in his article, this Examiner.com publication documents what this reporter has personally witnessed – the tampering of Supreme Court Cases online in the guise of “Full Text of Case”. This article is not the legal opinion of an attorney; it is witness to an event.

It’s important to note that the only way Justia could block all access to previous versions of their publication of cases would require .txt robots to be placed on their entire domain records at the Waybackmachine.  If Tim Stanley were to secure Justia.com from the honest and forthright archiving of the WaybackMachine, he would be an instant pariah in the freedom of information scene of which he is a leader. 

Furthermore, ifStanleywere to place robots on only the 25 (or more) cases which cite Minor v. Happersett, it would be a de-facto admission of guilt. 

It appears that whoever tampered with these cases went back and “fixed” all of them, including 23 Donofrio wasn’t aware of until this week when he conclusively established the sabotage by Justia.  For all 25, the pattern is precisely the same. In 2006, the cases at Justia are pristine in the Waybackmachine; word for word from official Supreme Court cases. Then at various points in 2008, the cases are corrupted by removal of the case name “Minor v, Happersett” ( as well as some other case names and text.)

The cases remained corrupted, according to the snapshots of the Waybackmachine in most cases, until late 2010.

Today however, all 25 cases have been painstakingly returned to their official Supreme Court versions; all references to Minor are back, the case and page numbers have been restored, as well as all missing text and references to other cases.  Still, the pattern is clearly visible to anyone who takes the time to look at the evidence made available by the Waybackmachine.  The sophistication and surgical elegance used to sabotage these cases is astounding, and has been personally witnessed by this reporter.

Every case which has been found to date by Mr. Donofrio has been documented with great attention to all these details. This has been accomplished by downloading the full code of the original un-tainted pages and the corrupted revisions from the Waybackmachine’s date stamped archive, along with screenshots of the pages as they appeared in browsers such as Mozilla Firefox before and after the tampering occurred, and the restored pages.

The volume of data is significant and Mr. Donofrio is in the process of making the entire archive available to the public. The article he has published today contains what he refers to as a “document dump“. It is in reality evidence. The reader is strongly encouraged to view the images which document Justia’s actions. Upon doing so, every member of congress should be notified of the existence of this information. Such usurpation of American history and law cannot be allowed.

Screenshots and links have been sent to several specific media contacts which include the Washington Times, Accuracy In Media, and Free Republic. In the interest of putting this information in front of as many eyes as possible before publication, it has been made freely available since Friday October 18, 2011 in the form of screenshots and saved page code. Should the information presented here be altered on the internet following publication, there will be a significant number of media outlets with knowledge and proof of any further alterations to internet archives.

The penalty associated with violating the “False Writings Statute”, 18 U.S.C. 1018 is jail and a fine for each count. With at least 25 counts if not more, this could mean upwards of 25 years in prison. The manipulation of Supreme Court cases is an offense against all Americans, and the Court itself. If like Fast and Furious this scandal reaches directly to the White House, the ramifications are both dire and catastrophic.

Minor v. Happersett defined the one specific term which Barack Obama could not overcome with “Hope and Change” though he could ‘hope’ someone would ‘change’ the cases which help define the term “Natural Born Citizen,”.  This case, if it had been sufficiently known to the public and media, and sufficiently documented by supporting citations, might have eliminated the possibility of Obama’s nomination and/or election. Either Obama got lucky in this regard, or the “constitutional law professor” and former editor of the Harvard Law Review had some hand in directing the efforts to erase the very citations in law which define him as a citizen, and at the same time rule him out as a constitutional candidate for President of the United States.

Just as certainly as the corruption at Justia.com has been documented and archived, more will be revealed. Stay tuned, it is expected that this information will generate some significant updates. They will be reported here as they happen.

Continue reading on Examiner.com JustiaGate – Portland Civil Rights | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-portland/justiagate#ixzz1bR3mM19i

Read from Leo’s site http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/justia-com-surgically-removed-minor-v-happersett-from-25-supreme-court-opinions-in-run-up-to-08-election/

Citizenship Jeopardy By Cindy Simpson at American Thinker http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/citizenship_jeopardy.html

2012 can’t come fast enough to help this hateful and spiteful and the worst First Lady to ever represent this nation or the American people. 2012 can’t come fast enough to end her living off the public. Michelle is a disgrace to the morals and integrity of the United States of America.

