(Please read 'mystery_man.htm' on this website for more information)




To be a 'natural born citizen' the person MUST be born in the US mainland of two US citizen parents. (plural)

Obama is at best a citizen, but NOT a 'natural born citizen' even if he was born in the State of Hawaii because he had only ONE U.S. citizen parent. (singular)


You can fool some of the people some of the time;

Most of the people most of the time;

But you can't fool all of the people 

all of the time . . .



(Oh, Barry.  Look what they've done to you since this picture was taken.)


Question:  Obama is a 'natural born citizen' because of the 14th Amendment, right?

Answer:  NO.  

The 14th Amendment does not address the 'natural born citizen' issue, only citizenship. The 14th Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was proposed on June 13, 1866, and ratified on July 9, 1868, and was first intended to secure the rights of former slaves and it is one of the post-Civil War Reconstruction Amendments. The 14th amendment provides a broader definition of citizenship, overruling Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) which had excluded slaves and their descendants from possessing Constitutional rights.

"Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."


Candidate must be a 'natural born' citizen - not just a 'native born' citizen.

To be a 'natural born citizen' the person MUST be born in the US mainland of two US citizen parents. (plural).

Obama is at best a citizen, but NOT a 'natural born citizen' even if he was born in the State of Hawaii because he had only ONE U.S. citizen parent. (singular).

Myth: 'The State of Hawaii stated that Obama was born there'.

Actually that is not true.  Read what was actually stated.  On October 31, 2008, the statement from Hawaii's  Department of  Health Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino,  was carefully worded when she said, "She had  personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health had Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

However, that statement failed to answer the main questions.

The 5 things the Hawaiian Heath Director Fukino's statement did not answer are:

  1)  Was Obama physically born in Hawaii? It seems this question was not answered deliberately. A fact to consider is that Hawaii allows registration of foreign births.

Need  proof?

The Hawaiian Birth Certificate for Sun Yat Sen -  the Father of modern Communist China dated March 14, 1904 was issued after Dr. Sun signed a raggedy typewritten statement affirming that he was born in Hawaii on Nov. 24, 1870.  

Sun Yat-sen was born on November 12, 1866, to a peasant family in the village of Cuiheng, Xiangshan county , Guangzhou prefecture, Guangdong province (26 km or 16 miles north of Macau), not Hawaii, as the document affirms.  

It was also published that Maya Soetoro, Obama’s sister, has a Hawaiian 'Certification of Live Birth' on file too and she was born in Jakarta, Indonesia. You can be born anywhere and get a HI COLB (Certification of Live Birth)..

  2) What kind of form is on file for Obama?  If it is a COLB (Certification of Live Birth) and not a long form birth record  - this is a record of a foreign birth!

  3) What hospital was Obama born in? You would think the Obama lovers would want to know to enable them to erect a monument there.  Wouldn't that hospital be considered an historic place? Oddly enough, even the White House will not state the hospital where Obama was born at.  Kapiolani  stated they had a letter from Obama stating he was born there, but recently removed the letter and scrubbed their site.  They did publish it in their printed newsletter, however.

Kapiolani Hospital now states the letter is real after they pulled it! However the Obama Administration still refuses to answer the question.

  4) Who was the doctor? Wouldn't he be a main figure in such an historical event?

  5) Who was listed as the Father? It is rumored that family friend and known communist activist, Frank Marshal Davis, is suspected to be the Father.

The statement made by the Hawaiian official failed to answer these questions and failed to resolve any of the questions being raised by litigation.  Millions of people across the country have a right to know the truth about Obama’s birth and his qualifications for the office of the President of the United States.

Spokeswoman Janice Okubo stated, "The state Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past." Okubo explained that the Health Department went paperless in 2001.  "At that time, all information for births from 1908 (on) was put into electronic files for consistent reporting of information about births transferred electronically from hospitals to the department. The electronic record of the birth is what the Health Department now keeps on file in order to provide same-day certified copies at our help window for most requests." 

