Obama Citizenship Denial – Final Summary

One need but look at my blog to see how much time I have personally wasted on Obama Citizenship Denial. This subject has now moved to the “conspiracy theory” world (where long-resolved objections are repeated, and evidence dismissed).  Most of what’s written on this subject is carp, but I want to summarize what I find were the main issues, and as Shakespeare says, “by opposing, end them”.

  • Obama Birth Certificate Denial – Barack Obama posted a scanned image of a birth certificate on his web site and provided images to others. FactCheck.org handled the certificate and published close-up photos of it on their web site. Objections to the Certificate include:
    • The Certificate is a forgery.
      • A string of anonymous individuals claiming expertise, notably one TechDude and a Dr. Rod Polarik (not a real name?), claim indisputable and incontrovertible proof of forgery. The problem here is that none of the self-proclaimed experts have access to to the physical copy of Obama certificate, nor do they have access to technical information on how Hawaiian birth certificates are produced. The result is mostly guesswork comparing scanned images created with with differing software and hardware. Polarik’s analysis directly contradicts TechDude, and Polarik’s own analysis is based on unreasonable assumptions (like Hawaii only owns one state seal embosser and only one registrar rubber stamp). The Hawaii Department of Health issued a press release saying that the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health and the Registrar of Vital Statistics examined the original certificate held by the State and announced that it was filed according to law. If what Obama published were a forgery, I cannot conceive of these high officials (in a Republican administration) failing to say something. Of course I can’t conceive of a US Senator forging a birth certificate either. Comments by the two examiners sound like exchanges of posturing adolescents than serious scientists. For further information debunking the forensics see:
    • The Certificate “proves nothing”
      This comes from the misreading of various Hawaiian laws, confusion over Hawaiian Homelands, and one real bit of Hawaiian law about registering infants born out of state to residents. That law is §338-17.8 Certificates for children born out of State. However, the law wasn’t passed until 1982, two decades after Obama’s birth, and anyway Obama’s birth certificate says quite plainly that the location of his birth was Honolulu.
    • Obama won’t release his “real certificate”
      This theory relies on the fact that the certificate Obama posted is a certified computer abstract of his birth information, not a photocopy of the record filed by the hospital at his birth and registered by the state. It suggests that one is “real” and one is useless. Hawaiian law says otherwise: §338-13: “Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original” including those produced by “computer printout”.
    • The certificate has been altered
      This argument goes something like: “The Obama Certificate shows what Hawaiian records say NOW, but the record could have been changed and the original say something quite different.” This possibility is excluded by Hawaiian law which requires all certificates so changed to be “marked distinctly” as “altered” (§338-16).
    • Obama’s grandmother in Kenya says Obama was born there, and that she was present
      The grandmother tape actually says that she was present at the birth of “her son” (Barak Obama Sr), not her grandson. You might say, it makes no sense for her to say that she was present at the birth of her own son, but actually Sarah Obama is not Barak’s biological mother, but rather his step mother. In an African village it would not be unusual for many women of the village to be present at a birth. (See also my article, “The Smoking Grandmother”.)
    • Obama is hiding something
      The important thing, the Constitutional requirement, is that Obama be born in the USA and that’s all that matters.
  • Obama Lost His Citizenship
    Here we travel down the twisted road of misinterpretations of immigration law. I know more about birth certificates, but I will present some information on the second fork of Obama Citizenship Denial. 

