According to Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, no person except a “natural born citizen” (citizen at birth) shall be eligible to the office of President. Until 1866, the citizenship status of persons born in the United States was not defined in the Constitution or in any federal statute. However, under the common law rule of jus soli -- the law of the soil -- persons born in the United States generally acquired U.S. citizenship at birth.
Federalist Blog author, P.A. Madison, factors in President Washington’s admonition about foreign attachment when formulating what the Founders and Framers meant by natural-born citizen. Our first President warned that a “passionate attachment of one nation for another, produces a variety of evils.”
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.
P.A. Madison concludes that that there is no “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.” This is because, “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.”
With confidence, P.A. Madison subscribes to the idea that a natural-born citizen of the United States can only mean, “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.”
Would P.A. Madison’s logic hold up in court? Would the court system consider such reasoning when determining who is eligible to be President of the United States?
Common Knowledge would define a natural-born citizen as one who is a citizen by no act of law, or act of naturalization.
What is the difference between a citizen and a natural-born citizen?
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.
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.
Congress was vested 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. Congress could declare children born abroad to fathers who were already a citizen of some State to be a citizen themselves. Naturalization only provides for the removal of alienage and not for the creation of citizens within individual States.
Fourteenth Amendment
The Fourteenth Amendment (1868) established that US citizenship is the primary citizenship in this country, and that state citizenship depends upon citizenship of the United States and the citizen's place of residence. The States have no power to restrict their citizenship to any classes or persons.
The Fourteenth Amendment established a written national rule declaring who are citizens through birth or naturalization. According to the 14th Amendment, "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."
During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan -- the author of the citizenship clause -- described the clause as excluding not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” Howard also stated the word jurisdiction meant the United States possessed a “full and complete jurisdiction” over the person described in the amendment. Such meaning precluded citizenship to any person who was beholden, in even the slightest respect, to any sovereignty other than a U.S. state or the federal government.
Thus, the status of natural born citizen is conditional upon being born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States -- a condition not required under the common law. 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.
In conclusion, P.A. Madison draws attention to Rep. John A. Bingham’s (OH) comments about Section 1992 of the Revised Statutes. Rep. Bingham is the author behind the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
“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))
P.A. Madison provides context to Bingham’s definition.
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. 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.
Defining a “natural born citizen”
The Courts have taken other ideas into consideration when determining who qualifies as a “natural born citizen.”
United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). On March 28, 1898, in delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court for United States v. Wong Kim Ark, in which the Supreme Court had to determine, “whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,” Justice Gray stated, “In construing any act of legislation, whether a statute enacted by the legislature or a constitution established by the people as the supreme law of the land, regard is to be had not only to all parts of the act itself, and of any former act of the same lawmaking power of which the act in question is an amendment, but also to the condition and to the history [p654] of the law as previously existing, and in the light of which the new act must be read and interpreted.”
“The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.’ In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.”
Justice Gray referred to several cases brought before the court which helped establish precedents for his decision, “This court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”
Justice Gray came to his decision based on the idea that birth and allegiance equal “natural born citizenship.” This idea was first promulgated in the common law. By example, he cites United several court cases, the first case here is representative of the reasoning leading to his conclusion.
United States v. Rhodes (1866) “In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: ‘All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural- born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.’ ‘We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.’”
The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim “protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem” -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.
Minor v. Happersett (1875). In Minor v. Happersett, argued on February 9, 1875 and decided March 29, 1875, Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court, which included a definition of natural-born citizens based on the common-law at the time of the US Constitution’s passage and subsequent legislation. His opinion diverges slightly from Justice Swayne’s:
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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 who were its citizens 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 [p168] 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 within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. [n8] These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also. [n9]
As early as 1804 it was enacted by Congress that when any alien who had declared his intention to become a citizen in the manner provided by law died before he was actually naturalized, his widow and children should be considered as citizens of the United States, and entitled to all rights and privileges as such upon taking the necessary oath; [n10] and in 1855 it was further provided that any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or [p169] who should be married to a citizen of the United States, should be deemed and taken to be a citizen. [n11]
From this it is apparent that from the commencement of the legislation upon this subject alien women and alien minors could be made citizens by naturalization, and we think it will not be contended that this would have been done if it had not been supposed that native women and native minors were already citizens by birth.”
Dissenting Opinion in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). Chief Justice Fuller objected to the idea that the only thing “natural born” ever meant in the first place was that the individual in question was born on U.S. soil: “[I]t is unreasonable to conclude that ‘natural born citizen’ applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay, or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”
At issue is whether or not a parent must be a citizen in order for a person born under the jurisdiction of the United States to be considered a “natural born citizen.” There were conflicting views, represented by the opinions and dissents of the courts and in writings reflective of the time period.
E. de Vattel’s Law of Nations (1758). "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.”
Current definition
Here is where the definition of “natural born citizen” currently stands.
State Department Foreign Affairs Manual
• U.S. citizenship may be acquired either at birth or through naturalization.
• U.S. laws governing the acquisition of citizenship at birth embody two legal principles:
1. Jus soli (the law of the soil), a rule of common law under which the place of a person’s birth determines citizenship. In addition to common law, this principle is embodied in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the various U.S. citizenship and nationality statutes.
2. Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline ), a concept of Roman or civil law under which a person’s citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. This rule, frequently called “citizenship by descent” or “derivative citizenship”, is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute. As laws have changed, the requirements for conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also changed.
• Naturalization is “the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever” or conferring of citizenship upon a person. Naturalization can be granted automatically or pursuant to an application. Under U.S. law, foreign naturalization acquired automatically is not an expatriating act.
U.S. Code definition
Title 8, Section 1401, of the U.S. Code provides the current definition for a natural-born citizen.
• Anyone born inside the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, which exempts the child of a diplomat from this provision
• 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)
Separate sections confer citizenship on persons living in US territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. Concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was "declared" to be a United States citizen. The terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.
Although President Obama has a Kenyan father, the fact that his mother was a citizen should legitimize his being born a U.S. citizen. After his parents divorced, Obama's mother remarried. Her second husband was an Indonesian national and, as a small child, Obama was moved to Indonesia with his mother and adopted father. Questions have been raised as to whether his citizenship was actually renounced. It is unlikely his birth certificate would indicate that he was born of some other lineage, however the certificate is sealed and the public does not have access to his records. To preclude future controversies of this type, a more formal vetting process of citizenship qualifications should perhaps be established before the next cycle of elections.
In 2004, a bill (S.2128) to define the term "natural born Citizen" as used in the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for the Office of President was introduced by Sen. Don Nickles and was cosponsored by Sen. James Inhofe and Sen. Mary Landrieu. The bill never became law.
In 2008, a resolution sponsored by Sen. Claire McCaskill and co-sponsored by Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Thomas Coburn, Sen. Patrick Leahy, Sen. Barack Obama, and Sen. Jim Webb recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen was introduced and passed Senate without amendment. This resolution stated that John Sidney McCain, III, is a "natural born Citizen" under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president, some theorized that because McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it can be argued that section 1403 applied to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): "a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person." Not everyone agrees that this section includes McCain -- but absent a court ruling either way, the resolution stands..
The Supreme Court has held that there are only two ways to become a citizen:
1) birth in the United States, thus becoming a citizen under the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or 2) satisfaction of every requirement of a statute enacted by Congress granting citizenship to a class of people. The second category includes naturalization of individual adults or children already born; collective naturalization of groups, such as natives of territory acquired by the United States; and naturalization at birth of certain classes of children born abroad to citizens. Those born in the United States are uncontroversially natural born citizen, however Charles Gordon in “Who Can be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma” argues that those obtaining citizenship at birth by statute are natural born citizens. However, natural born citizenship can be acquired only at the moment of birth.
Wong Kim Ark thus recognizes four categories. A person can be:
1) both in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, like a Chinese immigrant in California;
2) neither in the United States nor subject to its jurisdiction, like a Brazilian citizen in São Paulo;
3) in the United States but not subject to its jurisdiction, like a British soldier occupying Washington, D.C. during the War of 1812; or
4) out of the United States but subject to its jurisdiction, like a U.S. merchant on a guano island—one of the unclaimed, commercially valuable islands that Congress provided could be made U.S. territory upon application of a U.S. petitioner.
Only persons born in the first category are citizens by birth under the Fourteenth Amendment; only those born in the second category to U.S. citizens are covered by section 1993.
There is a need to have a definition of natural-born citizen that cannot be politicized. The definition must be protected from the politics of today and ensconced in the Constitution. Whether common law ideas or Vattel’s ideas prevail, we need to define what is to be acceptable in our Commander in Chief. All of the arguments made by the Framers regarding foreign influence must be taken into consideration because they knew then as we know now; the sovereignty of our great nation is at risk.
IP: Logged
01:23 PM
Mar 15th, 2012
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
A new poll shows that a majority of voters in Mississippi and Alabama believe President Obama is a Muslim. He may be. He’s certainly a syncretist, someone who has no problem combining different and often contradictory belief systems. Obama’s not alone in adopting a form of worldview pluralism. These people are not aware that some belief systems have sinister motives and long-term goals to eradicate all worldview competition. Islam is one of those worldviews.
So even if President Obama is not a Muslim, his belief that we can all get along is naïve and dangerous. Appeasing radical Islam will lead to America’s downfall.
Some of our founding fathers saw the dangers of religious and worldview pluralism. For example, Governor Samuel Johnston (1733–1816) from North Carolina was fearful that a Muslim could one day be president of the United States because the Constitution does not make a forthright statement of its worldview foundation other than “We the people.” What if the people change their belief system? He wrote that “the Grand Turk, could be chosen” president given the Constitution’s no test oath clause. A Turk was someone of the Islamic faith. He went on to say:
“Those who are Mahometans [Muslims], or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion, can never be elected to the office of President or other high office, but in one of two cases. First, if the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves. Another case is, if any persons of such descriptions should, not withstanding their religion, acquire the confidence and esteem of the people of America by their good conduct and practice of virtue, they may be chosen. I leave it to gentlemen’s candor to judge what probability there is of the people’s choosing men of different sentiments from themselves.”
Johnston’s fears were real and are coming to pass. Religious pluralism as led to religious intolerance, particularly of the Christian faith. Fear has led many to acquiesce to Islam. Even some of our courts are making rulings favoring Sharia law.
People in the Netherlands are worried. Holland used to be a Christian nation. Over a period of time, the government adopted a form of religious pluralism, giving equal standing, first, to all Christian denominations, then to religion in general, and finally to every worldview imaginable.
Holland has lost its worldview base. It has become a haven for drugs, prostitution, and euthanasia — all legal! Its liberal immigration policies are beginning to worry the people of Holland, especially after the murder of Dutch filmmaker and outspoken critic of Islamic extremism Theo van Gogh. In 2004, more than 40,000 Dutch moved elsewhere, mostly to New Zealand, Australia, and Canada.
Muslims make up ten percent of the population in Holland. If population trends continue, Muslims could become a viable political force and remake Holland into a Muslim nation in the lifetime of our grandchildren. Holland’s religious pluralism could result in its downfall. No one could ever have conceived of such a thing 40 years ago. I’m sure the same is true of millions of Americans.