7/24/2009   CNN's President Jon Klein was quoted as saying that he asked CNN researchers to dig into the question of why Obama couldn't produce the original birth certificate. The researchers contacted the Hawaii Health Dept. and confirmed that paper documents were discarded in 2001 when the department went paperless. That reportedly includes Obama's original birth certificate.


Hawaii Records dated June 27, 2009, stated that they still keep the original documents on file, but require a judge's signature to release.

So it seems the Obama Administration is now trying to cover up the fact or mislead people into thinking that Hawaii doesn't have the original documents on file even though Hawaiian officials have stated that they will release originals with an order from a Judge. Hopefully Judge Carter will soon issue a subpoena for the documents for the Keyes v. Obama case.

Myth: 'The State of Hawaii stated that Obama was born there'.

Actually that is not true.  Read what was actually stated:  On October 31, 2008, the statement of Hawaii's  Department of  Health Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino,  was carefully worded when she said, "She had  personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health had Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

Natural Born Citizen Defined

WHY did our forefathers specify 'Natural Born Citizen'?

This very important requirement in the U.S. Constitution requiring that a U.S. President be ‘natural born’ on U.S. soil is one of the 'wisest requirements' specified by our forefathers.  They put it in there for a very good reason . .  it was to prevent those with foreign interests and loyalties from corrupting our government.  (Think a moment about Obama's peculiar un-American  behavior todate).

The Founders required the President to be a 'Natural Born Citizen' to help ensure that the person holding the top position of the Executive branch would have  unquestionable and unwavering loyalty to the United States of America.

The term natural born citizen was first codified in the legal reference book, 'Law of Nations', in 1758 which was used by John Jay who later became the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.  Jay, considered the outstanding legal scholar of his time, had the 'natural born citizen' clause inserted into the U.S. Constitution via a letter he wrote to George Washington, the leader of the Constitutional Convention.

The official copies of the THIRD U.S. Congress (1795) margin notes state: "Former act repealed. 1790. ch. 3."  - referencing the FIRST U.S. Congress (1790).

The actual text of the THIRD CONGRESS in 1795 states, "...children of citizens (plural). . . both parents of the United States . . ..shall be considered citizens of the United States provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States..." (THIRD CONGRESS Session II. Ch.21. 1795, Approved January 29, 1795, pp. 414-415. Document margin note: "How children shall obtain citizenship through their parents" Document margin note: "Former Act repealed 1790 ch.3.")

The actual text of the FIRST CONGRESS in 1790 states,

"...children of citizens (plural - both parents) of the United States...shall be considered as natural born citizens of the United States provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States..." (FIRST CONGRESS Session II Ch.4 1790, Approved March 26, 1790, pp. 103-104. Document margin note: "Their children residing here, deemed citizens." Document margin note: "Also, children of citizens born beyond sea, & c. Exceptions."

The actual text of the Constitution from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774 -1789 and subsequent official printings of the Constitution of the United States of American: Article II Section 1 Clause 5 states,

"No person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President…"

From the 'Law of Nations': "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. THE COUNTRY OF THE FATHERS IS THEREFORE THAT OF THE CHILDREN."

Now apply that to Obama's Father being a 'Kenyan'.

John Jay wrote: "Permit me to hint whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen."

Using Adolf Hitler as an example:  "He was not a 'natural born' German born citizen. He was actually born in Austria. Having been to both those countries, I can personally attest to the great difference between Germans and Austrians. There are still many people who believe that had there been a similar requirement or law in Germany to our Constitution requirement for President (or Chancellor or leader) to be born on the land of the country, that WWII would not have occurred as it did and countless millions would not have died. Hitler completely ruined Europe . . . especially Germany. He pushed its people and their military forces to the brink of destruction even when everyone (including himself) knew that there could never be a victory for Germany. Why? Well, many feel it was because he was not a German.  In truth, he was an Austrian and therefore he didn't care about the German people or about Germany and all of her treasures, cities, etc." 

