Sunday, November 1, 2009

Where are my posts?

I'm still here. I have been posting mostly at my sister site:

Please join me there.

Saturday, October 17, 2009

2004 Headline: Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate

The following story was published in the EA Standard - Online Edition on June 27, 2004. The EA Standard is a Kenyan news publication. The source is stated to be the AP. So who really started the whole birth controversy? Conservatives, Republicans, The EA Standard, or the AP? Fact or fiction?

Sunday, June 27, 2004

Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate


Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations.

The allegations that horrified fellow Republicans and caused his once-promising candidacy to implode in four short days have given Obama a clear lead as Republicans struggled to fetch an alternative.

Ryan’s campaign began to crumble on Monday following the release of embarrassing records from his porce. In the records, his ex-wife, Boston Public actress Jeri Ryan, said her former husband took her to kinky sex clubs in Paris, New York and New Orleans.

"It’s clear to me that a vigorous debate on the issues most likely could not take place if I remain in the race," Ryan, 44, said in a statement. "What would take place, rather, is a brutal, scorched-earth campaign – the kind of campaign that has turned off so many voters, the kind of politics I refuse to play."

Although Ryan disputed the allegations, saying he and his wife went to one ‘avant-garde’ club in Paris and left because they felt uncomfortable, lashed out at the media and said it was "truly outrageous" that the Chicago Tribune got a judge to unseal the records.

The Republican choice will become an instant underdog in the campaign for the seat of retiring Republican Senator Peter Fitzgerald, since Obama held a wide lead even before the scandal broke.

"I feel for him actually," Obama told a Chicago TV station. "What he’s gone through over the last three days I think is something you wouldn’t wish on anybody."

The Republican state committee must now choose a replacement for Ryan, who had won in the primaries against seven contenders. Its task is complicated by the fact that Obama holds a comfortable lead in the polls and is widely regarded as a rising Democratic star.

The chairwoman of the Illinois Republican Party, Judy Topinka, said at a news conference, after Ryan withdrew, that Republicans would probably take several weeks to settle on a new candidate.

"Obviously, this is a bad week for our party and our state," she said.

As recently as Thursday, spokesmen for the Ryan campaign still insisted that Ryan would remain in the race. Ryan had defended himself saying, "There’s no breaking of any laws. There’s no breaking of any marriage laws. There’s no breaking of the Ten Commandments anywhere."



Friday, September 25, 2009

TerriK INVESTIGATION – PART 1: Hawaii Department of Health Directors Fukino and Okubo Are Guilty of Misdirection


The entire Presidential eligibility movement has been ridiculed as a fringe “conspiracy theory” by main stream media, members of Congress and even Judges speaking directly from the bench. This ridicule is largely due to public statements made by Hawaii Department of Health Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino (see below) which testify that she has seen vital records maintained by her office which prove President Obama was born in Hawaii and that he has an original birth certificate on file there.

The ridicule has been broad, extending even to public investigators like myself who believe that President Obama was actually born in Hawaii. But reliance on Director Fukino and her Communications Director Janice Okubo are sadly misplaced. They are guilty of misdirecting the public away from vital records information made expressly available by statute where no privacy exceptions apply.

These accusations are not a matter of conjecture. They are a matter of fact and shall be proved. This, Part 1 of the full report, will illustrate multiple instances of misdirection.

Following reports in the days ahead will detail various information requests made by TerriK and their eventual resolution. The resolution involves official responses which – according to statutory application – admit the existence of amendments and/or corrections to President Obama’s vital records despite the continuing pattern of misdirection.

Continued at: Natural Born Citizen Blog - Attorney Leo Donofrio

Sunday, September 13, 2009 Admits to Two Errors Regarding Obama's Eligibility - 3rd Challenge

Attorney Leo Donofrio has challenged on an error regarding statements of fact about Kenyan and British citizenship laws. He also challenged them regarding a statement of fact concerning his status as an attorney. has corrected both 'misstatements' of fact.

Now, Leo is challenging them on the following statement:

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

Where’s the documentation on this brazen statement. Fact Check needs to own up, or else change it’s name/mission statement. How’s this – ‘FactCheck – But Sometimes We Make Stuff Up’. Their careless mistakes lead me to doubt anything they have ever written.

Read this at: Natural Born Citizen Blog

And here's the first article: Natural Born Citizen Blog


Saturday, September 12, 2009

Health Insurance Co-Ops vs. Government-Run Health Insurance

More Honest Debate

What is a Cooperative (Co-Op)?

A Cooperative is a business organization owned and operated by a group of individuals for their mutual benefit. A cooperative may also be defined as a business owned and controlled equally by the people who use its services or who work at it.

There are many types of Co-Ops in the United States. I will attempt to address some of the most common cooperatives. If you belong to a credit union, you are already a member of a Co-Op. My electric and natural gas utility company is an EMC, another word for Co-Op. In the insurance industry, Co-Ops are called Mutual Companies, or Mutual Legal Reserves.

Credit Unions are owned by their members. When you join, you must establish a share account and maintain a minimum balance. Your share account is your capital investment in the company. You are paid ‘dividends’ on your savings and checking accounts. Dividends are your share of the Credit Union’s profits. A Credit Union offers benefits for its members such as preference on home and automobile loans.

An Electric Membership Corporation (EMC) is a service cooperative owned by those who receive its services. There are nearly 1,000 electric cooperatives in the United States. When the EMC makes a profit, those profits are shared with customers through credits to their electric bills, or lower rates.

Health Insurance Co-Ops

Health Care Services Corporation (HCSC) is the largest customer owned health insurer in the United States.

  • HCSC operates the Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans in Illinois, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas, employing 17,000 people and serving more than 12.4 million members - 38% in national employer plans, 32% in large local employer plans, 10% in small employer plans, 10% in individual plans and 10% in government plans.

  • HCSC is the fourth largest health insurance company in the United States and the largest customer-owned health insurer. In 2008, the company's gross revenue totaled $39.9 billion (considering all subsidiaries which are not included in the chart below in accordance with GAAP).

