Thursday, December 04, 2008

Pray for the United States Supreme Court

On Friday, December 5, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will meet in a closed session to review at least two cases that challenge former Senator Barack Obama's eligibility to be President of the United States (POTUS).

It's astounding that the mainstream media has largely ignored one of the most important legal events in U.S. history. Why? I don't know. I would be guessing and suggesting conspiracy theories, so I would like to stick with the facts and explain very briefly why this is happening.

The Constitution states that only a natural born citizen is eligible to become POTUS.

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.
So it stands to reason that Obama should prove that he is a natural born citizen. He has never done this.

There is no doubt that Barack Obama was born a British citizen. A supposed impartial fact-checking site admits it. Click here to see it.

This site also claims that Obama was born in Hawaii and therefore had automatic U.S. citizenship as well. As I have written in the past, the birth in Hawaii is in doubt because Obama has steadfastly refused to produce a long-form (vault) birth certificate that proves it. He has shown a short-form version, but the laws in Hawaii around the time of his birth allowed registration for people born out of the country. Only the long-form certificate would reveal his true origin.

Some people claim that the Hawaii state health department verified Obama's true birth certificate, but they only stated that they had it, not that it showed he was actually born in Hawaii.

Obama admits his birth British citizenship himself on his own website. Click here to see the page where he produces his short-form certificate. At the bottom, the page quotes the "fact check" page.

Yet, even if he really was born in Hawaii, that would not make him a natural born citizen of the United States. He would be "native" born, but he wouldn't be natural born because of the dual citizenship status. Because of his father's Kenyan citizenship, Obama would have been a native-by-statute citizen, not a natural born citizen. Notice on Obama's on website, it calls him a "native" citizen, not a natural born citizen. There is a difference, a crucial difference.

So even if Obama magically comes up with a long-form certificate that proves he was born in Hawaii (something that he has spent a great deal of money to keep hidden), he still wouldn't be a natural born citizen.

It is this assertion (Obama's British birth citizenship means that he is not natural born) that makes up the primary argument in the cases being reviewed by the SCOTUS. To me, this should be an open-and-shut case. The framers of the Constitution, citizens born as British subjects, had to grandfather themselves in in order to be eligible for the office. They knew that no one born a British citizen was natural born.

Another interesting fact is that the case being reviewed also claims that Senator John McCain is not a natural born citizen. Since he was born in Panama on a U.S. military base to U.S. parents (but not on U.S. soil), he is a citizen by statute, but not natural born.

This shows that this is not a partisan claim. The lawsuit seeks to disqualify both major candidates, as well as a third party candidate, Roger Calero, who was allowed on several ballots though he admits to being born in Nicaragua. It seems clear, especially in the Calero case, that elections officials were not bothering to check on a candidate's eligibility. In fact, no one "in charge" has bothered.

I ask you to pray for the SCOTUS today and tomorrow, for wisdom as they review these cases, for impartial thinking, for courage as they realize that a decision either way could cause great public unrest in our nation. If they decide to grant a stay on the election and ultimately invalidate Obama's candidacy, we might have an uprising from the majority who voted for him. If they dismiss the case and allow an ineligible candidate to take the office illegally, we will have thrown away the foundation of our laws, the Constitution, and every act he takes part in will be invalid.

I'm praying that the SCOTUS will uphold the Constitution. If Obama is ultimately elected president and assumes the office, he will be a usurper, and our nation will no longer be a nation of laws. It will be a nation of popular opinion. If that happens, the United States of America will have died.

Please also pray for the attorney who has brought these suits, Leo Donofrio. He has suffered tremendous harassment, even death threats through this ordeal.

May God help us all.

UPDATE: I'm adding a link to a fantastic article written by Alan Keyes, the man who ought to be the first black president: Click Here


Jessica said...

Thank-you for the updates and information.
I will be praying for them, and the United States.
Hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving!


Navybro said...

Ok, now things are getting interesting. . . Thanks for telling of those facts. And I will pray for them as well.

P.S. Wonder if one of them might read/be reading/be informed of this blog here. . .

Ted said...

Posted in Uncategorized on December 4, 2008 by naturalborncitizen
Below is the text of a letter Leo Donofrio just sent to ABC News:

Dear Mr. Terry Owens and ABC News.

The story you printed today with the headline, “Supreme Court to Decide Obama Citizenship” is riddled with errors. Allow me to correct the record for you. I have said in my law suit that I believe Obama was born in Hawaii, so I have no idea why your story makes it seem as if my law suit is centered on the issue of where Obama was born. You wrote,

“The President-elect has maintained he was born in the United States.”