    • Obama was not a natural-born citizen because he was born with dual US-British citizenship
      This is the essence of the Donofrio lawsuit [now refused by the US Supreme Court]. It claims that according to British law since Obama’s father was a British citizen, then so was his son by jus sanguinis, and this is true. The argument then says says that undivided loyalty was the foundation for the “natural born” clause in the Constitution — that a President must be American both by soil and by blood. Of course, the Constitution doesn’t say any such thing and has never been interpreted in that way. In essence, the claim says all children of immigrants (or even one) has divided loyalty and cannot be president. The Supreme Court (in United States v Wong Kim Ark) has also affirmed that anyone born in the United (with the usual exceptions for diplomets, etc) are citizens. All competent legal opinion agrees that being born in the United States is sufficient to be natural born, and MOST competent legal opinion holds that just having one or more US citizen parents alone is sufficient. A number of law school citations appear at the end of this article to back up my conclusion about legal opinion.
    • Obama lost his citizenship by becoming an Indonesian Citizen
      The argument from the Berg lawsuit goes that when Obama became an Indonesian citizen (a country that doesn’t allow dual citizenship) he must have given up his US Citizenship (and made himself no longer “natural born”). Note that there is no Indonesian government documentation I know of that Obama ever became an Indonesian citizen. Whatever Indonesian law might say, US law does allow dual citizenship, and makes it virtually impossible for a small child to renounce his citizenship and impossible for a parent to do it for him (Obama left Indonesia at age 10). Some may argue that the relevant law is what was in force at the time, the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, but that doesn’t work either for several reasons too complicated for this summary, but detailed here.

I think that covers it. Those who want to research further can look up the sources in the links in this article. As for me, unless something new surfaces, I’m done.


Obama Grandmother Audio Recording

About Kevin

Just an old guy with opinions that I like to bounce off other people.
This entry was posted in Educational Reports, Obama Citizenship Denial, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Obama Citizenship Denial – Final Summary

  1. Ted says:

    Seems clear cut to me, Barack Obama cannot become President of the United States under Article II of the Constitution. Please listen to the linked youtube, and if you can, point out exactly where its conclusion is erroneous. Since the United States Supreme Court will be under the same Constitutional constraints with regard to the cases now before it, I don’t see HOW the Supreme Court can find otherwise. But, again, if anyone’s got a legal theory Obama can use to get out of checkmate, have at it:


  2. Kevin says:

    I listened to it.

    Essentially that Video is the same points I discuss and put to rest above.

    He says that the document says Obama was registered (not born) in Hawaii. Just read it: it says “Island of Birth: Oahu”, “City, Town or Location of Birth: Honolulu”. The video speaker is a bald-faced liar. http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg

    The definition of “natural born citizen” in the video is not supported by any law, case law, legal opinion or regulation. It is pure fantasy. As we say around here: “that dog won’t hunt.” If the Constitution intended to require BOTH that a president had to be born to TWO US Citizens AND born on US Soil, the framers would have said so, but they said nothing of the sort. All competent legal opinion agrees that being born in the United States is sufficient to be natural born, and MOST competent legal opinion holds that just having one or more US citizen parents alone is sufficient. Natural born means “citizen at birth” and nothing more.



  3. B. Wilby says:

    Take the “What Would You Do?” Quiz

    Let’s say you’re a Democrat and let’s say you’re running for president of the United States.
    You’re a likable guy and are doing well–the New York Times and AP think you’re just peachy perfect–but there have been whispers of whether or not you are constitutionally qualified.

    A prominent Democrat files suit in Federal court asking you to provide proof, to settle the matter once and for all.

    What do you do?
    · A. Provide the court with the three documents in question and go back to shaking hands, making promises and smiling for the cameras or,
    · B. Provide images of one of the documents (a fake) to a friendly website to post, but not to the court or,
    · C. Ignore the request, then make a motion to the Federal Court to dismiss the case, in lieu of providing the proof or,
    · D. In the meantime, quietly, post a notice at your website, FighttheSmears.com that you had dual citizenship with Kenya or,
    · E. Hire the top gun attorney from the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to fight the case or,
    · F. File a Joint Motion for Protective Order to Stay Discovery Pending a Decision on the Motion to Dismiss (which was) filed on 09/24/08, thereby putting the matter off until–hopefully–after the election.

    Time’s up. What do you do?

    Most readers sensibly would choose A.

    But, if you’re Barack Obama, you chose answers B, C, D, E and F.

    A very curious response for a high profile Presidential campaign that was so interested in “fighting the smears.”

    Suffice it to say: not everyone bought into the Certificate of Live Birth explanation by the Obama campaign. The election is now over and there is every possibility that all those millions who voted for Barack H. Obama actually voted for a non-candidate.

    Now, before Mr. Obama can take the oath of office as The 44th President of the United States there has to be absolute proof of his Constitutional Natural American birth. To-date that proof, if it indeed exists is hidden away because Mr. Obama isn’t allowing anyone to see his original “vault” copy of his birth certificate for some unknown reason. WHY????