UPDATE:

Michelle Obama’s Africa Vacation Cost More Than $432,142

Link to article

First lady Michelle Obama’s family trip toSouth Africa andBotswana in June cost taxpayers well over $424,000, according to new accounting based on Air Force manifests obtained by Judicial Watch, a taxpayer watchdog group.

The use of Air Force aircraft alone for the June 21-27 trip cost $424,142, said the group, and that doesn’t include the food, lodging, and ground transportation for the 21 family and staff members.

Judicial Watch said it based the jet costs on the Pentagon’s hourly rates for the C-32A aircraft used for the trip. The documents don’t give exact cost calculations, which is typical for presidential and first family trips.

Obama is like many first ladies, spending summers traveling on good-will missions, sometimes with family and friends. On the June trip, during which she was accompanied by her daughters and mother, the first lady urged young people to engage with their governments and she pushed her education and wellness agenda. They also took a safari inSouth Africa, well known for its beautiful Lion King-like settings.

The costs of the trips have often won media scorn, as did her trip toSpain the previous summer.

But presidential experts say that the value of first lady visits is priceless, especially in cases like Obama’s to Africa where the first family has special ties and where the president has been pursuing a personal agenda, especially in Kenya, the home of his father.

Here is a link to the Judicial Watch files and their release:

Charges for the Aircraft and Crew Alone Amount to $424,142

Contact Information:

Washington,DC– October 4, 2011

Judicial Watch, the organization that investigates and fights government corruption, announced today that it has obtained mission expense records and passenger manifests from the United States Air Force related to the June 21-27, 2011, trip taken by First Lady Michelle Obama, her family and her staff to South Africa and Botswana. Judicial Watch obtained the documents pursuant to an August 19, 2011, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Air Force (No. 11-1496)). Judicial Watch is investigating the purpose and itinerary of the trip as well as a breakdown of the costs to taxpayers.

On June 28, 2011, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request seeking the mission taskings, transportation records, and passenger manifests for Michelle Obama’sAfricatrip. Documents were only provided after Judicial Watch filed suit:

• According to U.S. Department of Defense’s published hourly rates for the C-32A aircraft used for the trip, Judicial Watch calculated the total cost to American taxpayers was $424,142 for use of the aircraft (34.8 flight hours x $12,188 per hour). (The C-32 is a specially configured military version of the Boeing 757.) Other expenses – meals (off the plane), transportation, security, various services, etc. – have yet to be disclosed.

• The passenger manifests confirm the presence of Obama’s daughter’s, Malia and Sasha on the trip. The two girls are listed as “Senior Staff.” The manifests also list Mrs. Obama’s mother, Marian Robinson, and niece and nephew, Leslie and Avery Robinson, as well Mrs. Obama’s makeup and hairstylist (Carl Ray and Johnny Wright).

• The expense records also show $928.44 was spent for “bulk food” purchases on flight. Overall, during the trip, 192 meals were served for the 21 passengers on board.

The professed purpose of Michelle Obama’s trip to South Africa and Botswana was to encourage young people living in the two growing democracies to become involved in national affairs; and during her scheduled stops in Pretoria and Cape Town, South Africa and in Gaborone, the capital of Botswana, the First Lady used the opportunity to speak on education, health and wellness issues.

The trip also included such tourist events as visits to historical landmarks and museums, plus a nonworking chance to send time with Nelson Mandela, a meeting that Mrs. Obama described as “surreal.” The trip ended with a private family safari at a South African game reserve before the group returned toWashingtonon June 27.

“This trip was as much an opportunity for the Obama family to go on a safari as it was a trip to conduct government business,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “This junket wasted tax dollars and the resources of our overextended military. No wonder we had to sue to pry loose this information.”

Previously, Judicial Watch uncovered that the First Couple’s 2009 “date night” trip to New Yorkfor dinner and a Broadway show cost taxpayers over $11,000 in Secret Service costs alone.

Baracka Abdallah Husein Obama was under British Law and British jurisdiction at birth and not theUnited States. Therefore was Baracka Abdallah Husein Obama even a citizen of theUnited States.