  • HCSC is the most financially secure health insurer in the United States, with a rating of AA- (Very Strong) from Standard and Poor's, Aa3 (Excellent) from Moody's and A+ (Superior) from A.M. Best Co.

  • HCSC retains full or joint ownership of a number of subsidiary companies, including Fort Dearborn Life Insurance Co., Dental Network of America, MEDecision, Availity, Prime Therapeutics and RealMed.

If the HCSC model is the type of Health Insurance Co-Op being discussed in Congress, then I am a fan. Yes. Here is an idea that would have strong bi-partisan support. We can agree on Health Insurance Co-Ops. In my opinion Co-Ops are in line with the purest sense of Capitalism. On the other hand, if Congress is talking about some kind of partially Government owned, or Government controlled entity, then I am not in favor.

In fact, I would like to join HCSC, or a similar Co-Op, but unfortunately it only operates in 4 states, and none of the health insurers in my state are co-ops. Fostering increased competition by allowing insurers to operate in all states would be an improvement.

The Plan

So if America wants to convert its health insurance industry to Co-Ops, the question is how? Obviously, it would be unfair, and foolish, to force the existing insurers out of business, so how do you get them to convert?

I am a proponent of Binary Economics. Under Binary Economics, the only role of Government in private enterprise is to offer interest-free loans through its central bank. Existing publicly traded insurers will need to buy back all of their stock in order to make the conversion to mutual companies. Interest free loans from the Government will facilitate this conversion. The loans will be paid back over the long-term out of the profits of the insurers. Once the loans have been paid, the insured will be able to participate in a larger share of company profits. Profits will be shared with policy holders either in the form of dividends, or lower insurance rates.

Interest free loans are not hand-outs, or bailouts. The money gets paid back. Granting interest free loans would be a much better use of taxpayers money than the current foolishness being promoted by certain 'linear' thinkers (right and left). The World is not flat. In fact, most good ideas come from outside of the box.

Reforms I can believe in:

  1. Conversion of the Health Insurance Industry to Co-Ops
  2. Tort Reform
  3. Fostering Interstate Commerce for increased competition
  4. No denial for preexisting conditions
  5. Tax Incentives for those paying higher premiums due to preexisting conditions
  6. Tax incentives for purchasing health insurance
  7. Portability of policies

Reforms I don’t believe in:

  1. Making health insurance mandatory
  2. Taxing employers who don’t offer insurance
  3. Expanding Government-Run health care
  4. Excessive Government Regulation
  5. Triggers

click images to enlarge


Monday, September 7, 2009

Mopping Up After Obama - HSA's and Energy Credits

(click image to enlarge)

More Honest Debate

Can the Federal Government outsmart itself?

Health Savings Accounts (H.S.A.'s) either work, or they don't work. The government came up with a great plan, but failed to promote it. That's what our government does. They solve a problem, and then come back in a couple of years and solve it again. We are seeing it with health care, as well as with energy policy.

Health Savings Accounts are a great idea. I have had one for over three years and have been satisfied with the program. Since I am in control of the spending, I don't always take the doctors advice about redundant tests and follow up appointments. Since I have to pay for those tests and appointments I make sure that I really need them before making the appointment. If it wasn't coming out of my pocket, I would be less inclined to question, and more inclined to take every redundant test, and make every redundant follow up appointment, whether I felt I needed it or not. Don't you dare give me something that works, and then threaten to take it away because the rest of society hasn't caught on. Either health savings accounts work, or they don't. And if they do, then the government had better get to the business of promoting them.

Speaking of energy policy, I'm a bit disgruntled that, after spending over $10,000 in home energy improvements, the federal government through a cap-and-trade tax now thinks that wasn't good enough and they want to raise the cost of energy, thus negating any long-term savings I may have hoped to gain. Either the energy tax credits worked, or they didn't work. Make up your minds. We got the message already and most Americans have incorporated energy savings mechanisms through the free market. Now the message seems to be that Americans have failed to get the message so now the Government will take over and force energy savings down our throats. So will the Government reimburse me for what I have expended in following its previous advice?

Seems to me that Barack Obama and his left-wing cadre certainly don't have the best interests of this American at heart. And, well, if the majority of Americans feel the same way, then I would venture to say that Obama doesn't have the best interests of America at heart.

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

Empowering Patients First Act - H.R. 3400

Putting Patients First!

RSC Chairman Tom Price has introduced the Empowering Patients First Act. This is another positive solution from the Republican Study Committee that grants access to affordable, quality health care for all Americans, and is centered around the patient. By increasing patients’ control over their health decisions, we will make coverage more affordable, accessible and responsive, while offering more choices and the highest-quality care.

This solution is centered around four main principles:

#1: Access to Coverage for All Americans

  • The Empowering Patients First Act makes the purchase of health care financially feasible for all Americans, covers pre-existing conditions, protects employer-sponsored insurance, and shines light on existing health care plans.

#2: Coverage is Truly Owned by the Patient

  • This legislation grants greater choice and portability to the patient, and also gives employers more flexibility in the benefits offered. It also expands the individual market by creating several pooling mechanisms.

#3: Improve the Health Care Delivery Structure

  • Physicians know the best care for their patient. That's why this legislation establishes doctor-led quality measures, ensuring that you get the quality care you need. It also reimburses physicians to ensure the stability of your care, and encourages healthier lifestyles by allowing employers to offer discounts for healthy habits through wellness and prevention programs.

#4: Rein in Out-of-Control Costs

  • A key concern in positive reform is reining in out-of control costs. This legislation does this by reforming the medical liability system. Also, the cost of the plan is completely offset through decreasing defensive medicine, savings from health care efficiencies, sifting out waste, fraud and abuse, plus an annual one-percent non defense discretionary spending step down.