    Millions and millions of Americans have reason for believing that something “big” is about to break in this story? What do you do now? Contact your elected officials and the Supreme Court Justices and demand that they uphold the Constitution of the United States of America

  4. Kevin says:

    Keeping in mind that Barack Obama is a lawyer, and has the best legal and political advice in the county at his service and that he did not choose “A”, one might take pause to reconsider if the obvious answer is perhaps not the correct answer.

    I believe that my discussion at the top of this topic provides a convincing argument that any Obama document coming out of the Hawaii Department of Health will say the same thing: that he was born in Hawaii. I also feel that most reasonable people with doubts had those doubts removed when Hawaii officials said Obama’s birth registration was in order.

    Does this mean Obama was born in Hawaii?

    “Yes,” said Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo, in both email and telephone interviews with the Tribune. “That’s what Dr. Fukino is saying.”


    Choosing (A) before the election, then, would only serve to get the story more news cycles, and perhaps cause anxiety among the less informed.

    I think any competent lawyer will tell you that it is better to have a lawsuit dismissed than to have to go to trial. Trials are time consuming, expensive, and personally distracting. The country has serious problems and spending time catering to a handful of conspiracy theorists is in no one’s best interests.

  5. Kevin says:

    My real answer to B. Wilby’s question is: hire a lawyer and take his advice. That’s what Obama did.

  6. Ted says:

    “Dirty Pool” at the Supreme Court apparently on behalf of Obama currently usurping YOUR Constitution: Leo Donofrio’s companion case, brought by Cort Wrotnowski, with fuller/better briefing showing Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen” reportedly has been sidetracked to the anthrax lab to deprive the full Court from seeing those filings in connection with Donofrio’s case this Friday, Dec 5, 2008. DO SOMETHING AMERICA!!!

  7. Kevin says:

    Is this real or a blog rumor? What’s your (non blog) source?

    Nov 25 2008 Application (08A469) for stay and/or injunction, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.
    Nov 26 2008 Application (08A469) denied by Justice Ginsburg.

  8. Gabrielle says:

    Kevin if you are so positive that Obama is a NBC then why bother talking to us. Just sit and wait. But thou does protest too much. I am sure you know deep inside your heart that Obama is not a NBC.

    The ONLY thing the birth certificate can or might prove is that he is a citizen.

    Obama can never be NBC because his father was British the day Obama was born.

    Divided loyalties.

    End of discussion.

    Kevin I wish I could make Jesse Jackson President because I am pretty sure he is a NBC. But Obama has far too many divided loyalties with Britain, Kenya and Indonesia. The purpose of the Constitution is to make sure that the President has NO DIVIDED LOYALTIES.

    Look your friend Barack is a Constitutional Lawyer. He knows what he did and is doing. Do not blame others. Obama brought all this upon himself. He figured why not give it a shot. He has taken his shot.

  9. Kevin says:

    The purpose of my writing is not so much to defend Obama (after all, I’m not his lawyer), but to try to teach folks some of the Critical Thinking I was privileged to have been taught in high school. It’s my gift to people who are anxious and confused.

    I really don’t think one say with a straight face that Obama has any loyalty to Great Britain. And I don’t think much of a case can be made over the “NO DIVIDED LOYALTIES”, which of course is a phrase not in the Constitution. I would suggest you read the Supreme Court decision in US v Wong Kim Ark that says, “Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate,” and that includes Barack Obama Sr.

    As for Jesse Jackson, he’s from Greenville, South Carolina (where I am typing this message).

    Obama took his shot, and I am pleased to say, he won.

  10. TRUTH says:


    I told myself I wasn’t posting today, but wanted to ensure you didn’t miss the Ad in the above link. Lower right side, Chicago Tribune Ad. Yesterdays n Tomorrows paper.

    Otherwise, I’m biting my tongue, and it really isn’t easy. After Friday.

  11. Kevin says:

    Basically everything in that ad is a bald-faced lie. Makes me want to puke. I just wish there were some way to hold these people accountable for their lies but they know they are immune from prosecution.