Although Hitler had an 84% approval rating with the public, due to the devastating economic situation and his charismatic oratorical skills (sound similar to Obama?) the National Socialists did not have an overwhelming majority in the Reichstag. They simply were the largest party at the time in the German Parliament. Therefore, no other party was able to oppose their legislative pull.  In a similar situation we wouldn't  be protected.

Many question BHO’s allegiances and patriotism by his refusal to wear the U.S. Flag lapel pin, his  refusal to salute the American Flag during the Anthem, canceling a scheduled Anthem at at least one of his events, and spending a lot of $$$ to repaint his campaign aircraft, removing the U.S. Flag from the tail fin.  He also cancelled a scheduled visit to our injured troops in Germany.

BHO visited Kenya as a Senator and endorsed the socialist party candidate,   Odinga, in their national presidential elections. He did this because Odinga was/is his friend and fellow Luo tribesman and cousin.  He belonged to the same tribe as BHO and his father. Worth mentioning is that hundreds of citizens were killed by Odinga's men when Odinga lost the election.

Case Law regarding 'Natural Born Citizen';

Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168

'At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents (plural) who were its citizens (plural), became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents (plural), within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens "     Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.

U. S. v Wong Kim Ark (1898)   The court thoroughly discussed 'natural born citizen' and Justice Gray quoted from Minor v. Happersett

The cases importance is that it is the first case decided by the Supreme Court that attempts to explain the meaning of 'natural born citizen' under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Natural born citizen is similar to the meaning of what a natural born subject is under Common Law in England.  It is why the framers of our Constitution specifically included a grandfather clause (natural born Citizen or a Citizen of the United States) at the time of adopting the Constitution.  They needed to 'grandfather' themselves to enable them to be president since they were all British subjects. The holding in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark states that Wong Kim Ark is a native born citizen and not natural born. If you look at the fact of Wong Kim Ark being born in San Francisco, CA, of foreign (Chinese) parents, therefore was not 'natural born'.

Perkins v. Elg's (1939) . . .  Its importance is that it actually gives examples of who a 'natural born citizen' of the U.S. is, who a 'citizen' of the U.S. is, and who a 'native born citizen' of the U. S. is. In this case, the U. S. Supreme Court decided the same as in prior case laws that a 'natural born citizen' is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents (plural) and born in the mainland of U.S.

Citizen: On cross appeals, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decree, 69 App.D.C. 175, 99 F.2d 408. Certiorari was granted, December 5, 1938, 305 U.S. 591, 59 S.Ct. 245, 83 L.Ed.  On her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. Civil Rights Act of 1866: Ms. Elg was found to be a 'citizen' because she was born in the mainland USA (New York)

Native Born citizen: This principle was clearly stated by Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont in his letter of advice to the Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, in Steinkauler's Case, 1875, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15. Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, who emigrated to the United States in 1848 and was naturalized in 1854, and had a son who was born in St. Louis the following year. 4 years later Steinkauler returned to Germany taking this child and became domiciled at Weisbaden where they continuously resided. When the son reached 20 years of age the German Government called upon him to report for military duty but his father then requested intervention of the American Legation on the grounds that his son was a 'native born' citizen of the United States'. On reviewing the pertinent points in the case, including the Naturalization Treaty of 1868 with North Germany, 15 Stat. 615, the Attorney General reached the following conclusion: "Young Steinkauler is a native born American citizen."  Mr. Steinkauler was found to be a 'native born citizen' because he was born in the mainland USA (St. Louis)

A person can be a 'citizen' under the following circumstances:

1) Person was born of one citizen parent (Obama) or

2) Person was born in the US mainland ('anchor babies') or

3) Person was naturalized like Arnold Schwarzenegger -  ( who most know he is not eligible for President). 