IP: Logged
11:20 AM
Apr 7th, 2012
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Two years, three months, and seven days after his inauguration, Barack Obama finally offered evidence to prove his eligibility for the presidency. On the White House website, officials posted an electronic document purported to be a scan of Barack Obama's long-form birth certificate. It was a grand "I told you so" moment for the media and the left, which had worked feverishly to marginalize "birthers" as the radical counterpart of the zany "truther."
Of course, there was never really any parity. Truthers constructed silly conspiracy theories about George W. Bush being an international super-criminal that orchestrated impossibly complex measures to frame al-Qaeda on 9/11. Birthers, on the other hand, merely demanded that the president, who is required by the Constitution to be a natural born American citizen, show proof of his eligibility. And in reality, that is an entirely reasonable expectation, albeit unprecedented.
Nonetheless, birthers were marginalized as fringe elements, and since the release of the electronic scan of the birth certificate, the concerns of birthers have become even more ignored in the public discourse. As an example of the how the media now views the birther movement, consider that the Huffington Postdescribes it as a "controversy that has been widely debunked but which remains alive in the eyes of some conservatives."
New evidence, however, has reignited conservative interest in Obama's birth certificate. Conservative icon Sherriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona, at the behest of a petition presented by the Surprise, Arizona Tea Party organization, organized a "cold case posse" and completed a six-month examination of the released birth certificate in order to determine its authenticity. The results are in, Joe says, and they point to the document being a fake.
Skilled as Sherriff Joe's team undoubtedly is in identifying forged documents, last month offered interesting substantiation of the team's findings. Renowned skeptic of global warming theories Lord Christopher Monckton, who has experience investigating high-level fraud as a policy adviser under Margaret Thatcher, has given the claim added veracity.
According to World Net Daily, Monckton said that "it appears that the document was cobbled together in layers, pointing to evidence that three date stamps and a registrar's stamp were superimposed on it from another document." If there were a single, original document to verify the president's Hawaiian birth, why "go to all that trouble, he reasoned."
Monckton's conclusion? "My assessment is that they are right to be worried... That document is not genuine."
This conclusion glaringly lacks ambiguity. And if Monckton is correct, we should be beyond worried. We should be outraged, and we should demand justice for the betrayal of the American people's trust.
Mockton's testimony is a bombshell. It is a credible voice suggesting that the image on the White House website, offered to the American people in good faith, was presented as an accurate depiction of Obama's birth certificate, and for whatever reason, it is not. This is forgery, a crime in itself, but it is the reason for the possible forgery -- fraud -- that keeps the media and lawmakers from running with this amazing story.
Anyone calling Obama's birth certificate into question will have to entertain the notion that perhaps the forgery was made because the president does not have legal proof of his American birth. And anyone carrying that message will have the stink of "right-wing birther" on him, and he will be swiftly devoured by the attack dogs in the media and marginalized. So in a way, I don't blame conservative lawmakers and pundits for treading lightly around the issue.
The discourse has already been cleverly manipulated, you see, to shift the burden of proof from Obama to his detractors. Reasonably, it should never have been incumbent upon Americans to prove that Obama is not a natural born citizen, but rather it should have always been incumbent upon Obama to prove to the American people, verifiably and indisputably, that he was born in the United States.
Barack Obama again has that chance, and Arpaio has articulated that very point. "The president can put all this to rest quite easily," he said. "All he has to do is demand [that] the Hawaii Department of Health release to the American public and to a panel of certified court-authorized forensic examiners all original 1961 paper, microfilm, and computer birth records the Hawaii Department of Health has in its possession."
But then, the president has always had the opportunity to do this, and he has never seized it. One can speculate as to why. Some, like Ann Coulter, find the withholding of definitive proof of his birth to be a ruse to whip Obama's opponents into unreasonable frenzy, and thereby marginalize them. On the other hand, it is entirely logical to think that he has not produced definitive proof because there is something that is being hidden from the American public. And the fact that this birth certificate appears to be a forgery certainly strengthens the second possibility.
I've always been one of those who likes to preface sentences with "I'm no birther, but..." But in light of this new evidence, I certainly feel that there is a warrant for investigation to satisfy the birthers' concern, with Obama innocent until proven guilty, of course. And if that makes me a birther, then so be it.
IP: Logged
08:22 PM
Apr 10th, 2012
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
When Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio announced the findings of his Cold Case Posse investigation into the birth certificate of Barack Obama, he stated that he wasn’t sure who to take the evidence to. He indirectly hinted that it would do no good to take it to the US Attorney General and the Department of Justice as they would probably bury the information to protect Obama. He also suggested that Congress should take up the matter, especially since there is strong evidence that the birth certificate produced last April by the White House is a forgery and that Barack Hussein Obama may not be eligible to hold the office of President.
However, no one on Capitol Hill is talking about the birth certificate and Obama’s eligibility and Sheriff Joe is asking why. As reported by WND and other sources, Arpaio spoke with Aaron Klein on New York’s WABC Radio over the weekend and told listeners that everyone seems to be hiding from the issue. Arpaio said that he has met with all of the Republican presidential candidates and shown them the evidence, but none of them have said a word about it. He said they are hiding from the issue.
What also frustrates Arpaio is that those representing Arizona in Washington DC are also remaining quiet on the issue. This includes Senators McCain and Kyl.
And Sheriff Joe is asking WHY is everyone hiding and not saying or doing anything about it? This is potentially the greatest fraud in the history of the entire world and no one seems willing to touch it.
As I read the reports of Arpaio’s frustration, I can’t help but wonder if the GOP presidential candidates and fellow members of Congress are afraid of what will happen to them if they do. I’m not talking about being afraid of voters or their political careers, but afraid for themselves and their families. I have no evidence to support my suspicion except the reported threat against Chelsea Clinton in 2008 to keep Bill Clinton from saying anything about Obama’s eligibility.
Mind you I am not accusing President Obama of anything. However, we all know that there are some very wealthy and powerful people behind the president that have questionable reputations of their own. If these influential puppeteers can orchestrate the rags to White House of a foreign born student, then it may not be so out of character for them to exert pressures and influences on others in Washington to secure their silence.
It may not be a case of Republicans hiding from the issue, but too afraid to tackle it for fear of hidden retribution. Mind you, this is just my opinion and again, I have no concrete evidence to support it, just a lot of following trails to places they don’t want us to follow.
IP: Logged
10:19 PM
Apr 12th, 2012
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Congress flooded with calls to probe Obama Thousands demanding answers about president's eligibility
quote
Sheriff Joe Arpaio says he’s talked to members of Arizona’s congressional delegation about his Cold Case Posse investigation, which has found probable cause that there was fraud in the creation of the birth documentation for Barack Obama released by the White House in 2011.
The investigators also believe that Obama’s Selective Service registration is a forgery, leading to the obvious question of what happens if Obama is ineligible for the presidency.
But Arpaio’s effort to persuade federal lawmakers apparently has fallen on deaf ears.
Now, tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of people are going to see whether Congress ignores their concerns, too.
It’s because of a new petition that has been launched demanding that the 112th Congress begin a “full and impartial investigation into the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama.”
In the first day it was available, some 1,000 people signed up every hour. That means a patriotic American was adding his or her name to the list every few seconds.
Arpaio recently told radio host Aaron Klein on “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” on New York’s WABC Radio that media and politicians alike are afraid to touch the issue.
“Why didn’t someone investigate this? I mean, where is everybody?” Arpaio asked Klein. “How come the federal agencies aren’t investigating? We’re dealing with federal issues here. So everybody’s hiding, and they’re still hiding.”
Arpaio said he had told lead investigator Mike Zullo to debunk the “birther” claims about Obama’s documents.
“My instructions were this: ‘I want you to clear the president. I want to get to the bottom of this and get it off the table forever,’” Arpaio told Klein. “Didn’t happen that way.”
Instead, Zullo and the Cold Case Posse only confirmed concerns about the authenticity of Obama’s documents.
As WND reported, Arpaio and his Cold Case Posse conducted an extensive examination of documents released by the White House last April purported to be Obama’s original, long-form birth certificate and Selective Service registration form, only to conclude there is probable cause the documents are forgeries.
And the sheriff concluded there is probable cause that there was fraud in the presentation of the birth document image as a genuine document.
The dispute has been around since before Obama was elected in 2008 when the first cases were filed in courts challenging his eligibility, based on a long list of missing documents or absent verifications.
Many do not believe he was born in Hawaii as he claimed, thus raising doubts about his ability to meet the U.S. Constitution’s demand that a president be a “natural born citizen.” Others say that doesn’t even matter, as his father was a foreign national and the Founders’ understanding of “natural born” would have meant the offspring of two citizens of the nation.
Numerous court cases have come and gone, some being rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court where one justice admitted the panel was avoiding the issue.
In recent weeks a new round of court challenges has arisen in which citizens utilize state laws allowing challenges to candidate eligibility. They simply are asking Obama to document his eligibility.
Judges in those cases so far have been in concert in refusing voters permission to pursue their questions under state law.
The petition specifically cites Arpaio’s investigation into Obama’s documentation.
It’s addressed to “All members of the U.S. Congress” and states:
Whereas, the first official U.S. law enforcement investigation into Barack Obama’s legal eligibility for the presidency, led by Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio and involving a six-month investigation by three professional criminal investigators and two attorneys, established “probable cause” that the document released with great fanfare by the White House April 27, 2011, as Obama’s “long-form birth certificate” is a forgery;
Whereas, specifically, these investigators, after interviewing dozens of witnesses, examining hundreds of documents, and taking numerous sworn statements from witnesses around the world, including multiple document experts, concluded that said “birth certificate” did not originate in a paper format, but was created – that is, forged – as an electronic file on a computer;
Whereas, the Arpaio-led law-enforcement investigation cited numerous experts demonstrating that an additional fraud was allegedly committed in the forgery of Barack Obama’s Selective Service registration card;
Whereas, the investigation also found that, according to a sworn affidavit by the longtime mailman for the parents of ex-Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers, Ayers’ mother enthusiastically claimed she had helped pay for the Harvard Law School education of “foreign student” Barack Obama;
Whereas, Arpaio’s lead investigator Michael Zullo explained at a March 1 press conference that the 1961 Hawaiian newspaper “announcements” of Barack Obama’s birth confirm nothing, since the investigators “can prove beyond a doubt” that these newspapers also announced arrivals of foreign babies as well as native-born; and that the investigators even possess “documented evidence of two adopted individuals who were breathing three years prior” to their supposed Hawaii “birth” and subsequent newspaper “birth announcements”;
Whereas, the investigation determined that immigration files in the National Archives recording overseas arrivals into Hawaii are missing from one particular week – the week of Obama’s birthday, August 4, 1961;
Whereas, , lead investigator Mike Zullo also said his team believes the Hawaii Department of Health has engaged in a systematic effort to hide from public inspection any original 1961 birth records for Obama it may have in its possession;
Whereas, investigators have advised Sheriff Arpaio they believe at least two crimes of fraud were committed: 1) The White House allegedly created a forgery it claimed was an officially produced governmental birth record; and 2) the White House allegedly presented to the residents of Maricopa County, Ariz. – and to the entire American public – a forgery represented as “proof positive” of President Obama’s authentic 1961 Hawaii long-form birth certificate;
Whereas, Sheriff Arpaio said March 1: “The president can put all this to rest quite easily. All he has to do is demand the Hawaii Department of Health release to the American public and to a panel of certified court-authorized forensic examiners all original 1961 paper, microfilm and computer birth records the Hawaii Department of Health has in its possession”;
Whereas, Arpaio concluded: “Absent the authentication of Hawaii Department of Health 1961 birth records for Barack Obama, there is no other proof he was born anywhere within the United States”;
Whereas, despite a virtual media blackout on the issue, repeated national polls show that almost half of registered U.S. voters remain unconvinced that Barack Obama’s birth certificate is authentic:
The signers then demand that Congress launch an investigation because “not to finally resolve this monumental and unprecedented constitutional issue would be intolerable, and would constitute the most extreme disrespect and contempt for the U.S. Constitution.”