The main argument of my law suit alleges that since Obama was a British citizen - at birth - a fact he admits is true, then he cannot be a “natural born citizen”. The word “born” has meaning. It deals with the status of a presidential candidate “at birth”. Obama had dual nationality at birth. The status of the candidate at the time of the election is not as relevant to the provisions of the Constitution as is his status “at birth.” If one is not “born” a natural born citizen, he can never be a natural born citizen.

Furthermore, the case is scheduled for conference of all nine Justices, not eight. You should correct that.

And your reporting, which could have been complete with a simple phone call to the Public Information Office, is also deficient in that it wasn’t Justice Thomas alone who distributed the case for conference of December 5, 2008. That was a decision taken after consideration of the full Court.

There are two docket entries for Nov. 19. One of them shows that Justice Thomas referred the case to the full court. The other indicates that the full court distributed the case for conference of Dec. 5. I suggest you call Patricia McCabe Estrada, Deputy Public Information Officer for the United States Supreme Court. She will set you and your story straight.

The case could have easily been denied after Justice Thomas referred it to the full court. There was no requirement that it be distributed for conference. In fact, the normal procedure in referred applications involves no public mention of such cases until after the full Court has taken some action. There is an official Supreme Court Publication entitled

“A REPORTER’S GUIDE TO APPLICATIONS Pending Before The Supreme Court of the United States”

You may find it here:

It will guide you with accuracy to the actions involved in the case you are reporting upon. On page 3, it states:

“The Circuit Justice may act on an application alone or refer it to the full Court for consideration. The fact that an application has been referred to the full Court may not be known publicly until the Court acts on the application and the referral is noted in the Court’s order.“
Now go back and check the docket url for my case.

Another misleading element of your story is the headline. The Supreme Court will be focused on the issue of Obama’s eligibility to be President, not on his citizenship status. Just being a “Citizen” is not enough to be President. I have no doubt, and I’m sure the Supreme Court concurs, that Obama is a United States citizen.

But the Constitution draws a direct distinction between “Citizens” and “Natural Born Citizens”. Citizens may be Senators and Representatives, but it takes something else to be President. So, your headline is wrong as well as your story.

If you would like to respond to this letter, which I have just published in my blog about the case, feel free to do so and I will publish your response as is.

My blog URL is

Yesterday, a reporter from the Kansas City Star wrote an equally misleading report about my case. After readers of this blog confronted him, he had the decency to call me and apologize for the wrong treatment my case received in his report. We struck up a good conversation and I gave him proper respect for his admission. I am here to talk any time you like. I understand the concepts are technical and non-lawyers have problems with them.


Leo C. Donofrio

Jo lynn said...

the hard part ,as you said, is that if they do uphold the Constitution and not let Obama be come President two things will happen.
one, we the US will be call racist and
two there will be at lest one rebellion if not another civil war and Obama might even be leading it and since he has no real military experience many people would get killed and it would be just as bad if not worse then the first civil war.
the second out come if they decided to leave everything alone, would be ...
we would have a really bad President who does not have enough experience to deal with a war and an economic depression
we might have even more trouble in Iran and Iraq because they might consider us weak because we didn't up hold our own law.
We,Christians, might be persecuted because with throwing away the Constitution you also throw away that freedom, in a way it's happening right now you just don't here about. I'm sure the other religions might be safe but thats because they mold with your feelings and don't really change you.
umh there is anything else that I'm missing?

personally i don't see why McCain is going to be up there too, because he went before the Supreme Court and got that decided so personally that shows that can't make their minds up and if they are in change of the law I don't want them to be able to not make up there minds.

Thank you Mr.Davis for this update it shows that you want other to know whats going on around them even if it is right in front of them that they don't see it.

Bryan Davis said...

Jo lynn, I know of no Supreme Court decision regarding Senator McCain's status as a natural born citizen. I think there was a Senate resolution creating what they call a "sense of the Senate" which stated that he was natural born.

But that resolution has no real force, and no court has to regard it at all.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Davis, you said in your blog that there was a difference between being 'native' born and being a natural born citizen. May i ask what that difference is? because i honestly do not know the difference.

Bryan Davis said...

Tyler, the distinction between native-born and natural-born is one of the issues being disputed in the courts.

Here is my understanding:

A native-born citizen is a citizen by virtue of being born on U.S. soil, no matter what citizenship his parents have. If the baby has parents who are not citizens, however, the granting of the baby's citizenship is based on a statute or the 14th amendment, which granted that citizenship to all born in the U.S. This would be native because of the place of birth, but not natural because it had to be conferred.

A natural-born citizen is a native-born citizen who has two U.S. citizens as parents. Nothing was necessary to confer that status. It was natural.