To be a 'natural born citizen'  the person MUST be born in the US mainland of two US citizen parents. (plural)

Obama is at best a citizen, but NOT a 'natural born citizen' even IF he was born in the State of Hawaii.  He had only ONE U.S. citizen parent. (singular)


Selective Service Registration

There is also evidence that BHO's Selective Service Registration Form is also a forgery. Failure to register would prove further ineligibility for any job in the Executive Branch of Government and BHO would not even be eligible for a job a the Post Office!


Call your representatives, attend 'tea parties', events, or peaceful protests, and if you cannot do any of those things then please support those who are tirelessly working 16+ hours daily to try to preserve YOUR rights and the rights of your children and future generations by making donations. If you cannot get involved yourself, then your donation will help those who are working hard to get things done!

Email:  Donate(AT)ObamaNotQualified.com to get an immediate automatic response with information on how and where to send your generous donations to show your support, which will be most appreciated. Thank you!





By Craig Andresen on January 26, 2012 at 9:25 am



"Given the testimony from today’s court case in Georgia, Obama has a lot of explaining to do. His attorney, Jablonski, was a NO SHOW as of course, was Obama.  The following is a nutshell account of the proceedings . . ."

  Promptly at 9am EST, all attorneys involved in the Obama Georgia eligibility case were called to the Judge’s chambers. This was indeed a very interesting beginning to this long awaited and important case. The case revolved around the 'Natural Born' clause of the Constitution and whether or not Obama qualifies under it to serve. More to the point, if found ineligible, Obama’s name would not appear on the 2012 ballot in Georgia.

  With the small courtroom crowded, several in attendance could be seen fanning themselves with pamphlets as they waited for the return of the attorneys and the appearance of the judge. Obama himself, who had been subpoenaed to appear  was nowhere near Georgia. Instead, Obama was on a campaign swing appearing in Las Vegas and in Colorado ignoring the court in Georgia.

  Over the last several weeks, Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, had attempted several tactics to keep this case from moving forward. He first tried to have it dismissed, then argued that it was irrelevant to Obama. After that, Jablonski argued that a state could not, under the law, determine who would or would not be on a ballot and later, that Obama was simply too busy with the duties of office to appear. After all these arguments were dispatched by the Georgia Court, Jablonski, in desperation, wrote to the Georgia Secretary of State attempting to place Obama above the law and declared that the case was not to he heard and neither he nor his client would participate.

  Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, fired back a letter hours later telling Jablonski he was free to abandon the case and not participate, but that he would do so at his and his clients peril.

Game on.  5 minutes.  10 minutes.  15 minutes with the attorneys in the judge’s chambers.  20 minutes.

  It appears Jablonski is not in attendance as the attorneys return, all go to the plaintiff table 24 minutes after meeting in the judge’s chambers. Has Obama’s attorney made good on his stated threat not to participate? Is he directly ignoring the court’s subpoena? Is he placing Obama above the law? It seems so. Were you or I subpoenaed to appear in court, would we or our attorney be allowed such action or non action?  Certainly not.

  Court is called to order. Obama’s birth certificate is entered into evidence. Obama’s father’s place of birth, Kenya East Africa, is entered into evidence. Pages 214 and 215 from Obama’s book, 'Dreams from My Father' entered into evidence. Highlighted. This is where Obama indicates that, in 1966 or 1967, his father’s history is mentioned. It states that his father’s passport had been revoked and he was unable to leave Kenya.

  Immigration Services documents entered into evidence regarding Obama Sr.
June 27th, 1962, is the date on those documents. Obama’s father’s status shown as a non-citizen of the United States. Documents were gotten through the Freedom of Information Act. Testimony regarding the definition of Natural Born Citizen is given citing Minor vs Happersett, an opinion from a Supreme Court written opinion from 1875. The attorney points out the difference between 'citizen' and 'Natural Born Citizen' using charts and copies of the Minor vs Happersett opinion.

  It is also pointed out that the 14th Amendment does not alter the definition or supersede the meaning of Natural Born. It is pointed out that lower court rulings do not conflict with the Supreme Court opinion nor do they over rule the Supreme Court Minor vs Happersett opinion.