IP: Logged
11:43 AM
Apr 15th, 2012
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
It appears the web is a buzz with information concerning the New Jersey court contest in regards to Barack Obama’s eligibility to be on the state’s ballot. At the center of the controversy now is the fact that Barack Obama’s own lawyer has apparently conceded the fact that the document is a forgery.
According to TeaPartyTribune.com, attorney Alexandra Hill, of the Newark-based law firm Genova, Burn and Giantomasi, admitted that the image of Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery and made the absurd claim that, therefore, it cannot be used as evidence to confirm his lack of natural born citizenship status. She concluded her analysis of the online birth certificate arguing that it is “irrelevant to his placement on the ballot”.
She then went on to try and establish his eligibility by speaking of his political popularity, not legal qualification, in order to be a candidate!
Penbrook Johannson, editor for The Daily Pen said, “Sadly, regardless of her moral deficiency, Hill is legally justified. Obama’s eligibility is a separate matter than the charges of forgery and fraud. Of course, we have evidence that he is not eligible. But, evidence of forgery by as yet unidentified counterfeiters working on behalf of Obama is not what legally excludes Obama from appearing on a ballot, by itself, until some authority is willing to consider this as evidence of forgery on its merit as an indication of actual ineligibility in a court of legal authority. Until some court of competent jurisdiction is willing to hear evidence of forgery and fraud, you can’t legally punish a political candidate for that crime which has not been proven that they committed. However, since Obama is not eligible because of a lack of authenticated evidence to the contrary, he could be held off the ballot for that reason.”
So what this comes down to is legal tip toeing around the issue. Let me put it simply. Obama’s own lawyer admits that the birth certificate which was put out by the White House is a forgery. The forgery does not prove Obama is not a “natural born” citizen since it is a forgery. Therefore, the plaintiffs have not made their case and Barack Obama should be left on the ballot. I’ll bet Mr. “It depends on what is, is” was behind this bit of legal wrangling.
As far as I can see that makes it a bigger issue than just that of the State of Wisconsin. This is most definitely a national issue. The President of the United States’ own lawyer has just stated unequivocally that the President knowingly put out a forged document and claimed it was his birth certificate. Ladies and gentlemen, why in the world then, is there no immediate cries for impeachment and more than that, charges of treason brought against Barack Hussein Obama?
I’ll tell you why. It’s an election year for one. Two you have a Democratically led Senate that will never vote to impeach him. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t do it as their duty, but sadly the reality is that impeachment proceedings against a sitting President are purely political. However, I would hope that the Republican led Congress might get some brass ones and begin the proceedings anyway, letting people know they intend to carry out impeachment, even if Barack Obama is elected again and to encourage others to vote in those who are principled enough to uphold the Constitution, especially when it comes to a usurper in the Oval Offfice.
In a nut shell, the above is exactly why Barack Obama and the Democratic Party do not fear mocking the American people with their blatant forgery, lies and manipulation of the Constitution and the facts. In order to remove the man it would have to be done by force or by impeachment and impeachment will never happen with the way things are now. It is my opinion that since our military takes an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution from both enemies foreign and domestic, that they should be looking at the evidence and act accordingly.
IP: Logged
09:59 PM
Apr 30th, 2012
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Many of us have been scratching our heads wondering why Congress has not taken up Barack Obama’s eligibility issue, especially in lieu of the findings of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Cold Case Posse investigation. I would think that allowing someone to occupy the office of President of the United States when they are not legally eligible to do so would constitute a constitutional crisis.
But according to one report, the exact opposite may be true. Former Arizona House Speaker Kirk Adams believes that Congress is afraid to take action in the matter for fear that it would trigger “a constitutional crisis unlike one we’ve seen since perhaps the Civil War.”
Adams went on to say,
“First off, I do think it’s entirely appropriate that every candidate for office be able to prove their eligibility. But … can you imagine the constitutional crisis that would ensue?”
I don’t know what crisis Adams is referring to, but I strongly disagree with his imagination. The constitutional crisis is already at hand because congress and no one else is willing to do anything about it.
We have a man who may not be eligible to hold office of president but is doing so anyway. This man has refused to prove he is legally eligible. That alone is a violation of the Constitution. Worse yet, is that in the three years he has acted as president, he has repeatedly and openly violated the Constitution and numerous federal laws. He has assumed the idea that he is the Constitution and he can do as he pleases. Barack Obama is guilty of so many federal violations that I can’t count them.
Folks, if this is not a constitutional crisis, then what is?
No, I don’t think Congress is afraid of creating a constitutional crisis. I think they’re just plain afraid for themselves and their family’s safety. The people backing Obama are very rich, very powerful and seem to be willing to stop at nothing to see that their puppet holds on to his position so they can control the nation. There are reports that these people scared off the Clinton’s in 2008 from pursuing Obama’s eligibility and if these reports are true, then doesn’t it make sense that they have threatened many others as well?
In reality, Obama and his backers are the most successful organized crime syndicate in the history of the world, and like most organized crime syndicates, opponents either shut up and join the ranks or they disappear. Have most of the members of Congress, Republicans as well as Democrats, joined the ranks? It seems so.
IP: Logged
10:58 PM
May 19th, 2012
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
What most people know is that the Associated Press (AP) is one of the largest, internationally recognized, syndicated news services. What most people don’t know that is in 2004, the AP was a “birther” news organization.
How so? Because in a syndicated report, published Sunday, June 27, 2004, by the Kenyan Standard Times, and which was, as of this report, available at
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.
This report explains the context of the oft cited debate, between Obama and Keyes in the following Fall, in which Keyes faulted Obama for not being a “natural born citizen”, and in which Obama, by his quick retort, “So what? I am running for Illinois Senator, not the presidency”, self-admitted that he was not eligible for the office. Seeing that an AP reporter is too professional to submit a story which was not based on confirmed sources (ostensibly the Obama campaign in this case), the inference seems inescapable: Obama himself was putting out in 2004, that he was born in Kenya.
The difficulty in finding this gem of a story is hampered by Google, which is running flak for Obama: because if you search for “Kenyan-born US Senate” you wont find it, but if you search for the phrase without quotes you will find links which talk about it.
For those who believe what they see, here is the screen capture of the page from the Kenyan Sunday Standard, electronic edition, of June 27, 2004 — Just in case that page is scrubbed from the Web Archive:
Readers should take note that this AP story, was syndicated world-wide, so you should be able to find it in major newspapers, archived in libraries world-wide. If any reader does this, please let The Post & Email know, so that we can publish a follow up-story. You can scrub the net, but scrubbing libraries world-wide is not so easy.
[efoods]Hanen of Sentinel Blog Radio broke the public news of the existence of this AP story at on October 14, 2009 at 12:31 pm. However, The Post & Email can confirm that a professional investigator had uncovered this story months ago, and that certified and authenticated copies of this report, meeting Federal Rules of evidence, have already been prepared and archived at many locations nationwide.
It should be noted that on January 8, 2006, the Honolulu Advertiser also reported that Barack Hussein Obama was born outside the United States.
One can now ask an important question which has not yet been emphasized enough: “Just when did Obama begin to publically claim he was born in Hawaii?” This question is distinct from the question, “Just where in fact was Obama born?”, and from the other question, “What do official documents say about where he was born?”
Regarding his claims, we can summarize what is known:
1. As of Monday, Aug. 28, 2006, Obama’s Campaign was putting out that he was born in Hawaii. This is known from the introductory speech given by Prof. George A. O. Magoha, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Nairobi, on the occasion of a speech given there by Senator Obama that day. (One presumes that the Vice-Chancellor was given notes from the Obama campaign, as is customary on such occasions)
2. From the newspaper reports above, it is clear that the Obama campaign was putting out that he was born in Kenya, or overseas, during the period of June 27, 2004, until January 8, 2006.
3. In October of 2004, during the ABC Chicago Affiliate’s broadcast of the Obama-Keyes debates, Obama openly admitted — he conceded — that he was not a natural born citizen. (C-Span aired the uncut version of the debates, which contained this exchange, in the second half of April, 2005)
4. It is known from a classmate of Obama at Harvard University, that while at Harvard, Obama at least on one occasion admitted that he was born in Kenya. (This friend went on record on a call in radio program in Idaho in early July, 2009)
If any reader can find a link which documents a claim to a birth location before Aug. 28th, 2006, which differs from this timeline or which supports it; please let The Post & Email know of it, by posting it in the comment section below.
In a follow up report, The Post & Email has published a brief analysis of the Google Newspaper archive, which shows that Obama’s story changed after June 27, 2004.
Finally, that the AP did cover this story, reprinted by the East African Standard, can be seen from the citation made to AP stories about it (Jack Ryan dropping out of the race), in the following contemporary news articles, which however are incomplete:
June 25, 2004 — AP Syndicated Story by Maura Kelly Lannan
(Second Source on June 26, 2009, which cites Associated Press Special Correspondent David Espo and reporter Dennis Conrad as contributors to this report)
(Third Source, The Ledger, print edition of June 26, 2009: partial republication)
IP: Logged
06:32 PM
May 23rd, 2012
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Lord Christopher Monckton, an adviser to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, has lectured on the fakery behind the worldwide global-warming fearmongering, appearing on CNN, Fox News, ABC and CBS. He’s delivering his warnings in the U.S., Russia and Australia, earning recognition as a leading expert on the case against man-made climate change.
Now he’s scheduled to appear Monday in Sun City West, Ariz., at a meeting of the Surprise, Ariz., Tea Party, which has been integral in advocating for a formal investigation into Barack Obama’s eligibility to hold the presidential office.
So what do global warming and Obama’s birth certificate have in common?
Monckton himself explains.
“Obama comes very much from the hard left,” he said in a recent interview with the Article 2 Superpac.
In fact, he said, there are many who believe “Obama is as far to the left as you can go without being Fidel Castro.”
“He may not carry a card … but it’s very difficult to tell the difference between him and a Marxist,” he said.
Likewise, the driving forces now engineering claims that humanity is creating chaos in the world with uncontrolled carbon dioxide emissions and forcing the global climate to heat up dramatically are coming from the hard left, he said.
Both campaigns are marked by the “destructiveness of the hard left,” he said.
“The Climate of Freedom: With Lord Christopher Monckton and Tom Ballantyne” is scheduled Monday, May 28, at 6:30 p.m. at Sun City West.