    There was a similar ad in the Washington Times a few weeks back. http://www.obamacrimes.com/index.php/news/65-full-page-ad-in-washington-times-weekly-november-17-2008

    Makes me want to puke.

  12. Ted says:

    [Ted’s comment here has been deleted. See following comment.]

  13. Kevin says:

    I had some internal debate about whether to leave Ted’s copy of Donofrio’s Open Letter to ABC News or chop it. My conclusion is that BlogOrDie is a site for publishing my stuff and inviting comments on it. It’s not a place for publishing other people’s stuff.

  14. Phillybits says:

    Great site, Kevin. Nice, terse presentation of the relevant information.

    Too bad there’s just this small segment of society that wears their tin-foil too much and is completely unable to use critical thinking skills. You want to see a conspiratorial love fest? Go check out the chatroom the people at the API site set up. It’s on blogtalk radio or something.

    Black helicopters, oh my!

  15. Kevin says:

    The Chicago Tribune commented yesterday on that ad here:


    They debunk it with the same stuff you will see on my blog.

    Some poor suckers coughed “tens of thousands of dollars” for their 15 minutes if infamy.

  16. Kevin says:

    Thanks, Phillybits

  17. TRUTH says:

    Sorry, they Debunked Nothing. They gave their OPINION, just as you have Kev. You may be this Birth Certificate Expert, and may have worked in the field for many years. But your lack of willingness to understand that the Original B.C. “MIGHT” reveal something different than the presented COLB is exactly what your accusing me of, being Unreasonable. It is so bad it emanates the fear you have from what “MIGHT” happen when they finally do see the Original B.C. And at least I am reasonable enough to say “MIGHT”. I’ve not once said there is anything wrong with BHOs Orig. B.C., I have merely stated many times over this man has applied for the #1 Position in the UNITED STATES, he can show the Original, not this secondary document that sends tingly feelings up your leg to mention over and over.

    He isn’t applying for fryboy at BurgerKing. He may have used that COLB, or one similar to apply for College, which is fine. But My GOD, Luv the man all you want but have the sense to say it is the right thing to do when applying for the Highest Cabinet in the Land, to show your Original B.C. And no, no other President has had to do this. But no other candidate put themselves in this situation, writing in books about being a dual citizen, about being born to a Kenyan (British) father. And if some other President did do something wrong, does that mean we should give this one a Pass then? Be for Real.

    Speaking of applying for Colleges, his COLB shown is from 2007. What happened to the ones he used to apply to college with? Maybe it was lost or misplaced.

    Tomorrow as you know however, isn’t about him being born somewhere else. It is about him not being an eligible candidate based on his citizenship status. ANOTHER thing I do NOT know about anymore than I do the B.C. All I want to know is the truth. Your quick to say I have seen the truth but won’t accept it. Let’s say in your Subject Matter Expert mind it is True, but in my Non-B.C.-Educated opinion, I need to know the real B.C. has been examined by “what I feel” are competent people. The Hawaiian officials said there was a B.C. and it was authentic, but they sure didn’t expound beyond that much. If your capable of imagining for 1 minute, they each now have $2million in their names in a foreign bank, it is funny what money will do to people. That is TOTAL Speculation, I only say it to make a point that something, anything, could be wrong with this. Why else has BHO avoided all this instead of ending it and showing it long ago?

  18. Kevin says:

    Anyhow, we now know without a doubt where Obama was born. I assume you heard to day.


    No. The Chicago Tribune was stating facts. I know where everything they say can be confirmed.

    Why do you need a birth certificate to apply for college? I never had a birth certificate until I was 45 when I got my passport.

    Let me try to explain your error in thinking. I don’t know if it has a snappy title, but let me call it the “extreme justification”. It is the claim that one thing is so important that it justifies anything and everything. I might argue that nobody ever had a problem with a state-issued birth certificate BUT the office of the president is SO important that no stone may be left unturned, no allegation uninvestigated, no conspiracy theory dismissed, no standard of proof too great, no objection unanswered. Of course with the unlimited nature of human imagination, you can see that the “extreme justification” way of thinking is never satisfied. You can use all sorts of hyperbolic phrases to raise the stakes: leader of the free world, the one with his finger on the nuclear button, the most power office in the world, commander in chief, the one with all of our fates in his hand. And next to all that, a little common sense sounds well, “little”. The “absolute justification” world is a mental construct not to be confused with reality.