The point is, to be a natural born citizen, one must have 2 parents who, at the time of the birth in question, be citizens of the United States. As Obama’s father was not a citizen, the argument is that Obama, constitutionally, is ineligible to serve as President.

  Judge notes that neither Obama or his attorney is present.  Action will be taken accordingly.  Carl Swinson takes the stand. Testimony is presented that the SOS has agreed to hear this case, laws applicable, and that the DNC of Georgia will be on the ballot and the challenge to it by Swinson.

  2nd witness, a Mr. Powell, takes the stand and presents testimony regarding documents of challenge to Obama’s appearance on the Georgia ballot and his candidacy.

  Court records of Obama’s mother and father entered into evidence. Official certificate of nomination of Obama entered into evidence. RNC certificate of nomination entered into evidence.

  DNC language does NOT include language stating Obama is qualified while the RNC document DOES. This shows a direct difference trying to establish that the DNC may possibly have known that Obama was not qualified.

  Jablonski's  letter to Kemp yesterday entered into evidence showing their desire that these proceedings not take place and that they would not participate.

  'Dreams From My Father' entered. Mr. Allen from Tuscon AZ sworn in. Disc received from Immigration and Naturalization Service entered into evidence. This disc contains information regarding the status of Obama’s father received through the Freedom of Information Act. This information states clearly that Obama’s father was NEVER a U.S. Citizen.

At this point, the judge takes a recess.

The judge returns.

  David Farrar takes the stand. Evidence showing Obama’s book of records listing his nationality as Indoneasan. Deemed not relevant by the judge.

  Orly Taitz calls 2nd witness. Mr. Strump. Enters into evidence a portion of letter received from attorney showing a renewal form from Obama’s mother for her passport listing Obama’s last name . . .  something other than Obama.

  State Licensed PI takes the stand. She was hired to look into Obama’s background and found a Social Security number for him from 1979. Professional opinion given that this number was fraudulent. The number used or attached to Obama in 1979, shows that Obama was born in 1890. This shows that the number was originally assigned to someone else who was indeed born in 1890 and should never have been used by Obama.  Same SS number came up with addresses in IL, D.C. and MA.

  Next witness takes the stand. This witness is an expert in information technology and Photoshop. He testifies that the birth certificate Obama provided to the public is layered . . .  multiple layered. This, he testifies, indicates that different parts of the certificate have been lifted from more than one original document.

  Linda Jordan takes the stand. Document entered regarding SS number assigned to Obama. SS number is not verified under E Verify. It comes back as suspected fraudulent. This is the system by which the Government verifies one's citizenship.

  Next witness. Mr. Gogt. Expert in document imaging and scanners for 18 years.
Mr. Gogt testifies that the birth certificate, posted online by Obama, is suspicious. States white lines around all the type face is caused by 'unsharp mask' in Photoshop. Testifies that any document showing this, is considered to be a fraud. States this is a product of layering. Mr. Gogt testifies that a straight scan of an original document would not show such layering. Also testifies that the date stamps shown on Obama documents should not be in exact same place on various documents as they are hand stamped. Obama’s documents are all even, straight and exactly the same indicating they were NOT hand stamped by layered into the document by computer.

  Next witness, Mr. Sampson a former police officer and former immigration officer specializing in immigration fraud. Ran Obama’s SS number through database and found that the number was issued to Obama in 1977 in the state of MA. Obama never resided in MA. At the time of issue, Obama was living in Hawaii. Serial number on birth certificate is out of sequence with others issued at that hospital. Also certification is different than others and different than twins born 24 hours ahead of Obama.  Mr. Sampson also states that portion of documents regarding Mr. Sotoroe, who adopted Obama, have been redacted which is highly unusual with regards to immigration records. Suggests all records from Social Security, Immigration, Hawaii birth records be made available to see if there are criminal charges to be filed or not. Without them, nothing can be ruled out. Mr. Sampson indicates if Obama is shown not to be a citizen, he should be arrested and deported and until all records are released nobody can know for sure if he is or is not a U.S. Citizen.