It is a fundraiser that will benefit the Cold Case Posse commissioned by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio to investigate Obama’s eligibility. The preliminary conclusion already released said there is probable cause that there was forgery in the creation of Obama’s birth documentation released last year by the White House and probable cause that there was fraud in its presentation as a genuine document.
In the recent interview with the Article 2 Superpac, Monckton said he has no idea where Obama was born, and he’s seen plenty of fraudulent Kenyan birth certificates. But he also said Obama should be taking the issue seriously.
“What is very plain,” he said, is the purported Hawaiian birth certificate that is on the White House website … is manifestly in your face bogus.”
He said the research done on the computerized image posted online revealed anomalies in the layers of the digital image.
“What disturbs me is that within 24 hours of that being posted …. zitty teenagers who understand … computers had exposed what had been done,” he said. And that was the creation of the document from various sources, not a single scan of an existing government record.
“Somebody has tampered with that,” he said. “I can’t understand why that was done. What one can say for certain … this is a bogus document. It is a forged document.”
Notably, it is posted on a federal website and pertains to the “highest officer” of state,” he said.
“This is no small matter,” he said.
See the interview:
Also on the podium will be Tom M. Ballantyne Jr., author of “Oh Really, O’Reilly!” which uses a “fair and balanced” approach to consider the constitutional legitimacy of the nation’s 44th president.
Monckton is to discuss ways modern people are relinquishing their freedoms and the ability to make decisions for themselves.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 05-23-2012).]
IP: Logged
11:38 AM
PFF
System Bot
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
Looks like Obama lied. His lawyers are now admitting what we already knew, the birth certificate is a fake. Sooooo, are we a Constitutional Republic or not?
IP: Logged
12:51 PM
Wichita Member
Posts: 20658 From: Wichita, Kansas Registered: Jun 2002
Arizona's secretary of state said on Wednesday he has received information from state officials in Hawaii that verifies Barack Obama's birth records, satisfying criteria to put the president on the November ballot in the state.
I guess the matter is finally settled then. Continue reading at link. I'm glad to hear that he IS a citizen and elegible to be on the ballot. I'm still not happy about all the secrecy about his past.
IP: Logged
09:06 PM
mikerphd Member
Posts: 69 From: Conway, SC, USA Registered: Jan 2012
A nearly three-month-long tussle between two states over President Obama's birth records may be at an end.
The state of Hawaii said late Tuesday it has provided verification of the president's birth to Arizona's secretary of state, who claimed he needed proof of Obama's citizenship before he could place his name on the state's November ballot.
Joshua Wisch, special assistant to Hawaii Attorney General David Louie, told The Associated Press that the matter is now resolved.
Hawaii didn't give in to the request quickly or easily, pressing Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett for proof that the records were needed as part of normal business.
Wisch said Hawaii got the necessary proof, so it sent Bennett's office the verification.
A spokesman for Bennett said he received Hawaii's verification and will comment Wednesday. It was not clear if the new information would satisfy Bennett or bring the dispute to a close.
In a radio interview last week, Bennett insisted he is "not a birther. I believe the president was born in Hawaii — or at least I hope he was."
But, he said, "my responsibility as secretary of state is to make sure the ballots in Arizona are correct and that those people whose names are on the ballot have met the qualifications for the office they are seeking."
IP: Logged
09:45 PM
May 24th, 2012
Tigger Member
Posts: 4368 From: Flint, MI USA Registered: Sep 2000
Looks like Obama lied. His lawyers are now admitting what we already knew, the birth certificate is a fake. Sooooo, are we a Constitutional Republic or not?
Maybe I'm premature in thinking this is finally over. Bush v. Gore judge: Your evidence, Mr. Obama? Schedules hearing on what precedent White House has on 'natural born citizen' http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/...r-evidence-mr-obama/
quote
A hearing has been scheduled in a Florida court to allow attorneys representing the White House to support their claim that the term “natural born citizen” in the U.S. Constitution means something other than the offspring of two American citizens.
Judge Terry Lewis in Leon County has set a hearing for June 18 to consider arguments from both sides of a challenge to Obama’s name on the 2012 state election ballot.
Lewis is credited with making crucial rulings in the contested 2000 presidential election, when ultimately a Florida vote recount was halted by the U.S. Supreme Court and George W. Bush was declared the winner.
Attorney Larry Klayman’s law firm filed the challenge to Obama’s name on the ballot on behalf of Democrat Michael Voeltz, “a registered member of the Democrat Party, voter, and taxpayer in Broward County, who was an eligible elector for the Florida Primary of Jan. 31, 2012.”
Klayman told WND that during a hearing today on discovery issues in the case, Lewis noted that while Klayman’s brief cited a U.S. Supreme Court’s decision defining “natural born citizen” as the offspring of two citizens of the nation, the White House’s arguments provided no citations.
Klayman had cited the U.S. Supreme Court case Minor v. Happersett from 1875.
Lewis ordered further briefing on the issue before the hearing.
The definition of the term is critical. Such a step has not been reached in any of the more than 100 legal cases that have been brought over Obama’s eligibility since before his election in 2008.
The U.S. Constitution imposes a special citizenship status requirement on occupants of the Oval Office. The “natural born citizen” requirement is not imposed on other federal officials. From the writings of the Founders, its apparent aim was to ensure that no person who had divided loyalties – to the United States and to any other nation – would serve as commander in chief.
The Minor v. Happersett ruling defines “natural born citizen” as the offspring of two U.S. citizens.
But since the term is not defined in the Constitution, there are many who equate being a “citizen” or a “native-born citizen” with being a “natural born citizen.”
It appears that a court ruling on the definition could been coming, Klayman said.
Klayman has argued that since Obama was not born to two citizen parents, he is is not a “natural born citizen” as required by Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, is ineligible to be a candidate on the state’s election ballot.
Klayman explained in his court filings that Florida’s election statutes provide broad protections for voters to ensure that the integrity of the election system is beyond reproach. One of the laws allows voters to challenge the nomination of a candidate who is not eligible for the office he is seeking.
Voeltz, a registered Democrat, challenged Obama’s eligibility because the president’s father was not an American citizen.
“The framers were not stupid. They understood that a president with divided loyalties could present a security and other risks for our nation,” said Klayman.
“Obama’s Muslim heritage, which emanates from his Kenyan father (who had to be deported from the U.S.), frankly explains why he frequently sides with and takes actions to further the interests of Muslim nations against the United States; specifically his refusal to take forceful action against the Islamic Republic of Iran and its leaders over nuclear armament and human rights violations and atrocities,” Klayman said.
Klayman told WND that the case is in the discovery stage in which attorneys are supposed to be able to request documents, evidence and testimony that would further refine and define the issues in dispute for the court.
“Obama’s briefs [said] it would be an undue burden and expense to have discovery,” Klayman said.
Then the judge said he wanted Obama’s representatives to cite the “authority” on which they based their argument that it isn’t necessary to have two citizen parents to be a natural-born citizen.
On the Steady Drip blog, where contributors document progress in the Florida case, was the “bare essence” of the argument:
1. The sitting president’s birth certificate is fraudulent. 2. The sitting president is not a natural born citizen, and is therefore ineligible for the presidency, because his father was not a U.S. citizen.
The commentary said the obvious conclusion is that Obama is not able to be elected as president.
WND earlier reported on the case, which raises some of the same issues that have been raised in other state ballot challenges across the nation.
Specifically it alleges:
On or about April 2011, only after years into his presidency, and under media and political pressure, Barack Hussein Obama published on the Internet an electronic version of a purported birth certificate alleging his birth in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961, to American citizen mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Kenyan British subject father, Barack Obama Senior.”
There is credible evidence indicating that this electronically produced birth certificate is entirely fraudulent or otherwise altered. No physical, paper copy of the actual long form birth certificate has been produced in order to definitively establish Barack Hussein Obama’s birth within the United States.”
The action follows by only weeks the release of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s investigation into Obama’s antecedents. The six-month-long investigation done by professional law enforcement officers working on a volunteer basis for Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse found that there is probable cause to believe there was forgery involved in the production of Obama’s birth certificate, and fraud in presenting that document as a genuine document.
The case explains that even if Barack Hussein Obama was born within the United States, he is still not a ‘natural-born citizen’ as required by the U.S. Constitution. That’s because, “Barack Obama Sr. was born in the British Colony of Kenya on June 18, 1936. Birth in Kenya made Barack Obama Sr. a British subject, according to and governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.”
Obama’s attorneys previously had been unsuccessful in dismissing the case.
“In Florida the voter has more rights to contest elections than in most other states,” Klayman told WND. “And we have a judge who is not afraid to make hard decisions; Judge Terry Lewis. In the Gore v. Bush case he ruled on occasion in favor of Bush even though he generally leans left. I am hopeful he will do the right thing and rule that the Florida Secretary of State must verify Obama’s eligibility to be on the ballot for the Florida presidential election.”
A case filing explains: “No physical, paper copy of defendant Obama’s birth certificate has been presented to establish his eligibility. … Defendant Obama has electronically produced a copy of what he purports to be his ‘birth certificate.’ Nevertheless, there is evidence to suggest that the electronically produced birth certificate is entirely fraudulent or otherwise altered.”
The argument also cites Barack Obama Sr.’s birth in Kenya, making him a “British subject.”
“The British Nationality Act of 1948, Part 2, Section 5, Clause 1, makes Defendant Obama, the son of a British subject, also a British subject at birth. At best, defendant Obama was born a dual citizen of Britain and the United States. These facts make clear that defendant Obama was not a ‘natural born citizen’ as required by the U.S. Constitution.”
The fact that state officials have sworn an oath to “support, protect, and defend” the Florida and U.S. constitutions means the issue needs an answer, the brief argues, and state officials are “duty bound to uphold the eligibility requirements.”
Named as defendants are Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner and the state Elections Canvassing Commission.
It was only days earlier when former New York Gov. David Paterson suggested on his radio show that Obama possibly “got away with” being an ineligible president in the Oval Office.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 05-31-2012).]
In other words, the story was published by a legitimate news agency but they got it wrong. So what is the tinfoil picture about? Next time you post a link, you might want to read it first.
None of this resolves the issue however. There are news reports claiming Obama was born in hawaii in the early 60s but in his college years right threw 2007 he claimed to be born in Kenya...so my statement is correct. He lied.
None of this resolves the issue however. There are news reports claiming Obama was born in hawaii in the early 60s but in his college years right threw 2007 he claimed to be born in Kenya...so my statement is correct. He lied.
Ok, how does it prove he was born in Kenya? All this time, 7 pages of garbage, it’s been Obama lied about being born in Hawaii, and now because you found this article you say your statement is correct because he lied about being born in Kenya. Did he lie about being born in Hawaii or Kenya, what is it?
Did Obama during that time make sure it was corrected, no. I mean why not, he was born half Kenyan and "half whiteass" after all. I've come across and met a lot of people who have lied about their age at some point in their life or perpetuate it, but as long as they are the age of 35 they meet that requirement to be the president.