    And there you go blaming Obama for having a Kenyan father? How does where his father comes from relate to the need to show his birth certificate? There is no connection. All I ask is that Barack Obama be held to the same standard as every other president before him. But no, you are not satisfied. Why? What is it really about Barack Obama that makes you entertain thoughts bribery among respected health officials, makes you give credibility to proven liars, imagine a vast conspiracy? I do not understand why you have singled out this one fellow for special scrutiny. (Actually I do understand, but that’s another subject.)

    The question of dual citizenship is a question of law that relates to undisputed facts and has nothing to do with where Barack Obama was born.

    You know, I think the difference between you and me is that if that old vault copy says Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii, I will be humbled and I will try to examine where I went wrong and never make the same mistake again. I think if that old vault copy says Obama was born in Honolulu, you will blame Obama for causing all this trouble.

  19. TRUTH says:

    Will I? I already Do. Had he taken the steps to show it earlier it would have saved a lot of disgruntlement. Nobody held him back from getting it.
    “….all this trouble.” kind of funny you put it that way.

    And, I really wish I could be as modest as you are about saying you would be humbled. I honestly feel it is going to say He was born In Hawaii. I mean it is like a 95% kind of feeling thing, or More, so really I will have no reason to be Humbled. So if your trying to make it sound like You would be the Good Loser and I would be a Sore Loser, or Sore Winner..whatever it is, I’m sorry I won’t be humbled for NOT knowing what is on this secret certificate.

    In a big way, I want it shown to shut EVERYONE up. And I disagree with you on one thing, I think this will be the end of the chase after him, where you have the vision of it will be one thing after another. Now I won’t say if he makes decisions about government that I don’t like that I won’t express disagreement. But I WILL NOT be chasing after his Qualifications beyond showing Authentic B.C. Paperwork. Period.

    Still, if it will settle any disagreements between You and I, I will buy you a Six Pack once we see it says Hawaii. Or a Pound of COffee if you prefer. Just to justify some sort of a Win for you. lol 🙂

  20. Kevin says:

    Sorry if it sounded like “sore looser”. That wasn’t quite what I was getting at. I was suggesting you wouldn’t learn anything from your mistake (which you wouldn’t think was a mistake).

    But of course, the next document controversy has already erupted about Obama’s Selective Service registration. The real document photocopy was obtained directly from the government under FOIA (no Obama web site this time) and the claim is that the government stalled and eventually forged one (ineptly) to make Obama appear to have registered for the draft exactly as required. It’s a piece of work (hey I haven’t used that phrase all week). This is an interesting role reversal with some Obama supporters saying that the SSS form shown has been photoshopped by opponents to make it suspicious. I could care less; the selective service is saying Obama is correctly registered and I don’t believe in this big cover-up.

  21. Truth says:

    Although a important issue, the SelSvc is a bit of a different one, in that “THE” Selective Service can make that call, and honestly I’m not a stickler on that issue anyways. Even being a Veteran, I don’t care. If he were to be ignorant and never registered, and he is now, Ok….he is registered. Not like there was a mandatory draft in which we needed to reach him, and not as if he weren’t around somewhere the last 29 years.

    Proper Birth Certificate Documentation to ensure he meets the requirement of our countries Constitution is important to me. I call it Blue Green, you call it Green Blue, it doesn’t make it MY MISTAKE to want his original document verified by who I consider creditable personnel. You Accept a secondary document that is susceptible to being altered whether intentionally or by mistake, I do not. And frankly, I won’t be surprised the information on that COLB online now matches the similar line items on the original, with the possible exception of his fathers race, which is irrelevant(I just find it odd, not wrong just odd).