Additional Information:

Short Summary
Detailed Summary
Section by Section Summary
Full Bill Text

RSC Press Release

Steny Shivers, Shakes at Patient-Centered Health Care Solution

Side-by-Side Comparison with the House Democrat Government Takeover (H.R. 3200)

POLITICO - "How the GOP Wants to Fix Health Care"

Chairman Price Accepts Obama's Invitation to Examine Health Care Proposals Line-by-Line

Letters of Support:
From Americans for Tax Reform

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Government-Run vs. Private Health Insurance

The table above was revised on 08/30/09.

click image to enlarge

Government-Run vs. Private Health Insurance

More Honest Debate

First of all, 60% of private sector health insurance providers are non-profits who must by law disclose their records to the public. You can find their tax returns online including information about programs, and compensation.

Most of the remaining companies are publicly traded and by law must file 10K and 10Q reports with the SEC. Their financial information and compensation information is also available online on various websites.

Information on government-run health insurance programs (i.e. The Public Option) may also be found online. The Social Security Administration issues an annual Trust Fund report. (Note: Both public trustee positions are still vacant.)

In comparing the three types, it is clear that something is wrong with the federal government. I have to disclose that I did not include the funds that Medicare obtains from general government revenues, above, because this money comes directly from income taxes.

Medicare Part A is funded primarily by payroll taxes assessed on an individual’s total wages. Medicare B and D is funded primarily by premiums charged to Social Security recipients (which I might add is kind of redundant).

To be brief: For-profits are by necessity in the black. On the other hand, government-run insurance is in the tank. In fact, Medicare is projected to exhaust it’s assets by 2017 according to the
2009 Annual Trustees Report.

So I ask this question. Who is better qualified to manage health insurance: the 'government workers' in Washington, DC or the Private Sector? I think you know the answer.

Solution: With proper regulation and oversight, turn over Medicare, and Social Security to the Private Sector. Bigger government is not the solution, it's the problem.

[Update: Expanded table and updated sources on 08/30/09]


Monday, August 24, 2009

Getting Honest About Social Security - Part 3

We begin with the Congressional Budget Office's Estimate of the President's Budget (above). Why wait until tomorrow? It's on the CBO's website at

You will recall from Part 2, that entitlement spending (aka mandatory spending) is comprised of the following:

Entitlement Spending, at $1.595 trillion in FY 2008, is over half of the U.S. Federal Budget. The largest entitlement spending programs based on FY 2006 were Social Security and Medicare, as follows:
  • Social Security - $544 billion
  • Medicare - $325 billion
  • Medicaid - $186 billion
  • All other mandatory programs - $357 billion. These programs include Food Stamps, Unemployment Compensation, Child Nutrition, Child Tax Credits, Supplemental Security for the blind and disabled, Student Loans, and Retirement / Disability programs for Civil Servants, the Coast Guard and the Military
In FY 2009 and 2010 alone, entitlement spending is projected to exceed government revenue by some $290 billion. So the United States is facing a budget deficit, in just two years, before spending one dime on our defense, education, veterans pensions, and other vital programs. And this wasn't supposed to happen for another 31 years?

Is anyone still seriously considering dumping another $1 trillion dollars into this government-run ponzi scheme?

Obama said he wanted an 'honest debate' on his health care proposal. Well, here's the problem. We can't afford to waste another dollar on some misguided government program, no matter how noble. Social Security is little more than a government-run Ponzi Scheme. Medicare is only 1/2 funded by premiums. Isn't Medicare an example of government-run health care?

What kind of health insurance company would only collect 1/2 of what it spends on claims year-after-year, after year? I'll tell you. A government-run health insurance company. Like that commercial says Mr. president, "You Need A Plan!"

Solutions abound, but what Obama is proposing isn't one of them.

To even begin an 'honest' discussion on Social Security, Medicare, Government Option Health Care, or any other 'reform' proposed by ‘government workers’, you first need to get honest with the public, and then your proposals had better include the following:

  • Reductions in government spending
  • Reductions in government programs
  • Privatization of government entitlement programs
  • Budget balancing initiatives
  • Incentives for private investment
  • Incentives for private business growth
  • Incentives for private job creation
  • and, Policies that promote individual liberty

Sunday, August 23, 2009

Getting Honest About Social Security – Part 2

What are Entitlements?

Entitlement Spending, at $1.412 trillion in FY 2006, is over half of the U.S. Federal Budget. The largest entitlement spending programs are Social Security and Medicare, as follows:

  • Social Security - $544 billion
  • Medicare - $325 billion
  • Medicaid - $186 billion
  • All other mandatory programs - $357 billion. These programs include Food Stamps, Unemployment Compensation, Child Nutrition, Child Tax Credits, Supplemental Security for the blind and disabled, Student Loans, and Retirement / Disability programs for Civil Servants, the Coast Guard and the Military

How Is Social Security Funded?

Social Security is funded through payroll taxes. Through 2017, Social Security collects more in tax revenues than it pays out in benefits because there are 3.3 workers for every beneficiary. However, as Baby Boomers start to retire and draw down these benefits, there will be fewer workers to support them. By 2040, the revenues to pay for Social Security will be less than the expenditures.

How Is Medicare Funded?

Unlike Social Security, Medicare payroll taxes and premiums cover only 57% of current benefits. The remaining 43% is financed from general revenues (i.e. including any surplus remaining from Social Security). Because of rising health care costs, general revenues will have to pay for 62% of Medicare costs by 2030.

Medicare has two sections:

  • The Medicare Part A Hospital Insurance program, which collects enough payroll taxes to pay current benefits.
  • Medicare Part B, the Supplementary Medical Insurance program, and Part D, the new drug benefit, which is only covered by premium payments and general tax revenues.

How Will the FY 2008 Budget on Entitlement Spending Affect the U.S. Economy?

Through 2012, entitlement spending is budgeted at about 10.5% of GDP, with payroll tax revenue at about 6.5% of GDP, so that these unfunded obligations add to the general budget deficit. For example, in FY 2006 Social Security brought in $608 billion in “off-budget," extra funds from payroll taxes. However, other entitlement programs had expenses that far outweighed this “extra” revenue, creating a mini-deficit of $574 billion within the entitlement spending budget alone. The amount increases to $784 billion by 2012.