The article you cite sums up your party of tinfoil hats perfectly. Using a comparison by referring to Cherokee Indians as "injun" really? That made me want to stop right there. Why should I care to read a single word after that? And also refer Obama as "half-whiteass," seriously? Yeah keep trying to convince people to vote for a Republican when you cite authors who denigrate and use racially offensive epithets. Heck of a way to win friends and influence people.
[This message has been edited by Tigger (edited 06-01-2012).]
IP: Logged
01:09 PM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
What are we to beleive Tigger? He says on video, in writing, and through his own publicist that he was born in Kenya. Now, since 2007, NOPE he claims he was born in the US. Well? Did he lie then or is he lying now?
Whether he lied or not is no longer open to discussion. THAT is the point.
IP: Logged
05:30 PM
Jun 2nd, 2012
Tigger Member
Posts: 4368 From: Flint, MI USA Registered: Sep 2000
That video clip you posted is from the White House correspondents dinner in 2010. At those dinners, everyone knows, the sitting president usually makes a speech where he mocks himself and makes jokes for the press. One year they played a video of his birth and showed a clip from the Lion King, one year he roasted Donald Trump. Notice the laugher in the background? It was a joke you dumbass.
IP: Logged
02:18 AM
Rickady88GT Member
Posts: 10648 From: Central CA Registered: Dec 2002
So would a baby born of two American parents, and delivered by C section on a cruise ship four miles off the coast of Alabama, delivered by a Russian doctor, an Italian nurse, and laid in a crib made in China covered with sheets made in Egypt be an American citizen? This has nothing to do with the President of the USA, I just REALLY NEED to know...
IP: Logged
10:13 PM
Jun 5th, 2012
NEPTUNE Member
Posts: 10199 From: Ticlaw FL, and some other places. Registered: Aug 2001
"Birther" lawsuit against Esquire Magazine dismissed
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A District Court dismissed a lawsuit on Monday against Esquire Magazine over a satirical blog post that said Joseph Farah, a prominent proponent of the "birther" movement, had denounced a book alleging that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States.
Farah, CEO and editor-in-chief of the conservative-leaning website WorldNetDaily.com, had sued Esquire Magazine, its parent company Hearst Communications Inc., and writer Mark Warren for defamation, invasion of privacy, interference with business relations and violations under a federal trademark law.
In dismissing the suit in Washington, Judge Rosemary Collyer ruled that the post was satire related to a matter of public interest and should be protected under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which deals with freedom of expression.
Collyer also concluded that the trademark law cited by Farah applied only to commercial speech, not to satirical non-commercial speech.
Warren published a blog post in May 2011 on esquire.com that said Farah had announced plans to recall and pulp all copies of a book he had published questioning Obama's eligibility to be president.
The post came after Obama had released the copy of his birth certificate at the end of April.
Most Republican critics of Obama have given up pushing long-running allegations that he was not born in the United States, where the president is required to be a "natural-born citizen," but Farah remains a proponent of this "birther" movement.
Obama - whose father was from Kenya and mother was from Kansas - released a long-form copy of his birth certificate last year as proof he was born in Hawaii to try to put to rest speculation that he was not born in the country.
According to the court ruling, Warren's post was published on an opinion page under the website's "The Politics Blog" and was tagged as humor.
The post described fictional interviews with Farah and sources from World Net Daily in which Farah was described as having said, "We'll do anything to hurt Obama, and erase his memory, but we don't want to look like .... idiots, you know?"
Farah had sought over $100 million in actual and compensatory damages and more than $20 million in punitive damages. Esquire magazine officials could not immediately be reached for comment.
Farah's attorney Larry Klayman said his client planned to appeal.
"The court's decision was negligent and fatally flawed," he said. "The Washington establishment...has always been afraid of the eligibility issue. This may help explain why the judge dropped the case," Klayman said.
The lead investigator for Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse – which already has found probable cause that Barack Obama’s publicly released birth certificate is a forgery – says any Hawaii documentation for Obama’s birth that exists would probably be of little value.
Mike Zullo, a retired New Jersey detective now heading Arpaio’s volunteer investigative team, explained in an interview that at the time of Obama’s birth during the state’s early years, Hawaii birth documentation routinely was purchased by foreigners for children not born in the state.
Arpaio’s investigation was launched last September after constituents came to the sheriff with their concern that Obama was ineligible for the presidency and would perpetrate a fraud by placing his name on the state’s ballot.
Zullo’s comments came in an interview with Tea Party Power Hour host Mark Gillar.
Gillar described the process in the 1960s: Foreign nationals, primarily from Japan, would fly to Hawaii and buy a birth registration for their son or daughter, not with the goal of one day having them become president, but to obtain the benefits of being a U.S. citizen.
Zullo said that when he was in Hawaii last month following up on leads, he talked to older locals who “informed us about a syndicate operation, a Mafia operation if you will, being run in the early infancy of the state of Hawaii where birth certificates were being sold to Japanese refugees on a black market basis.”
Does anyone really know where Obama is from? Find out the startling truth from New York Times best-selling author Jerome Corsi.
At that time, Japan was still undergoing post-war reconstruction while America was an established superpower.
Zullo said there was a business in Hawaii in “birth certificates … for profit.”
Obama released an image of a Hawaiian birth certificate last year as “proof positive” of his birth in the U.S. and “natural born” citizenship, a constitutional requirement for the presidency.
There have been numerous challenges to Obama’s eligibility. Some say that regardless of where he was born, he isn’t qualified because the Founding Fathers understood a natural-born citizen to be the offspring of two U.S. citizens. Obama’s father was a foreign national who only attended school in the U.S.
Zullo also debunked again the contention that 1961 newspaper birth announcements prove anything. He argued the listings were generated automatically by the state and delivered for publication based on the registration of any child with the state.
“Anybody that is hanging their hat on a newspaper entry to prove … Barack Obama [was] born in the state of Hawaii doesn’t know what they’re talking about,” he said.
The births of Japanese children whose parents purchased Hawaii birth certificates also would be listed in the papers, he explained.
During that time period, Japanese parents would fly to Hawaii so their children, born in Japan, could have the benefits of American citizenship, he said.
For that reason, he said, Obama can’t claim that a Hawaii birth certificate is proof he was born in the state.
The interview:
The interview also addressed unanswered questions about the “discovery” of the Obama birth documentation. Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie, when elected, promised to track down the documentation to put to rest the arguments over Obama’s birth location and eligibility.
The governor eventually concluded, in January 2011, that there was something “written” in state records, but he was unable to produce any documents to the public.
Then, when Obama requested a certified copy of the original documentation three months later, state officials reportedly produced the documentation.
Abercrombie is no longer eager to address the issue.
Earlier this week, WND tried to find out what happened to the governor’s self-initiated research into Obama’s birth documentation.
Initially, Abercrombie spokeswoman Donalyn Delacruz told WND she was happy to help with questions – until she found out the subject.
When WND asked in an email for an explanation of why Abercrombie’s investigation could not turn up the documentation, she refused to answer.
“What news organization are you with?” she demanded. “We get frequent ‘birther’ questions and this would fall in that category.”
Subsequently, she refused to respond to email questions.
When WND called, a receptionist in the office responded to the same inquiry with “That’s been done” – apparently meaning president had released the birth certification image. But she promised to take a message and have someone call back.
No one did.
WND had questions about the anomalous results: The governor’s stated inability to find the documentation and the state agency’s later simple recovery and alleged duplication of the same record.
It was shortly after his election that Abercrombie vowed to end the questions from those who doubted Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.”
Stated Abercrombie then: “We’ll do what we can as quickly as we can to make it inevitable that only those who wish the president ill, only the ones with a political agenda, will be the ones doing this kind of thing.
“The president is entitled to the respect of his office and he’s entitled to have his mother and father respected,” he said.
He said he was instructing his attorney general and the chief of the state’s health agency to look at what legal avenues could be used to release information.
“This is a transparent state in terms of our communication with one another,” Abercrombie said. “This is the Aloha state. We care for each other, we look out for each other, we’re family.”
He told CNN in that interview that he would pursue the information regardless of the feelings of the White House.
“It’s a matter of principle with me. I knew his mom and dad. I was here when he was born. Anybody who wants to ask a question honestly could have had their answer already,” he announced.
Obama’s narrative states that he was born Aug. 4, 1961, at Kapiolani Hospital in Honolulu.
However, after a flurry of high-profile media interviews in which he blasted “birthers,” Abercrombie suddenly went silent even though polls reveal nearly six on 10 doubt Obama’s own eligibility story.
He told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser about Obama’s documentation: “It actually exists in the archives, written down.” The London Daily Mail, however, noted Abercrombie “suggested that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.”
Yet, when Obama wanted the records, the state instantly waived a ban on reproducing long-form birth certificates and copies were produced to be delivered to Judith Corley, a private attorney.
WND continues to report on multiple legal challenges to Obama over his status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, 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.”
Some of the lawsuits question whether Obama actually was born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Further, others contend it’s impossible for him to be considered a “natural born citizen” as his father was a foreign national.
Among the various campaigns raising questions about Obama’s past: •There’s a campaign to raise funds to pay the expenses of the Cold Case Posse assigned by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio to look into the validity of Obama’s records. This is the team that already said there is probable cause that the birth document is a forgery. •There’s the complete findings documented by the Cold Case Posse. •There’s the “Your Papers, Please?” edition of the Whistleblower, the explanation for why there have been dozens of lawsuits over the issue, and why millions of Americans want Obama to prove he’s constitutionally qualified to be president. •There’s a campaign to post billboards, reminding Americans just what they don’t know about Obama. •There’s a petition to Congress seeks help from that body of leaders in resolving the question over Obama’s eligibility to be president. •There’s a “Birther on Board!” bumper sticker to raise awareness. •There’s the “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” book by Jerome Corsi, detailing the evidence that exists – and explaining what’s still missing. •There’s a light look at the issue, from Molotov Mitchell, in his DVD “For the Record: I’m Not Crazy.” •There are yard and rally signs to let people know what hasn’t been documented by Obama. •A stylish T-shirt allows you even to wear the question.
IP: Logged
10:00 AM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Originally posted by avengador1: Something interesting about Hawaii birth certificates from the 60s. Investigator: Foreigners Bought Hawaii Birth Certificates http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/...-birth-certificates/
Don't worry, somebody is already looking into this new "birther" evidence..
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-16-2012).]
The case before Florida Judge Terry Lewis claims that Barack Obama does not meet the constitutional requirements for President of the United States. The lawsuit, believe it or not, was filed by a registered Democrat. Just last week I wrote about Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Cold Case Posse Investigator Mike Zullo filing affidavits in the case.
At that time, Obama’s attorneys had asked Judge Lewis to dismiss the case because Barack Obama met the legal definition of a natural born citizen. Lewis didn’t buy their argument and demanded they provide documented evidence to back up their claim. He pointed to the fact that the claimant’s attorney had provided a Supreme court decision that had defined natural born citizen to mean that both parents were US citizens.
In the latest round before Judge Lewis, Obama’s attorneys evidently could not produce the requested documentation to support their claim that Obama is a natural born citizen. Out of what seemed to be an act of desperation on their part, they tried to divert addressing the central claim in the case by telling Lewis that Obama is not the Democratic nominee and therefore the case is irrelevant.