    I’m just a very strong proponent on seeing actual documentation for a lot of things, not just the POTUS, but yes especially the POTUS. I would challenge anyone going for a position requiring TOP SECRET Clearance to see the original just to name one. So if you still believe I am MISTAKEN, that I can’t see my own MISTAKE, and I won’t realize later I was MISTAKEN, well…..your Mistaken. And you need to Relabel your Crayola crown, that is BlueGreen.

    Going back to that fathers race matter. I suspect that could be someone saying it in todays politically corrrect way, instead of using the exact word Negroe, they typed African. It might have been typed African in 1961, but those were really different times. Again, it is a NON-Issue, but one that can lead a person to believe that a HUMAN error can be made. If you see the original, that negats ANY human error. AND, verify the original IS original.

  22. Kevin says:

    The way race is recorded is that they ask the parents (and specifically it’s the mother they talk to) what the race is, and whatever the parent says is what goes onto the form. It seems perfectly normal to me for Barack Obama Sr. to have described himself as “African”. One of the sample certificates from Hawaii floating around has “Japanese” for race. I would not have been surprised for Obama to have said “Kenyan” or even his tribe. I would not have expected him to say “Negro” and certainly “African American” would not have fit someone who was not an American.

    See my article, Burden of Proof, for further thoughts on who should show what to whom.

  23. Jane says:

    Kevin I agree with 99% of what you say, but Natural Born is not Citizen at Birth. It is clearly UNDERSTOOD to be born in any one of the states in union with the United States. One good example is Puerto Rican. All are born Citizens at Birth but those born in the island cannot become President nor can they vote for President in the general elections. Because they are not part of the Union. We have Natural Born, Naturalized, Citizens born on military bases, and later modifications for those who are foreign born of American parents. All are Citizens, but only those born in the states are Natural Born. The founding fathers were trying to make sure he who ascended to the presidency was not foreign born and sympathetic to another country of birth. They did not foresee thousands being born overseas of American parentage. For over a century American women made sure they either stayed in one of the states or returned to the states from overseas in time to give birth so their child could be a Natural Born citizen. To reach the highest office in the nation it is a PRIVILDGE to be a Natural Born Citizen. I don’t care what Cornell or any other source who interprets it the way they see fit, but the Constitution clearly states in English what is natural born and “a citizen”. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States” Very simple. Not in the states? Too bad, hurry back if your pregnant!

  24. Jane, let me offer a different opinion.

    First I disagree that the “Constitution clearly states in English what is natural born”. In fact the Constitution offers no explanation of the term (and that’s why the controversy).

    The 14th Amendment defines “citizens”: all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. This creates two classes of citizens, those born in the United States and those naturalized or put another way, those citizens by virtue of being born in the United States and those who are citizens by statute. Arguments are being presented against the natural born status of both groups, yours against those born outside the United States and others against the persons born in the United States of foreign parents. Some say soil, some say blood, and some say both.

    Contrary to some things I have written before, it looks to me upon further reflection that the two classes of citizen defined in the 14th Amendment do not align with “natural born” and “not natural born”.

    US Code Title 8, § 1401 defines “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth“.

    • Anyone born inside the United States
    • Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
    • Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
    • Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
    • Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
    • Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
    • Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
    • A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

    § 1402 declares anyone born in Puerto Rico since 1941 as “citizens of the United States at birth.”

    The two US Supreme Court justices said in the dissenting opinion to United States v Wong Kim Ark:

    In my judgment, the children of our citizens born abroad were always natural-born citizens from the standpoint of this government.

    Those arguing against citizenship for children of citizens have said that Wong was decided wrongly. I think such a view is an uphill battle, against common understanding, against Supreme Court precedent and against common law.

  25. TRUTH says:

    Heres the ANswer


    And it was in front of me all the time.

  26. TRUTH says:


    Interesting radio broadcast.

  27. Kevin says:

    Leo Donofrio’s Natural Born Citizen blog said about Plains Radio: Just became aware of Plains Radio’s gross statements regarding Barack Obama’s health. Leo Donofrio will not be on Plains Radio again.

  28. TRUTH says:

    That’s an odd thing for him to say. Guess I’d need to hear the whole story to understand it. In any case, I guess he pissed off Plains Radio now huh? Oh well, I argue with my best friend often on his bad choice. We all have our own opinions, it’s what makes us different.

Comments are closed.