“The Supreme Court’s in Elk v. Wilkins 112U.S.94, 5 S.CT. 41, 28 L.ED. 643 (1884), the court ruled that 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.” 100% jurisdiction required.

Per Tench Coxe (May 22, 1755 – July 17, 1824) was an American political economist and a delegate forPennsylvaniato the Continental Congress in 1788-1789. He wrote under the pseudonym “A Pennsylvanian”.

Written during the discussion of the United States Constitution

TO THE CANDID READER.

Quote “Our President must be matured by the experience of years, and being born among us, his character at thirty-five must be fully understood. Wisdom, virtue and active qualities of mind and body can alone make him the first servant of a free and enlightened people.”

The United States Naturalization Act of 1790 is clear; 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.

Again; the right of citizenship did “not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.

In the year 1873 the United States Attorney General ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean:

The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United Stateshad over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)

House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated, “The United States have not recognized a double allegiance. By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.” There is no way in the world anyone can claim “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” affirms the feudal common law doctrine of birth citizenship to aliens because such doctrine by operation creates a “double allegiance” between separate nations.

All persons born in the allegiance of the United Statesare natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent; and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons. The common law has made no distinction on account of race or color. Free persons of color, born within the allegiance of the United Statesare citizens, and have always been entitled to be so regarded.United Statesv.Rhodes, 1 Abb. U. iS. 28, 40; lAm.L. T. U. S. Ctt. 22.

Citizen has relative applications, which modify its sense in given cases. In its highest political sense, it signifies the persons who constitute the political society. It is not confined to persons enjoying the right of suffrage; and, on the other hand, a person may be an elector without being a citizen. And the mere fact of birth within the territorial limits of the United Statesdoes not constitute one a citizen. Opin. of Atty.-Gen. dishing, on Relation of Indiana, 7 Op. Att.-Gen. 746.

“And the mere fact of birth within the territorial limits of the United Statesdoes not constitute one a citizen.”

Birth and allegiance go together, get it.

Domicile in a foreign country does not affect the fact of citizenship, nor work a forfeiture of political rights. When the territory and government of a kingdom pass to and become merged in the territory and government of another nation, all of its subjects pass also. The tie which binds them is not bodily presence, but allegiance. Brown v.United States, 5 Ct. of CI. 571.

 “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, 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.

 Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

By the common law, a subject travelling abroad on public or private business, with the express or implied license of his sovereign, is under that sovereign’s protection; and, consequently, both he and his children born while so travelling owe allegiance to and are citizens of the native country of their father. The length of the father’s residence abroad is not material, so that it was, in intention and in fact, temporary, not perpetual. And whether the mother was a citizen or not is unimportant: the status of the child is determined by that of the father. Ludlam v. Ludlam, 31 Barb. 486; Davis v. Hall, 1 Nott fr M. 292; Lasportas v. De la Motta, 10 Rich. Eq. 38.

Quote: “By the common law, a subject travelling abroad on public or private business, with the express or implied license of his sovereign, is under that sovereign’s protection; and, consequently, both he and his children born while so travelling owe allegiance to and are citizens of the native country of their father.”

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, 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.”

Under the act of April 14, 1802, ch. 288, 5 4, the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of their parents being so naturalized, are, if dwelling within the United States, to be considered as citizens of the United States.Campbellv. Gordon, 6 Crunch, 176.

Is Barack Obama naturalized as a United Statescitizen? NO!

Although a state, by its laws, passed since the adoption of the constitution, may put a foreigner, or any other description of persons, upon a footing with its own citizens as to all the rights and privileges enjoyed by them within its dominion and by its laws, that will not make him a citizen of the United States, nor entitle him to sue in its courts, nor to any of the privileges and immunities of a citizen in another state. Dral Scott r. Sandford, 19 How. 393.

The term citizens of a state, as used in the constitution, applies only to natural persons, members of the body politic, owing allegiance to the state, and not to artificial persons created by the legislature, and possessing only the attributes which the legislature has prescribed. Paul o.Virginia, 8 WaU. 168.

Created by the legislature equates to persons ‘naturalized’, even if Baracka Abdallah Husein Obama was ‘naturalized’ he would be an artificial person.

Baracka Abdallah Husein Obama born a Brit never legit, foreign and alien to theUnited States.