According to WND, Judge Lewis challenged Obama’s attorneys by indicating that there was only one name on the Democratic ballot for president and therefore the delegates were bound to that candidate. He also asked them about a letter submitted by the Democratic Party to the Florida Secretary of State that only listed one name.
Larry Klayman, attorney for Michael Voeltz who filed the lawsuit against Obama’s eligibility, argued before Judge Lewis that state law describes anyone as being the party’s nominee if they are the only name on the ballot.
In a twist, Lewis asked Klayman a hypothetical question about the eligibility of a person who was born of two US citizens but later on emigrated to some other country such as Israel. Klayman replied that the Founding Fathers could not have accounted for every situation, but that it was clear that they intended to prevent dual loyalties of anyone ascending to the leadership of the nation.
Judge Terry Lewis still has not rendered a decision in the case which could have as much, if not more historical importance than when he declared Bush the winner over Gore in 2000. If Lewis rules in favor of the claimant, Michael Voeltz, it could keep Obama off of the November ballot in Florida. It may also prompt similar lawsuits in other states which in turn could keep him off of their ballots as well.
If, however, Lewis rules against the lawsuit and supports Obama’s right to be on the November ballot, it will make it all the more difficult for anyone else to succeed in getting a similar case upheld anywhere else. Considering the fragile condition of our nation, its very fate could lie in the hands of Judge Terry Lewis, for the second time in twelve years.
IP: Logged
09:45 AM
Jul 11th, 2012
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Immigration documents filed in 1961 cast doubt on whether Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was the president’s biological father and indicate federal officers were prepared to investigate whether the Kenyan was married to the president’s mother, Ann Dunham.
Aside from the image of a long-form birth certificate released by the White House April 27, 2011 – a document Sheriff Arpaio’s law enforcement investigation has found probable cause to believe is a forgery – what documentary evidence is there that Barack Obama was the biological father?
Ads by Google
Will You Boldly Proclaim"I am a Christian"? Sign the pledge now! billygraham.org/I-am-a-Christian Stop Eric Holder.Demand an investigation of Eric Holder! Sign the petition. action.freedomworks.org
Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s next news conference on his probe of Obama’s eligibility is set for Tuesday, July 17. Sign up to watch it live-streamed for free on WND.
The recent biography of the president by Washington Post editor and author David Maraniss, “Barack Obama: The Story,” quotes concerns about Obama Sr.’s sexual promiscuity expressed by Immigration and Naturalization Service officers, but he dimisses them as racially motivated.
Maraniss, on pages 162-163, examines a 1961 INS memo that indicates Obama Sr. continued to have multiple girlfriends at the University of Hawaii after his supposed marriage, Feb. 2, 1961, in Maui to Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham.
In the memo, written by a Lyle H. Dahlin, Obama Sr.’s student adviser, a Mrs. McCabe, indicated Obama Sr. was “very intelligent” but had been a “playboy,” “running around with several girls” since he arrived. The adviser also noted he was married to an American, though he already had a wife in Kenya.
Maraniss writes regarding the memo: “There was a fine line between how Obama acted and the racial attitudes and expectations of those who were working with him, the unanswerable but valid question being whether the official concern was heightened because he was a black man interacting with white women.”
However, a close analysis of the INS documents in Obama Sr.’s immigration file makes clear Maraniss either misunderstood the true concerns of the INS or misrepresented them.
The primary concern of the INS, according to the memos, was not that Obama Sr. was sexually involved with white women, but that he might have engaged in a sham marriage to Dunham so he could remain in the U.S. or gain U.S. citizenship.
See the evidence about Barack Obama’s heritage, in “Dreams from My Real Father.”
The INS documents indicate authorized government immigration agents suspected the evidence for an Obama-Dunham marriage was thin, and doubts that the Kenyan was the biological father were substantial.
The Dahlin memo
In the first paragraph of the Dahlin memo, shown below as Exhibit 1 (click on photo to enlarge), the officer poses the question of whether Obama broke any laws if he married Dunham while he was still married to a Kenyan.
Exhibit 1: INS file by Lyle H. Dahlin. Click to enlarge.
Paragraph three articulates the next problem: If Obama was “running around with several girls” at the university, did Obama’s continued promiscuity suggest he was not married to Dunham or that it was a sham marriage?
Evidently, the best McCabe could get out of Obama was a less-than-credible promise that he would “try” to stay away from the girls.
The last two sentences of the third paragraph appear to be Obama’s rebuttal to an accusation of bigamy: He apparently explained to McCabe that he was divorced from his wife in Kenya because Kenya did not require anything more than a husband expressing to his wife a desire to terminate the marriage.
The fourth paragraph dismisses the bigamy concern, explaining Obama was in the United States not as an immigrant seeking U.S. citizenship but on a temporary student visa under which suspicion of polygamy was insufficient to support a deportation charge.
Is Obama constitutionally eligible to serve? Here’s WND’s complete archive of news reports on the issue
The last paragraph indicates that if Dunham, as a “U.S. citizen wife,” were to petition for Obama Sr. to receive permanent residence status as an immigrant on track to citizenship, the INS should conduct an investigation to make sure the alleged marriage was legitimate.
Contrary to Maraniss’ assertion, the INS officers didn’t appear to be concerned about the interracial nature of the Kenyan’s sexual activities at the university.
What was of concern was that Obama Sr. and Dunham were not living together as husband and wife, and their marriage might have been arranged for immigration purposes.
Under 8 U.S.C. Section 1325(c), current immigration law specifies that any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws is subject to up to five years imprisonment and a maximum fine of $250,000, or both.
In 1961, the INS, in investigating suspected marriages of convenience, would interview the two individuals separately and ask questions about the personal, often intimate, habits of the alleged mate.
Give the baby to the Salvation Army?
WND previously reported Boston Globe reporter Sally H. Jacobs had access to an INS file in which the memo seen in Exhibit 1 was displayed without redaction.
As seen in Exhibit 2, this version of the letter permits reading of part of the third paragraph.
Exhibit 2: Lyle H. Dahlin memo without redaction. Click to enlarge.
In the third sentence of the third paragraph, the Dahlin memo adds the detail that McCabe reported the Kenyan had gotten Dunham pregnant, a fact that would have been consistent with the marriage being legitimate.
Except, Dahlin adds, McCabe reported that the Kenyan and Dunham did not live together and Obama Sr. and Dunham were contemplating giving the baby away to the Salvation Army.
The facts suggest a sham marriage arranged for immigration purposes only: a supposedly married couple who do not live together, a “husband” with multiple girl friends on the side and a baby neither parent seems determined to raise.
INS suspicion of the marriage is further reinforced by the handwritten note at the end of the memo. Dahlin makes clear an apparent superior officer within the INS section agreed that the facts did not merit deportation for the Kenyan, a non-immigrant student in the USA on a temporary visa. But an investigation would be warranted if he sought to further extend his visa.
Dating the Dahlin memo
The only date on the Dahlin memo is the handwritten April 12, 1961, preceding the handwritten note at the bottom of the document. That date indicates the memo was written while Dunham was pregnant, less than four months before the baby’s birth.
The decision to give away the baby to the Salvation Army after Obama Sr. “got” Dunham pregnant must have caused the INS to wonder precisely what kind of relationship existed between the two.
The memo indicates Obama Sr. might have been testing the waters to see what impact claiming a U.S. citizen wife and a U.S. citizen child would have on the INS. Officials would question whether he was the natural father or if he was merely the “stand-in” father, covering up an embarrassing situation.
If the Kenyan were actually the father and the marriage to Dunham legitimate, why not press the claim that the U.S. citizen wife and the U.S. citizen child established a basis for changing the Kenyan’s status with the INS from a non-immigrant student seeking only a temporary stay to an immigrant seeking permanent residence on the path to becoming a U.S. citizen?
But then, why would Obama Sr., as the biological father, want to give the baby to the Salvation Army if the marriage with Dunham were legitimate?
The Dahlin memo, written while Dunham was pregnant, raises the question of whether or not Obama married Dunham at all.
If the Kenyan merely wanted a sexual relationship with Dunham, why marry her?
There is no evidence he proposed marriage to any of his allegedly many girlfriends at the university, so what made Dunham different?
If he was not committed to living with Dunham and raising the baby, why bother getting married?
Pieced together, the available evidence supports the theory the Obama-Dunham marriage was a cover-up from the start, designed to designate Obama as the father, without any expectation the two would ever live as husband and wife or that he would help raise the baby.
The factual record is that Obama Sr. never used marriage to a U.S. citizen or the fathering of a child in the U.S. to bolster his immigration status, even though it could have enabled him to remain in the U.S. without having to apply for yearly extensions.
Dahlin may well have been instructed by superiors to communicate to Obama Sr. and to Dunham that an attempt to use the marriage and child as a reason to change the Kenyan’s immigration status would have led to a full-scale INS investigation.
Obama’s 1961 application to extend stay in U.S.
Further evidence that the marriage to Dunham was a sham is provided by a close examination of the next document to occur chronologically in Obama Sr.’s INS file – an alien student application to extend the time of a temporary stay in the U.S. and to request permission to accept employment. It was filed with the INS Aug. 31, 1961, as seen below in Exhibits 3 and 4.
Exhibit 3: Barack Obama Sr.'s INS application to extend stay and permit employment, Aug. 31, 1961, page 1. Click to enlarge.
Exhibit 3: Barack Obama Sr.'s INS application to extend stay and permit employment, Aug. 31, 1961, page 2. Click to enlarge.
The document notably was filled out in Honolulu some 28 days after the baby was born.
There is a six-and-a-half-month time period in which there is no record of Dunham’s whereabouts – from Jan. 31, 1961, when she concluded her first semester at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, until Sept. 25, 1961, when the University of Washington at Seattle documents she was enrolled for extension classes on campus.
Nothing in the Dahlin memo documents where Dunham was in April 1961, when it was written.
Interestingly, Obama Sr.’s temporary stay visa expired Aug. 9, 1961, some five days after the baby was born, as indicated by his answer to Box 13.
Clearly, Obama Sr. had to be concerned about the extension of his student visa in April 1961. It would have been convenient to have a U.S. citizen wife and a U.S. citizen child being newly born just as his student visa was expiring.
Yet, the application to extend the temporary stay provides more evidence the story of a U.S. citizen wife and child was not credible. In Box 2, Obama Sr. indicated he was living at 1482 Alencastre Street in Honolulu. However, Dunham was living at her parents home at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway, the address listed in the birth announcements published in the Honolulu newspapers.
The INS would have regarded the fact the supposed parents did not live together as additional evidence the alleged marriage was a marriage of convenience arranged to commit immigration fraud.
Even more interesting, in the extension of Box 7, the Kenyan blacked out the first name he wrote for his wife, then penciled in “Ann S. Dunham, Honolulu, Hawaii.” Her named, however, was Stanley Ann Dunham, or S. Ann Dunham.
Then, in the space below Box 7, Obama Sr. did not list Barack Hussein Obama II as his son – an omission that is hard to understand if the child supposedly was born earlier that month.
The Woods memo
An additional document from Obama Sr.’s INS file is relevant: a handwritten memo dated Aug. 31, 1961, by William Wood, as seen in Exhibit 5.
Exhibit 5: Barack Obama Sr. INS File, Woods Memo, Aug. 31, 1961. Click to enlarge.