Long-term Impacts

Long-term, however, the impact of doing nothing about these burgeoning unfunded mandates will be huge. The first Baby-Boomer turns 62 this year, and becomes eligible to retire on Social Security benefits. By 2025, those aged 65+ will comprise 20% of the population.

As Boomers leave the work-force and apply for benefits, three things happen:

  1. The percentage of the labor under 55 stops growing, providing less payroll taxes to fund Social Security.
  2. GDP growth declines to less than 2% due to fewer workers.
  3. By 2040, Social Security alone brings in less than it spends.

Getting Honest

Obama has stated that any further debate on his health care reform proposals needs to be “honest debate”. He implies that critics have been dishonest, which means we’re just lying.

In looking at the facts above, one need only ask the following question:

Are the budgetary problems facing ‘government workers’ in Washington, DC caused by the private sector, or by the government?

Obama wants to overthrow the private health insurance industry and fold it into a government run entitlement. Yet, the federal government has proven itself incapable of managing its current programs. How is adding more of the burden to the government going to resolve the baby boomer issue?

With all due respect, as a wise man once stated,
“government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem.”

What we need to be discussing is a way to turn over the government’s primary entitlements: Social Security and Medicare to the private sector, not the other way around. If not, the next thing ‘government workers’ will be proposing is how they can fold State, and private pension money into the black hole of the Social Security Ponzi Fund.

Obama’s solution: Solve a problem by compounding it. “We have to spend more money to keep from going bankrupt.”

American’s are simply saying, “No”.

Saturday, August 22, 2009

Getting Honest About Social Security - Part 1


The maximum social security benefit for 2009 for a person retiring at full retirement age (66) is $2,323. This is based on earnings at the maximum taxable amount for every year after age 21.

Analysis based on maximum benefits:

  • The total paid into the system by, or on behalf of, the recipient by the age of 66 is $266,377 ($235,042 of this since 1980).

  • The total paid in by the age of 66 with 3% compound annual interest is $394,785.

  • By the age of 74, the recipient will receive a full return of the amount paid in on their behalf without interest.

  • By the age of 77, the recipient will receive a full return of the amount paid in on their behalf with interest compounded at 3% annually.

  • Assuming the funds continue to receive a return of 3% through the annuity phase, the funds would last up to the age of 80.

So by the age of 74 the total paid in by the recipient plus amounts matched by employers are exhausted. If the government were able to achieve a meager 3% rate of return, the total savings at the time of retirement would be exhausted by the age of 77. Assuming a 3% return on investment during the annuity phase, the funds should last through the age of 80.

However, in reality, the average monthly benefit for social security recipients is only $1,061 per month or $12,732 per year in 2009. There are currently some 51.8 million recipients receiving some $55.0 billion in benefits each month.


The only problem and it is a major problem, in fact it is a problem many times worse than the alleged health care crisis, is the fact that the government has stolen the Social Security Trust Fund. There is no trust fund. There are ‘no’ dollars in savings for the government to invest and receive even a meager 3% return. Every dollar paid into the fund this month will be spent this month, and then some.

Worse than that, the Federal Government has run up a National Debt of $11 trillion, and intends to increase this debt by another $9 trillion over the next 10 years. With the peak of baby boomers hitting retirement age in 2019, a $20 trillion National Debt, longer life expectancies, and a smaller workforce, how are politicians going to be able to keep this “ponzi” scheme going?


It is clear to me that Washington, DC cannot be trusted with taxpayer’s money. We need to get the Federal Government the heck out of the retirement business. And don’t even talk to me about letting the government take over health care. I’m not hearing it.

We need to work on solutions that will allow American citizens to save for their own retirement, and to be able to pay for their own health care. At the same time, we have to figure out how to untangle ourselves from this massive ponzi scheme which politicians have gotten us into.

As far as I’m concerned, any solution that involves spending another dollar of taxpayer’s money better include a detailed cost benefit analysis. Any solution to the problems of our time that doesn’t involve drastic cuts in spending by the federal government is not a solution.

To even begin an honest discussion on social security, Medicare, health care or any other political issue being discussed these days, ‘government workers’ had better get honest with the public, and their proposals had better include the following:

  1. Reductions in government spending

  2. Reductions in government programs

  3. Privatization of government entitlement programs

  4. Budget balancing initiatives

  5. Incentives for private investment

  6. Incentives for private business growth

  7. Incentives for private job creation

  8. Policies that promote individual liberty


Saturday, August 15, 2009

The CBO and Our Common Welfare

This blog was inspired today by comments made during Obama’s town hall event in Colorado. Here are the tweets that inspired this research:

Obama said, "despite all the scare tactics out there, what is truly scary is if we do nothing." I said, “Isn't this a scare tactic?”

Obama said, "spread the word, knock on doors, to help enact his health coverage plan.” I said, “It might help if he actually had a plan, no?”

Obama said, "health care costs are the biggest part of federal deficit and debt?" I said, “Defense and interest on the debt are right behind.”

Obama again states: "nobody is talking about a government takeover of health care." I said, “Nobody as in Congress via H.R. 3200?”

My summary of Obama’s town hall meeting: “Let's all get behind this idea of spending money that we don't have, on a reform plan that hasn't been written.”

Afterwards I watched the following CBO webcast, The Long-Term Budget Outlook, and studied the cost projections for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Interest on the Debt. After all of this, I am convinced that our government is on the wrong track.

Link to CBO Video

The issue should not be how to include more people in entitlements while cutting costs (an impossible feat). But rather how to create incentives to make people more self-sufficient so that they will not need to depend on the government? In other words, the focus needs to be on reducing the number of people covered by government entitlements, reducing government size and spending, and increasing government revenue to extinguish the debt.