  Taitz shows records for Barry Sotoro aka Barack Obama.  They show he resides in Hawaii and in Indonesia at the same time. Taitz takes the stand herself. Testifies that records indicate Obama records have been altered and he is hiding his identity and citizenship. Taitz leaves the stand to make her closing arguments. Taitz states that Obama should be found, because of the evidence presented, ineligible to serve as President. And with that, the judge closes the hearing.

  What can we take away from this? It’s interesting. Now, all of this has finally been entered OFFICIALLY into court records. One huge question is now more than ever before, unanswered. WHO THE HELL IS THIS GUY?  Without his attorney present, Obama’s identity, his Social Security number, his citizenship status, and his past are all OFFICIALLY in question. One thing there seems to be no doubt. He does NOT qualify, under the definition of 'Natural Born Citizen'  to be eligible to serve as President.

The U. S. Supreme Court has decided that a 'natural born citizen' is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents (plural) and born in the mainland of U.S.

Obama is at best a citizen, but NOT a 'natural born citizen' even if he was born in the State of Hawaii because he had only ONE U.S. citizen parent. (singular)

What will the judge decide? That is yet to be known, but it seems nearly impossible to believe that Obama will be allowed on the Georgia ballot. without counter testimony or evidence since Obama and his attorney chose not to participate. It also opens the door for such cases pending or to be brought in other states as well.

Obama is in it deep and the DNC has a lot of explaining to do unless they start looking for a new candidate for 2012. (Rumor is it will be Hillary).





This information supports the concern of having someone elected President of the United States who is not qualified. Obama's actions arouse suspicion and distrust from those of us who are knowledgeable of his agenda.

WASHINGTON -- A Republican New Hampshire State lawmaker is calling for the formation of a commission to bring charges of treason against President Obama.

Harry Accornero (R-Laconia) sent an email to every New Hampshire State representative stating that President Obama "has crossed the line, and under Article III section 3 of our Constitution is guilty of treason by giving aid and comfort to the enemy and attempting to overthrow our government from within."

"I am formally asking you to bring a commission of treason against Mr. Barack Husain [sic] Obama," wrote Accornero in the email, posted by Blue Hampshire and obtained by The Huffington Post. "We have a President who allows our borders to be violated by illegals of any country while we are at war. He allows them work permits, access to our services and when apprehended by law enforcement refuses to have them jailed or deported."

In an interview with The Huffington Post, Accornero said he had to act on the injustices he feels the Obama administration is performing.

"I've been contemplating this for awhile and just been getting fed up with what's going on in Washington and what the President is doing to our country," he said. "I wrote a few letters into the local paper and I sent it to Congressman [Frank] Guinta and it just falls on deaf ears."

Accornero said he was surprised that his charge of treason against the President of the United States has gotten so much attention. He said this isn't about him but about average citizens without a voice.

"I'm kind of overwhelmed that this thing has taken off like it has," he said. "But I have received hundreds of calls from people throughout the country expressing their dissatisfaction. The only reason I got attention is because I have 'representative' in front of my name, which is kind of unfair, because every American should have a right to challenge their President and their government."

Yet while his charge may be starting to get attention, it doesn't appear that his call for a formal commission is going anywhere. A spokesperson for New Hampshire State House Speaker Bill O'Brien (R-Mount Vernon) did not return a request for comment to The Huffington Post.

The charge of treason is not the first controversial thing to come from the New Hampshire state House this year. House lawmakers passed legislation that eliminated the requirement for a permit to carry a concealed weapon, made a photo I.D. requirement for voting and withdrew New Hampshire from the northeastern regional cap and trade program. Most of the legislation has been vetoed by Gov. John Lynch (D) but some bills, such as the concealed weapons permit, have made it into law.