The memo’s use of the term “claims” suggests the information came from Obama Sr., possibly at an in-person meeting with an officer at the INS office when he filled out and filed his visa extension form.
The memo confirms Dunham was leaving Hawaii to attend school in Seattle, an additional factor the INS would have examined had an investigation been undertaken into the legitimacy of the marriage and the fatherhood of the child.
In the last paragraph, the memo notes the child was living with the mother at the home of the grandparents, while the Kenyan was living at the Alencastre Street address – facts that did not need to be seriously considered if the only relevant question in extending Obama Sr.’s visa was whether or not he was then a student in good standing.
Interesting, the note appended to the memo suggests the information the Kenyan provided raised serious questions about the wife and child that would need to be answered if he were applying for more than a temporary stay.
Given that the INS was not going to conduct an investigation, the Woods memo appears to document only what the Kenyan said and did not determine whether or not the claims were true.
While Obama Sr.’s INS files do not prove he was not the father of the future president, they provide ample documentation the officer was skeptical the Kenyan was legitimately married to Dunham and/or was the biological father of Barack Obama II.
By deciding to stay with the temporary student visa status, the Kenyan obviated the need for an INS investigation that might have uncovered in 1961 that the marriage was fraudulent and the biological father of the child was someone else.
Click on the article link at top to see documents in article.
IP: Logged
10:54 AM
Jul 12th, 2012
Rickady88GT Member
Posts: 10648 From: Central CA Registered: Dec 2002
Immigration documents filed in 1961 cast doubt on whether Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was the president’s biological father and indicate federal officers were prepared to investigate whether the Kenyan was married to the president’s mother, Ann Dunham.
Aside from the image of a long-form birth certificate released by the White House April 27, 2011 – a document Sheriff Arpaio’s law enforcement investigation has found probable cause to believe is a forgery – what documentary evidence is there that Barack Obama was the biological father?
Ads by Google
Will You Boldly Proclaim"I am a Christian"? Sign the pledge now! billygraham.org/I-am-a-Christian Stop Eric Holder.Demand an investigation of Eric Holder! Sign the petition. action.freedomworks.org
Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s next news conference on his probe of Obama’s eligibility is set for Tuesday, July 17. Sign up to watch it live-streamed for free on WND.
The recent biography of the president by Washington Post editor and author David Maraniss, “Barack Obama: The Story,” quotes concerns about Obama Sr.’s sexual promiscuity expressed by Immigration and Naturalization Service officers, but he dimisses them as racially motivated.
Maraniss, on pages 162-163, examines a 1961 INS memo that indicates Obama Sr. continued to have multiple girlfriends at the University of Hawaii after his supposed marriage, Feb. 2, 1961, in Maui to Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham.
In the memo, written by a Lyle H. Dahlin, Obama Sr.’s student adviser, a Mrs. McCabe, indicated Obama Sr. was “very intelligent” but had been a “playboy,” “running around with several girls” since he arrived. The adviser also noted he was married to an American, though he already had a wife in Kenya.
Maraniss writes regarding the memo: “There was a fine line between how Obama acted and the racial attitudes and expectations of those who were working with him, the unanswerable but valid question being whether the official concern was heightened because he was a black man interacting with white women.”
However, a close analysis of the INS documents in Obama Sr.’s immigration file makes clear Maraniss either misunderstood the true concerns of the INS or misrepresented them.
The primary concern of the INS, according to the memos, was not that Obama Sr. was sexually involved with white women, but that he might have engaged in a sham marriage to Dunham so he could remain in the U.S. or gain U.S. citizenship.
See the evidence about Barack Obama’s heritage, in “Dreams from My Real Father.”
The INS documents indicate authorized government immigration agents suspected the evidence for an Obama-Dunham marriage was thin, and doubts that the Kenyan was the biological father were substantial.
The Dahlin memo
In the first paragraph of the Dahlin memo, shown below as Exhibit 1 (click on photo to enlarge), the officer poses the question of whether Obama broke any laws if he married Dunham while he was still married to a Kenyan.
Exhibit 1: INS file by Lyle H. Dahlin. Click to enlarge.
Paragraph three articulates the next problem: If Obama was “running around with several girls” at the university, did Obama’s continued promiscuity suggest he was not married to Dunham or that it was a sham marriage?
Evidently, the best McCabe could get out of Obama was a less-than-credible promise that he would “try” to stay away from the girls.
The last two sentences of the third paragraph appear to be Obama’s rebuttal to an accusation of bigamy: He apparently explained to McCabe that he was divorced from his wife in Kenya because Kenya did not require anything more than a husband expressing to his wife a desire to terminate the marriage.
The fourth paragraph dismisses the bigamy concern, explaining Obama was in the United States not as an immigrant seeking U.S. citizenship but on a temporary student visa under which suspicion of polygamy was insufficient to support a deportation charge.
Is Obama constitutionally eligible to serve? Here’s WND’s complete archive of news reports on the issue
The last paragraph indicates that if Dunham, as a “U.S. citizen wife,” were to petition for Obama Sr. to receive permanent residence status as an immigrant on track to citizenship, the INS should conduct an investigation to make sure the alleged marriage was legitimate.
Contrary to Maraniss’ assertion, the INS officers didn’t appear to be concerned about the interracial nature of the Kenyan’s sexual activities at the university.
What was of concern was that Obama Sr. and Dunham were not living together as husband and wife, and their marriage might have been arranged for immigration purposes.
Under 8 U.S.C. Section 1325(c), current immigration law specifies that any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws is subject to up to five years imprisonment and a maximum fine of $250,000, or both.
In 1961, the INS, in investigating suspected marriages of convenience, would interview the two individuals separately and ask questions about the personal, often intimate, habits of the alleged mate.
Give the baby to the Salvation Army?
WND previously reported Boston Globe reporter Sally H. Jacobs had access to an INS file in which the memo seen in Exhibit 1 was displayed without redaction.
As seen in Exhibit 2, this version of the letter permits reading of part of the third paragraph.
Exhibit 2: Lyle H. Dahlin memo without redaction. Click to enlarge.
In the third sentence of the third paragraph, the Dahlin memo adds the detail that McCabe reported the Kenyan had gotten Dunham pregnant, a fact that would have been consistent with the marriage being legitimate.
Except, Dahlin adds, McCabe reported that the Kenyan and Dunham did not live together and Obama Sr. and Dunham were contemplating giving the baby away to the Salvation Army.
The facts suggest a sham marriage arranged for immigration purposes only: a supposedly married couple who do not live together, a “husband” with multiple girl friends on the side and a baby neither parent seems determined to raise.
INS suspicion of the marriage is further reinforced by the handwritten note at the end of the memo. Dahlin makes clear an apparent superior officer within the INS section agreed that the facts did not merit deportation for the Kenyan, a non-immigrant student in the USA on a temporary visa. But an investigation would be warranted if he sought to further extend his visa.
Dating the Dahlin memo
The only date on the Dahlin memo is the handwritten April 12, 1961, preceding the handwritten note at the bottom of the document. That date indicates the memo was written while Dunham was pregnant, less than four months before the baby’s birth.
The decision to give away the baby to the Salvation Army after Obama Sr. “got” Dunham pregnant must have caused the INS to wonder precisely what kind of relationship existed between the two.
The memo indicates Obama Sr. might have been testing the waters to see what impact claiming a U.S. citizen wife and a U.S. citizen child would have on the INS. Officials would question whether he was the natural father or if he was merely the “stand-in” father, covering up an embarrassing situation.
If the Kenyan were actually the father and the marriage to Dunham legitimate, why not press the claim that the U.S. citizen wife and the U.S. citizen child established a basis for changing the Kenyan’s status with the INS from a non-immigrant student seeking only a temporary stay to an immigrant seeking permanent residence on the path to becoming a U.S. citizen?
But then, why would Obama Sr., as the biological father, want to give the baby to the Salvation Army if the marriage with Dunham were legitimate?
The Dahlin memo, written while Dunham was pregnant, raises the question of whether or not Obama married Dunham at all.
If the Kenyan merely wanted a sexual relationship with Dunham, why marry her?
There is no evidence he proposed marriage to any of his allegedly many girlfriends at the university, so what made Dunham different?
If he was not committed to living with Dunham and raising the baby, why bother getting married?
Pieced together, the available evidence supports the theory the Obama-Dunham marriage was a cover-up from the start, designed to designate Obama as the father, without any expectation the two would ever live as husband and wife or that he would help raise the baby.
The factual record is that Obama Sr. never used marriage to a U.S. citizen or the fathering of a child in the U.S. to bolster his immigration status, even though it could have enabled him to remain in the U.S. without having to apply for yearly extensions.
Dahlin may well have been instructed by superiors to communicate to Obama Sr. and to Dunham that an attempt to use the marriage and child as a reason to change the Kenyan’s immigration status would have led to a full-scale INS investigation.
Obama’s 1961 application to extend stay in U.S.
Further evidence that the marriage to Dunham was a sham is provided by a close examination of the next document to occur chronologically in Obama Sr.’s INS file – an alien student application to extend the time of a temporary stay in the U.S. and to request permission to accept employment. It was filed with the INS Aug. 31, 1961, as seen below in Exhibits 3 and 4.
Exhibit 3: Barack Obama Sr.'s INS application to extend stay and permit employment, Aug. 31, 1961, page 1. Click to enlarge.
Exhibit 3: Barack Obama Sr.'s INS application to extend stay and permit employment, Aug. 31, 1961, page 2. Click to enlarge.
The document notably was filled out in Honolulu some 28 days after the baby was born.
There is a six-and-a-half-month time period in which there is no record of Dunham’s whereabouts – from Jan. 31, 1961, when she concluded her first semester at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, until Sept. 25, 1961, when the University of Washington at Seattle documents she was enrolled for extension classes on campus.
Nothing in the Dahlin memo documents where Dunham was in April 1961, when it was written.
Interestingly, Obama Sr.’s temporary stay visa expired Aug. 9, 1961, some five days after the baby was born, as indicated by his answer to Box 13.
Clearly, Obama Sr. had to be concerned about the extension of his student visa in April 1961. It would have been convenient to have a U.S. citizen wife and a U.S. citizen child being newly born just as his student visa was expiring.
Yet, the application to extend the temporary stay provides more evidence the story of a U.S. citizen wife and child was not credible. In Box 2, Obama Sr. indicated he was living at 1482 Alencastre Street in Honolulu. However, Dunham was living at her parents home at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway, the address listed in the birth announcements published in the Honolulu newspapers.
The INS would have regarded the fact the supposed parents did not live together as additional evidence the alleged marriage was a marriage of convenience arranged to commit immigration fraud.
Even more interesting, in the extension of Box 7, the Kenyan blacked out the first name he wrote for his wife, then penciled in “Ann S. Dunham, Honolulu, Hawaii.” Her named, however, was Stanley Ann Dunham, or S. Ann Dunham.
Then, in the space below Box 7, Obama Sr. did not list Barack Hussein Obama II as his son – an omission that is hard to understand if the child supposedly was born earlier that month.
The Woods memo
An additional document from Obama Sr.’s INS file is relevant: a handwritten memo dated Aug. 31, 1961, by William Wood, as seen in Exhibit 5.