Mortimer Zuckerman’s USA Today column entitled, “The Coming Government Debt Bomb” [Spending must be cut, or surging deficit could leave U.S. deep in the red for years], he states the following:

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reckons that the deficit will run for a decade and will still exceed $1.2 trillion in 2019. By that time, the United States will have virtually doubled its national debt, to over $17 trillion. Then, after 2019, we get another turn of the screw as the peak waves of baby boomers move into their retirement years and costs soar for the major entitlements, Social Security and Medicare.

At 41 percent of GDP in 2008, the accumulated federal debt will rise to 82 percent by 2019. One out of every 6 dollars spent then by the feds will go to interest, compared with 1 in 12 dollars last year. These out-year budgets will require an increase in everyone's income taxes, raising federal income taxes an average of $11,000 for families, a hike of 55 percent per household—a political impossibility. The Government Accountability Office estimates that by 2040, interest payments will absorb 30 percent of all revenues and entitlements will consume the rest, leaving nothing for defense, education, or veterans' pensions.

I know you don’t want to hear about private savings accounts versus Social Security. And you probably don’t want to hear about high deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts. But the alternative being peddled by the Obama Administration and Congress is to increase government debt until it actually exceeds what our economy can produce in a year.

In other words they would rather bankrupt the United States, than face the fact that government cannot provide for the health and retirement needs of the people. And that's the bottom line - the government cannot provide for the health and retirement needs of any but the most needy. Come to think of it, seems to me that was the original plan.

I realize that this is counter to the Biden-Obamanomics view that, “we need to spend more to keep from going bankrupt,” but I live on planet earth. The track being followed by this government will create a new problem, i.e. what do we pay or not pay this month. A bankrupt government would create a more serious crisis than any we have ever faced. Listen to the hearing, read the legislation, study the numbers, and see what you think.
“Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for life.”
We can do this on our own if our government would get out of the way, and simply provide us with the incentives to provide for ourselves.

The bottom line on Obama's non-existent health care/insurance reform 'plan' - show us the 'plan' you are talking about, or stop talking.

Sunday, August 9, 2009

Obama Scores a Zero on Health Care Reform

Bombs on the Fundamentals

Barack Obama’s main argument and the key to his whole presidency seems to be this idea that health care reform will lead to economic recovery. However, what Obama has failed to do is to convince the American public, and mainly conservatives, that it was our present health care system that caused the economic recession of 2007. His failure to convince an intelligent public has caused him to score a big fat zero on fundamental logic.

Obama: "We must lay a new foundation for future growth and prosperity, and a key pillar of a new foundation is health insurance reform."

Conservatives: We believe you create jobs by keeping taxes and regulation low, and litigation at a minimum. Americans succeed when government puts in place positive policies that encourage more freedom, and more opportunity.

Most of us were under the impression that the recession was caused by the failure of our financial system as specifically related to the housing market. We believe that our economy failed due to a combination of easy money, lax mortgage regulations, and the crash in home prices. We also believe that the problems that caused the housing/mortgage crisis have yet to be resolved.

Instead of focusing on the main problem, the one that actually caused our economy to buckle, along comes Barack Obama with the false premise that it was the lack of health care reform that caused the recession. American’s are however, unable to connect the dots. Some key questions are as follows:

  1. How did the lack of health care reform cause the present recession?
  2. How will health care reform lead to economic recovery?
  3. How do you define economic recovery?
  4. Why did Fannie Mae lose another $15 billion in the 2nd Quarter of 2009?
  5. How will passing ‘untested’ (unread) legislation restore America’s confidence in a broken federal bureaucracy?

It is precisely Obama’s inability to answer the above questions that has American’s like myself so ticked off. Instead of recognizing and focusing on the real crisis, Obama has created a make-believe crisis, and he is proposing a make-believe solution.

Will the Obama brand of make-believe health care reform help delinquent consumers pay their bills? Will it keep real interest rates down? Will it create jobs? Will it encourage more freedom and opportunity? Will it balance the current budget deficit?

When Obama can come to the table with a logical argument regarding his proposed government take over of the health care industry, I will be glad to sit down with him, and have a serious conversation. Until then he can look forward to more questions and more dissent.

Wednesday, August 5, 2009

Eligibility References

Larry Walker, Jr.
August 5, 2009

I have put together a few links to articles I have read recently regarding the eligibility issue. This is my tribute to honor the one-year anniversary of the first eligibility lawsuit filed by Philip J. Berg against Barack Hussein Obama, back in August of 2008.

Since not one single legal case has ever been tried, on the merits, in a court of law, I am left with a Constitution [that I once raised my hand and swore to protect, uphold and defend against all enemies both foreign and domestic], and a 'nation of cowards' who refuse to consider the facts.

This is by no means a comprehensive list, but rather a chronological backtracking of the articles which I have read most recently with regard to this subject. I should also point out that this is not the only topic I read about and reflect upon, but it's the one I chose to address here today.

Each title is a clickable link, followed by the first paragraph or two of the story. Read, learn, study, and think.

Obama’s father was never a US citizen, nor was he ever permanently domiciled in the US. At birth, Obama was a British citizen. [He's also been a Kenyan citizen and perhaps a citizen of Indonesia as well.] Obama admits his birth status was governed by Great Britain.

The question presented then is whether the US is willing to allow persons who were born without sole allegiance to the US to be Commander in Chief of our military.

The SCOTUS decision in Wong Kim Ark has caused more confusion regarding the natural born citizen issue than any other case in US history. One particular passage has been fervently relied upon by Obama eligibility supporters in claiming the case establishes children of aliens – born in the US – as natural-born citizens.

Do you remember Watergate? Thirty-five years ago this Sunday, U.S. President Richard M. Nixon submitted his letter of resignation for his role in the scandal. There was the crime – the break-in, and then there was the cover-up by the Nixon administration. There were threats, media manipulation and disinformation. It was the cover-up more than the crime itself in the aftermath of the Watergate break-in that led to the downfall of the Nixon administration. It was a politically critical time for our country, but we survived because of the strength of the U.S. constitution.

Now, we potentially face a new constitutional crisis stemming from the refusal of Barack Hussein Obama to produce a one-page document that would confirm his eligibility to hold the highest office in the land. Eligibility to hold office is not a “fringe” matter, but a core constitutional issue that lies at the very heart of a growing controversy.

Editors Note: In December ‘08 a retired CIA officer commissioned an investigator to look into the Barack Obama birth certificate and eligibility issue. On July 21, 2009 obtained a copy of the investigator’s report. Here is an unedited version of the report. [updated July 18, 2009].

In response to a direct question from WND, the Hawaii Department of Health refused to authenticate either of the two versions of President Obama's short-form Certificate of Live Birth, or COLB, posted online – neither the image produced by the Obama campaign nor the images released by

Janice Okubo, the public information officer for the Hawaii DOH, also had no explanation for why Dr. Chiyome Fukino's initial press release last October and subsequent press release last week also avoided declaring the posted images to be of authentic documents.

With all the new media attention swirling around the issue of Obama’s eligibility to be President, I thought it might be helpful to re-release an important blog post I created back when my law suit was pending before SCOTUS. I’ve done this for two reasons.

1. The image that contains Obama’s admission of his birth status having been governed by Great Britain is being scrubbed from the web. It was highlighted originally at Obama’s own Fight The Smears website which has now vanished. The relevant admission appeared just below the Certification of Live Birth which he used to declare he was born in the US.

The label of “birther” is fast becoming a noble badge of honor for millions of Americans who are not willing to let their Constitution die without a good ole patriot’s fight!

The leftist Obama propaganda press would love for you to believe that “birthers” are just a bunch of “crazy racists” that number in the hundreds, and that they have NO basis to demand proof of whom and what Barack Hussein Obama really is…

But the “birthers” actually number in the millions and the basis for their demands were set in stone by the men who wrote and ratified the US Constitution. If millions of American “birthers” are “right-wing nuts,” they are in good company with men like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams and Ben Franklin.

The birth debate about Obama is real enough, but it is legally complicated, as analyzed by legal beagle Andrew McCarthy at National Review. No judge is going to question the Constitutional qualifications of an elected president. I'm sorry, but that's the practical reality. The judge is going to follow stare decisis -- the sheer weight of commitments that cannot be reversed without creating chaos. Once the political system of the United States, the voters, the media, and the politicians themselves are all committed to the proposition that Obama is president, trying to reverse it would mean riots in every city in the nation. At some point even debatable claims become irreversible. That is why Al Franken is now the US Senator from Minnesota, even if his election was corrupt and wrong. It's water under the bridge. Leave it to history.

Assuming that Obama was born in the United States, he was not only born a dual national of the United States and Great Britain, but at present he continues to be such. Some maintain that American law on citizenship cannot be subjected to any foreign law. But such an argument does not resolve the question of Obama’s dual nationality, for each nation has the sovereign right to make its own citizenship laws and one nation cannot deny another nation that right. This point can be better understood when we consider that McCain was born in Panama to U.S. citizen parents and U.S. citizenship law declared him a U.S. citizen even though he was born in Panama and Panamanian law may have declared him a citizen of Panama. Neither Panama nor any other nation questioned the United States' right to pass a law that gave McCain U.S. citizenship by descent from his parents even though he was born in Panama. Great Britain, being a sovereign nation, has the same right as does the United States to pass such citizenship laws. Now let us examine the British law that applies to Obama and his father and which makes Obama a British citizen not only at the time of his birth in 1961 but still today.

According to an AP story, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Health Director with the Hawaii State Department of Health, has issued a new statement seeking to "stem a recent surge in the number of inquiries about Obama's birthplace." "I…have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen….I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issue in October 2008, over eight months ago." AP asserts that "Fukino issued a similar press release Oct. 31." However, in her statement in October Fukino said "I…have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures." The original statement said nothing about the content of the birth record. The new statement therefore goes significantly farther than the original statement in October, though both the AP story and Fukino herself give the deceptive impression that it does not. Given this evident obfuscation, why should I or anyone else simply take Fukino's words at face value?

Most readers of this blog know that I personally believe Obama was born in Hawaii and can prove it any time he sees fit. I have always believed that the BC issue was a smokescreen to control awareness of the fact that Obama was a British/Kenyan citizen at the time of his birth through his father who was never a US citizen.

This fact alone – as the Supreme Court made reference to in the Minor case (see below) – raises doubts as to whether a native born US citizen with a dual foreign nationality at the time of his birth can be President. The BC birther conspiracy theory has clearly and effectively shielded from view the true issue – which is a legal question, not a conspiracy theory.

To conclude: Here's one that I wrote back in February of 2009.

Did you know that the Constitutional requirements to be a U.S. Congressman or U.S. Senator are different than the requirements to be U.S. President or Vice President?

The requirements may be found at the following website: click here.

The Constitutional requirements to become a U.S. Senator or Congressman include having been a U.S. Citizen for a certain number of years. And, in order to be President or Vice President, the Constitution requires that one be a Natural Born Citizen and a resident for a certain number of years.

Now is it possible that the terms Citizen and Natural Born Citizen are synonymous? Were our founding fathers just a bunch of poorly educated, bumbling idiots, who used complicated words just to confuse the masses? Do you really know the difference? Do you care about protecting, defending and upholding the United States Constitution?


Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Unveiled! Hawaii's 1961 long-form birth certificates

A close examination of the birth certificates issued by Kapi'olani to the Nordyke twins shows the registration number precedes the number given Obama, even though the future president was born a day earlier.

Susan Nordyke was born at 2:12 p.m. Hawaii time and was given No. 151 – 61 – 10637, which was filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.

Gretchen Nordyke followed at 2:17 p.m. and was given No. 151 – 61 – 10638, which was also filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.

According to a version of Obama's purported short-form certificate available from, Obama was given a higher registration number than the Nordyke twins. The online image indicates the number is No. 151 – 1961 – 10641, even though he was born Aug. 4, 1961, the day before the twins, and his birth was registered with the Hawaii registrar three days earlier, Aug. 8, 1961.