Exhibit 5: Barack Obama Sr. INS File, Woods Memo, Aug. 31, 1961. Click to enlarge.
The memo’s use of the term “claims” suggests the information came from Obama Sr., possibly at an in-person meeting with an officer at the INS office when he filled out and filed his visa extension form.
The memo confirms Dunham was leaving Hawaii to attend school in Seattle, an additional factor the INS would have examined had an investigation been undertaken into the legitimacy of the marriage and the fatherhood of the child.
In the last paragraph, the memo notes the child was living with the mother at the home of the grandparents, while the Kenyan was living at the Alencastre Street address – facts that did not need to be seriously considered if the only relevant question in extending Obama Sr.’s visa was whether or not he was then a student in good standing.
Interesting, the note appended to the memo suggests the information the Kenyan provided raised serious questions about the wife and child that would need to be answered if he were applying for more than a temporary stay.
Given that the INS was not going to conduct an investigation, the Woods memo appears to document only what the Kenyan said and did not determine whether or not the claims were true.
While Obama Sr.’s INS files do not prove he was not the father of the future president, they provide ample documentation the officer was skeptical the Kenyan was legitimately married to Dunham and/or was the biological father of Barack Obama II.
By deciding to stay with the temporary student visa status, the Kenyan obviated the need for an INS investigation that might have uncovered in 1961 that the marriage was fraudulent and the biological father of the child was someone else.
Click on the article link at top to see documents in article.
WOW, but who on earth would believe that? People that vote in America wont.
IP: Logged
04:58 AM
Rickady88GT Member
Posts: 10648 From: Central CA Registered: Dec 2002
Evens the “ch’mos” who were in Fort Leavenworth with Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, the military physician who was court-martialed for refusing orders because he could not get confirmed Barack Obama’s eligibility to be commander in chief, recognized that Obama’s release of a Hawaiian birth document last year didn’t resolve the question.
That’s according to Lakin’s new book, “Officer’s Oath: Why my Vow to Defend the Constitution Demanded that I Sacrifice my Career.”
The just-released book explains what happened in his case, and more significantly, why.
The officer had served with distinction, but decided that based on the available information, he had questions about whether Obama is eligible to be commander-in-chief of the U.S. military and order soldiers into war.
He had tried for years to obtain confirmation through the channels inside the military, through his congressional representatives, and other available channels, to no avail.
So he decided that his oath of allegiance to the Constitution required him to refuse an order from the chain of command headed by Obama. That would, he thought, force the issue, and possibly get an answer.
He got an answer, but not to the question: He was court-martialed and removed from the military. He now has joined a civilian physicians’ practice where he sees patients daily.
Get the book about the officer who challenged Obama now, in Terry Lakin’s “Officer’s Oath.”
In his book, he relates that he was in Leavenworth serving what amounted to a 5-month sentence when Obama released the document he represented as a copy of his original Hawaiian birth documentation.
That’s the document that Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s investigators have concluded likely is a forgery.
But other prisoners called his attention to the news report about Obama’s action and comments, and then asked him.
“One question, Terry.”
“Shoot.”
“All you were asking for was a birth certificate, correct? If Obama had nothing to hide, how come he didn’t release it a long time ago?”
“I guess what they say is right: no one knows a con job better than a convict,” Lakin wrote.
He addresses his case in chapters titled, “Of Paramount Importance,” “The Truth Matters,” “Doing What is Right,” “Crossing the line,” “Duty, Honor, Country,” and “Walking Righteous.”
The episode with the question from one of the “ch’mos,” (child molesters) comes in the chapter titled 27 April 2011, the date Obama released the document and posted it on the White House website.
Lakin notes that Obama claimed to have “had every official in Hawaii … confirm that, yes, in fact, I was born in Hawaii.”
“‘Every official in Hawaii’? I guess the president did not consult with Tim Adams. During the 2008 election cycle Adams served as senior elections clerk for the city and county of Honolulu,” Lakin wrote.
Adams stated that, “There is no hospital record of his birth in Honolulu … and the Hawaii Department of Health told us in the Elections Office that there was no birth certificate.”
“If you don’t know about Adams, there is a reason why. Within a week of his one radio interview on the subject [he was] put under a gag order,” Lakin wrote. “As of this writing, no official in Hawaii has made a serious effort to look into Obama’s birth certificate, and those who said they did have not been able to keep their stories straight.”
He also cited Obama’s description of concerns over his legitimacy as “silliness.”
“‘Silliness’? Is that what all my efforts amounted to, court-martial and imprisonment included? You might think that at this point I was totally deflated, but I wasn’t. I was a little disappointed, but more confused than disappointed. I hoped his birth certificate was for real, but I was skeptical,” he continued.
He noted that Jerome Corsi’s book, “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” was schedule to be released, and “the pressure was mounting” on Obama.
“I figured the president had to say something, but what he said did not convince me. My fellow inmates knew what I was in Leavenworth for, and they said out loud pretty much what I felt.”
“‘If this is a sideshow,’ said one prisoner, ‘Obama is the one who caused it.’”
Lakin, in an interview with WND about his book, said a major concern that remains is that officers all across the U.S. government take an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution which, in fact, requires certain qualifications for presidents, including that they be a “natural born citizen.”
That’s where Obama has been challenged, some alleging he wasn’t born in the U.S. and others saying it would make no difference, and the Founders considered a “natural born citizen” to be the offspring of two citizen parents, and Obama’s father was a foreign national visiting the U.S. as a student.
Lakin told WND that he wonders how other officers are able to ignore the Constitution’s requirements, combined with their oath to uphold that document.
Lakin told WND that the general media today “cannot speak the truth,” and Americans must face the realization that if the Constitution is ignored in this situation, the future will hold more incidents where that document will be passed over by those in power.
“We’re in a decline,” he said, and it is “a valid concern that this is a concerted effort by someone who may not be who he says he is.”
“People can hate me,” Lakin told WND. “They can call me whatever they want, think whatever they want of me. But the issue? It’s still not answered.”
Marco Ciavolino, who has worked with Lakin throughout his case and is the administrative trustee for the Terry Lakin Action Fund, said readers should appreciate a man who “took seriously his oath to protect and defend the Constitution.”
And he said there needs to be followup action by all Americans.
“Any elected official or appointee who flagrantly refuses to comply with the Constitution by commission or omission must be called to account,” he wrote. “That is all Terry asked for: simple compliance with the Constitution.”
“The Constitution was not created by accident. It was not a frivolous effort. Some seem to think a bunch of guys were sitting around a pub one night and said, ‘Hey, let’s start a country.’ The founding of our country was anything but that,” he said.
“Our Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, and other founding documents came out of thousands of years of struggle, death and dialogue, debate and discussion, bravery and boldness. They were the most precise expression of a form of government that finally abandoned the concept of a sovereign monarchy in favor of government by the people, for the people.”
Jack Cashill, author of multiple books, helped Lakin in telling his story, and David Mercaldo, a New York-based author, wrote vignettes about people involved in his case.
IP: Logged
09:29 AM
Jul 17th, 2012
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Today the long awaited press conference by Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s office took place at 5:30pm EST. Its goal was to bring forth new evidence that provides indisputable evidence that the birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama is in fact a forgery.
The Sheriff’s Office spokesman, Lisa Adams, opened the conference and said that they hope to take no more than 60 minutes to complete. She also said that no questions would be answered in regards to anything unrelated to the press conference pertaining to Sheriff Joe Arpaio, such as the recent immigration ruling by the Supreme Court. She also scolded the media for their lack of reporting and their scoffing at the investigation. She then encouraged them to keep an open mind.
Sheriff Joe then took to the podium and took only a few moments to run down the history of the investigation and introduce Mike Zullo, the Cold Case Posse lead investigator.
Zullo presented more evidence that proves that the birth certificate presented to the people of America in 2011 is not an authentic document. Though the information in the prior press conference specifically dealt with the document itself and the many anomalies in it, in this conference Mr. Zullo provided evidence of a different nature.
The first bombshell he dropped was that he and his investigator located 95-year-old Ms. Verna K. L. Lee, who was the registrar that signed the birth certificates in Hawaii. She informed him of a coding system that would indicate that the birth certificate provided by the White House has been altered. This coding would have been done by hand and then rechecked by another. This would also have kept the document from being out of sequence by date or time.
Thus when compared to the now famous birth certificate of Gretchen and Susan Nordike, it clearly shows that someone has altered what was on the document that the White House presented. Mr. Zullo also pointed out that these would have been stamped in sequence of batches by whatever region they were in and since the Nordike Twins were born at Kapiolane and Barack Obama also claims that, then there should not be an out of sequence number.
One of the things that Ms. Lee informed reporter Jerome Corsi about during a phone conversation was the hand-written number 9 in the number 9 box where the race of the father is listed as African. While much of the focus has been on the term African being used, Ms. Lee informed Mr. Corsi that the 9 indicates that the applicant for the birth certificate did not provide any information to put there. If they had a number 1 would have been written in. Therefore, the box should have been left blank, not filled in with African.
Furthermore, the conversation between Jerome Corsi and Ms. Lee was recorded Zullo confirmed.
Investigators also were troubled to find key information missing from the verification document Hawaii provided to Arizona’s secretary of state Ken Bennett in May.
When they spoke with Hawaii’s deputy attorney general, Jill T. Nagamine, she confirmed that the state has a birth document on file, but refused to identify the document that the White House put out as the document that the state has.
What is most telling in the last part is the history of Hawaii law. No one had to witness a birth in order to obtain a birth certificate in Hawaii. As has been reported, many Japanese people who were not citizens obtained birth records for their children. All they had to be were residents, not citizens, to obtain the birth records for their children.
From 1955-1982 this was the case because birth registry could be obtained by an adult simply coming in and filling out the paperwork. They provided unsworn testimony and there was no investigation to see if the testimony was truthful.
“It appears that in the case of Hawaii law, any person can obtain a birth certificate if any adult or their parents can prove that they resided in Hawaii for one year and paid taxes,” he said. “There is no requirement to show that the child itself was actually born in Hawaii or on U.S. soil.”
It was at this point that Mike Zullo stated that this is a “national security issue.”
The national security concerns raised by the investigation are based on Hawaii Revised Statute 338.17.8. which states:
338-17.8 Certificates for children born out of state.
Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
Because of this information all Hawaiian birth certificates are suspect. Zullo also believes this is in conflict with the Supreme Court’s ruling on SB1070, as does Arpaio, since state and federal law cannot be in conflict, though he tried to keep the focus on the document.
At the end of the press conference both Zullo and Arpaio kept trying to point reporters to the evidence and said it was not a political investigation. Both men have said they would have liked to clear the president in this matter, but the evidence lead them somewhere else. They also stated that the majority of their work has been taken care of by donations and by their own willingness to do the job.
It seems the reporters who attended were more interested in smearing Arpaio and Zullo than actually asking pertinent questions about the evidence presented to them, for which they were scolded.
Arpaio stands ready to provide the Congress with all the necessary documentation for a more thorough investigation and he called upon them to do just that. Both Arpaio and Zullo also said that they are not stating that Barack Obama knows of the forgery. They are simply stating that the document is a forgery.