Photostat (above) of Susan Nordyke's 1961 Hawaii birth certificate (Courtesy Honolulu Advertiser)


(above) version of Obama's purported short-form certificate available from


Read the rest click here (WND) ...



Sunday, July 26, 2009

According to CNN, these documents do not exist

According to researchers at CNN, who recently rebuked Lou Dobb's for his objective reporting on the Obama Natural Born Citizen controversy, it is impossible for Obama to obtain a long-form copy of his birth certificate. According to CNN, the State of Hawaii (allegedly) destroyed all long-form birth certificates from its vaults eight years ago, including Obama's (in violation of State law).

Thus, neither of the three documents below exist. You see them with your own eyes, but they could not possibly exist, according to CNN.

So is the issue that long-form birth certificates no longer exist in Hawaii, or that one just doesn't exist for Barack Hussein Obama? I encourage all Hawaiian born citizens to post copies of your long-form birth certificates online and provide me with the links.

Why is CNN's president covering for Obama instead of reporting the facts? See the memo Lou Dobbs received from CNN/US President Jon Klein at: CNN Pushing Hard to Overlook Eligibility; SPLC: “Remove Mr. Dobbs”.

An on air debate insued over H.R. 1503, a Bill which would require presidential candidates to provide a birth certificate and other documents to prove their eligibility to occupy the Oval Office. You can find the debate at: Hawaii discarded Obama birth certificate?, Lou Dobbs, CNN, July 23, 2009, Dobbs wants Obama to produce birth certificate.

Hmmm. I wonder what the brilliant minds at CNN have to say about the other documents Obama has been hiding from public view? Have these also been destroyed?

[List Of Records Obama Refuses To Release]

[Update: 7/26/09]

Steve Cee decided to confirm if Klein's statement were factual and sent a series of emails to the State of Hawaii -- here are their replies, that contains facts that lay lie to Klein's assertions.

Hawaii's initial response to Steve's request for a copy of a long-form birth certificate was the standard crap we've been hearing for several months now, that "We issue only a computer-generated copy of the certificate, with limited information.

"Unsatisfied, the tenacious Steve decided to to inquire further and dig deeper. Identifying himself as a genealogist, Steve specifically asked, "What does a person do in order satisfy (sic) a Long form or Vault requirement? Prompting the State of Hawaii’s second, and more detailed, reply, that provides the process necessary to obtain a copy of a vault-copy Certificate of Birth.

"The only records that can be photo-copied are those with diacritical marks which cannot be printed by computer. Otherwise, it would require an order signed by a judge specifying what record was needed...

"In every single statement coming out of Hawaii, the words are carefully chosen and structured, but this one clearly says, if you got a judge, we got the document.


Updates 7/27/09:

Retired CIA officer: Clearing the Smoke on Obama Eligibility (HTML)

Canada Free Press: More Military Officers Accuse Obama of Treason

Copy of Treason Charges Filed with US Attorney against Barack Obama

All the lies of the MSM have only added fuel to the fire. The cat is out of the bag.

Monday, July 20, 2009

Defining Natural-Born Citizen

By P.A. Madison

“The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” —George Mason

UPDATED 3/4/09

What might the phrase “natural-born citizen” of the United States imply under the U.S. Constitution? The phrase has always been obscure due to the lack of any single authoritative source to confer in order to understand the condition of citizenship the phrase recognizes. Learning what the phrase might have meant following the Declaration of Independence, and the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, requires detective work. As with all detective work, eliminating the usual suspects from the beginning goes a long way in quickly solving a case.

What Natural-Born Citizen Could Not Mean

Could a natural-born citizen simply mean citizenship due to place of birth?

Unlikely because we know one can be native born and yet not a native born citizen of this country prior to the year 1866. There were even disputes whether anyone born within the District of Columbia or in the territories were born citizens of the United States (they were referred to as “inhabitants” instead.) National Government could make no “territorial allegiance” demands within the several States because as Madison explained it, the “powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

Jurisdiction over citizenship via birth within the several States was part of the “ordinary course of affairs” of the States that only local laws could affect. Early acts of Naturalization recognized the individual State Legislatures as the only authority who could make anyone a citizen of a State. Framer James Wilson said, “a citizen of the United States is he, who is a citizen of at least some one state in the Union.” These citizens of each State were united together through Article IV, Sec. II of the U.S. Constitution, and thus, no act of Congress was required to make citizens of the individual States citizens of the United States.

Prior to the Revolutionary War place of birth within the dominions of the crown was the principle criterion for establishing perpetual allegiance and citizenship. After independence each State was free to establish their own maxims on the subject. James Madison’s own State of Virginia adopted a birthright law authored by Thomas Jefferson that only recognize parentage (citizenship of father) in determining citizenship of the child, as well as recognizing the right of expatriation - something unheard of under the common law. States that were slow in enacting laws over acquiring citizenship through birth forced courts to adjudicate citizenship disputes under common law rules.

Congress was vested only with the power to make uniform rules of naturalization in order to remove alienage from those who were already born abroad (outside of the States) who had immigrated to any one of the individual States. The best Congress could do is declare children born abroad to fathers who were already a citizen of some State to be a citizen themselves. In other words, naturalization only provides for the removal of alienage and not for the creation of citizens within individual States.

Additionally, if the framers merely intended for birth alone on U.S. soil, or understood birth alone bestowing unconditional citizenship to anyone, then all would had been necessary was to say the President shall be “native born.” Of course, it would have been impossible to have an established national rule over who may be born a citizen of some State because only local State laws could determine such status within their limits.

Could a natural-born citizen perhaps be synonymous with the British term “natural-born subject”?

It is very doubtful the framers adopted the doctrine found under the old English doctrine of “natural-born subject.” The British doctrine allowed for double allegiances, something the founders considered improper.

Framer Rufus King said allegiance to the United States depended on whether a person is a “member of the body politic.” King says no nation should adopt or naturalize a person of another society without the consent of that person. The reason? Because “he ought not silently to be embarrassed with a double allegiance.

The powers of the general government were limited and defined, preventing Congress from exercising the same kind of sovereignty that Britain had over its claimed dominions within established States of the Union.

Under the old English common law doctrine of natural-born subject, birth itself was an act of naturalization that required no prior consent or demanded allegiance to the nation in advance. Furthermore, birth was viewed as enjoining a “perpetual allegiance” upon all that could never be severed or altered by any change of time or act of anyone. England’s “perpetual allegiance” due from birth was extremely unpopular in this country; often referred to as absurd barbarism, or simply perpetual nonsense. America went to war with England over the doctrine behind “natural-born subject” in June of 1812.

Because Britain considered all who were born within the dominions of the crown to be its natural-born subjects even after becoming naturalized citizens of the United States, led to British vessels blockading American ports. Under the British blockade, every American ship entering or leaving was boarded by soldiers in search of British born subjects. At least 6,000 American citizens who were found to be British natural-born subjects were pressed into military service on behalf of the British Empire, and thus, the reason we went to war.

Fourteenth Amendment

Whatever might had been the correct understanding of “natural-born citizen” prior to 1866, the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment certainly changes the view because for the first time we have a written national rule declaring who are citizens through birth or naturalization. Who may be born citizens is conditional upon being born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States - a condition not required under the common law. The legislative definition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was defined as “Not owing allegiance to anybody else.”

This national rule prevents us from interpreting natural-born citizen under common law rules because it eliminates the possibility of a child being born with more than one allegiance.

The primary author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard, said the “word jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”

United States Attorney General, George Williams, whom was a U.S. Senator aligned with Radical Republicans during the drafting of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866, ruled in 1873 the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment “must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment.” He added, “Political and military rights and duties” do not pertain to anyone else.

Essentially then, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means the same jurisdiction the United States exercises over its own citizens, i.e., only citizens of the United States come within its operation since citizens of the United States do not owe allegiance to some other nation at the same time they do the United States. This makes a great deal of sense for the time because there was a great deal of controversy over conflicts arising from double allegiances. In fact, Congress issued a joint congressional report on June 22, 1874 that said the “United States have not recognized a double allegiance.

Additionally, how did persons become both citizens and “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States through naturalization? By renouncing all prior allegiances to other nations and by declaring their allegiance to this one in advance of course. Why would “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” be any different with persons born since this jurisdiction equally applies to all who are either born or naturalized? In other words, the words do not exempt persons born from the same allegiance requirements of persons naturalized.

Because “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requires not owing allegiance to any other nation, and because the nation does not recognize double allegiances that can be created at common law, narrows the possibilities to what “natural-born citizen” can mean.

Natural-Born Citizen Defined

One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature - laws the founders recognized and embraced.

Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth. This law of nature is also recognized by law of nations. Sen. Howard said the citizenship clause under the Fourteenth Amendment was by virtue of “natural law and national law.”

The advantages of Natural Law is competing allegiances between nations are avoided, or at least with those nations whose custom is to not make citizens of other countries citizens without their consent. Any alternations or conflicts due to a child’s natural citizenship are strictly a creature of local municipal law. In the year 1866, the United States for the first time adopted a local municipal law under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes that read: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.

Rep. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

Bingham subscribed to the same view as most everyone in Congress at the time that in order to be born a citizen of the United States one must be born within the allegiance of the Nation. Bingham had explained that to be born within the allegiance of the United States the parents, or more precisely, the father, must not owe allegiance to some other foreign sovereignty (remember the U.S. abandoned England’s “natural allegiance” doctrine). This of course, explains why emphasis of not owing allegiance to anyone else was the affect of being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Secretary of State Bayard ruled under Section 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes in 1885 that although Richard Greisser was born in the United States, his father at the time of his birth was a subject of Germany, and thus, Richard Greisser could not be a citizen of the United States. Furthermore, it was held his father was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The constitutional requirement for the President of the United States to be a natural-born citizen had one purpose according to St. George Tucker:

That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to he dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. … The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora’s Box.

Charles Pinckney in 1800 said the presidential eligibility clause was designed “to insure … attachment to the country.” President Washington warned a “passionate attachment of one nation for another, produces a variety of evils,” and goes on to say:

Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation, of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill- will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld.

And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearance of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

What better way to insure attachment to the country then to require the President to have inherited his American citizenship through his American father and not through a foreign father. Any child can be born anywhere in the country and removed by their father to be raised in his native country. The risks would be for the child to return in later life to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and intrigues.

Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States. A person who had been born under a double allegiance cannot be said to be a natural-born citizen of the United States because such status is not recognized (only in fiction of law). A child born to an American mother and alien father could be said to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father.


I came across this interesting speech by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Langdon Cheves, in February of 1814:

The children have a natural attachment to the society in which they are born: being obliged to acknowledge the protection it has granted to their fathers, they are obliged to it in a great measure for their birth and education. … We have just observed that they have a right to enter into the society of which their fathers were members. But every man born free, the son of a citizen, arrived at years of discretion, may examine whether it be convenient for him to join in the society for which he was destined by his birth.

Cheves is obviously drawing on the works of Emer de Vattel, Law of Nations. Not something you would expect from the Speaker of the House of a Nation that supposedly adopted England’s common law.


Rep. A. Smyth (VA), House of Representatives, December 1820:

When we apply the term “citizens” to the inhabitants of States, it means those who are members of the political community. The civil law determined the condition of the son by that of the father. A man whose father was not a citizen was allowed to be a perpetual inhabitant, but not a citizen, unless citizenship was conferred on him.

Savage v. Umphries (TX) 118 S. W. 893, 909:

As a man is a “citizen” of the country to which his father owes allegiance, it was incumbent on one alleging in an election contest that a voter was not a citizen of the United States to show that such voter’s father was not a citizen thereof during his son’s minority.


What “Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof” Really Means

Wong Kim Ark Analysis