Home > Anything Else > 22-Page Criminal Complaint with the FBI Charges Obama Birth Record ‘Forged’; Kenyan National Intelligence Service Claims Obama Born in Kenya

22-Page Criminal Complaint with the FBI Charges Obama Birth Record ‘Forged’; Kenyan National Intelligence Service Claims Obama Born in Kenya

06/01/2011

By Jerome R. Corsi – “An international expert on scanners and document-imaging software filed a 22-page criminal complaint with the FBI, charging that the long-form birth certificate released by the White House is criminally fraudulent.

‘What the Obama administration released is a PDF image that they are trying to pass off as a Certificate of Live Birth Long Form printed on green security paper by the Hawaiian Health Department,’ Doug Vogt writes, ‘but this form is a created forgery.’

Vogt’s criminal complaint asserts: ‘I have irrefutably proven that the Certificate of Live Birth that President Obama presented to the world on April 27, 2011, is a fraudulently created document put together using the Adobe Photoshop or Illustrator programs, and the creation of this forgery of a public document constitutes a class B felony in Hawaii and multiple violations under U.S. Code section Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 47, Sec.1028, and therefore an impeachable offense.’

When the Obama birth certificate ‘forgery’ comes to the public’s attention, Vogt continues, ‘It will surpass the all previous scandals including the Watergate scandal of the Nixon administration.'” Read more.

Expert: Obama doc is ‘proof’ – of fraud – “Paul Irey, a retired professional typographer with 50 years experience in his business, says an analysis of the typefaces used in the Barack Obama’s long-form birth certificate that the White House released on April 27 reveals it absolutely to be a forgery. ‘My analysis proves beyond a doubt that it would be impossible for the different letters that appear in the Obama birth certificate to have been typed by one typewriter,’ Irey told WND. ‘Typewriters in 1961 could not change the size and shape of a letter on the fly like that,” he said. “This document is definitely a forgery.'” Read more.

Kenyan National Intelligence Service Claims Obama Born in Kenya:

50 Year Typography Expert Claims ‘Irrefutable’ proof of Obama forgery

  1. Ellen
    06/01/2011 at 10:36 AM

    The birth certificate was not forged. The director of health of Hawaii certified in writing that she had seen the document being copied and that the copy was exactly the same as the original. At least two Republican officials had stated that they had seen the original. So, if there were anything different between the original and what they saw, they could have said, and they said nothing.

    And numerous document experts have said that the document was not forged:

    For example:

    Dr. Neal Krawetz (http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/428-After-Birth.html)

    And the conservative National Review : http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-l

    And:
    http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/04/29/fox-exp

    Like

  2. ICA
    06/01/2011 at 12:20 PM

    This has already been addressed by numerous other experts (in fact the number of experts now stating that the ‘birth certificate’ was altered/forged far outweighs the number still claiming that the document is ‘original’). You will see what you want to see I am sure, and that is your choice, but now that the .PDF document has been thoroughly examined there are some very significant facts that those who initially claimed the document was real are still unable to address.

    One of them is the fact that there is obvious kerning on the Obama ‘birth certificate’ which was, incidentally, one of the proofs that the Dan Rather documents concerning Bush were faked:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1214504/posts

    There is a more in depth examination of the kerning found on Obama’s LFBC here:

    http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=2534123

    There are typewriters that can kern the text today, but kerning was not possible with a 1960′s typewriter. Additionally, notice that on the Nordyke twins Hawaiian birth certificate — which was issued the very next day after Obama’s in the very same hospital– lists the hospital as Kapiolani Gynecological Hospital, however each letter on the Nordyke birth certificate takes up its own unique space on the page whereas Obama’s birth certificate, allegedly issued one day earlier, uses the modern computer technique of ‘kerning’ on the very same words (the ‘ap’, the ‘ty’ and the ‘gy’) where each letter encroaches upon the space of the other letter. This technology was not possible when Obama was born and, in fact, one day after his purported birth at Kapiolani, the Nordyke twins birth certificate does not use kerning. Why?

    Next, one of your links above attempts to claim that some of the noted problems with the ‘birth certificate’ are due to OCR software, however it has already been demonstrated conclusively that OCR software was not used, which those very same experts who claimed the document to be real have still failed to address:

    Moreover, Loretta Fuddy (appointed by Obama friend, Governor Neil Abercrombie) has only claimed that she “approved a process” to produce a “computer-generated certified copy” of the birth certificate. State law “prohibits them from releasing the information contained in the full birth certificate filing — even if the president himself requested a copy”, however Fuddy stated that “As director of health for the state of Hawaii, I have the legal authority to approve the process by which copies of such records are made. Through that authority, in recognition of your status as president of the United States, I am making an exception to the current departmental policy which is to issue a computer-generated certified copy” (source).

    Governor Abercrombie issued a statement the following day that “We have found a way – once again – to confirm what we already knew: the President was born here in Hawai‘i. State officials of both parties have verified that President Obama’s birth records show that he was born in Honolulu.”

    What happened behind the scenes we can only speculate, but what can be said with certainty is this: the document released by the White House was an altered document. The ‘devil may be in the details’.

    Even the FOX News ‘expert’ referenced by your pajamasmedia link who believes that the document is real has also been called into question:

    Fox News document expert in tank for Obama?
    Man claims birth certificate real, but look how he’s championed president previously

    WASHINGTON – A software and Adobe expert called on by the Fox News Channel to examine Barack Obama’s long-for birth certificate turns out to be a cheerleader for the ‘Yes We Can’ crowd.

    Jean-Claude Tremblay of Montreal, Canada, billed by Fox as a ‘leading software trainer and Adobe-certified expert, who has years of experience working with and teaching Adobe Illustrator,’ is the first forensics analyst to weigh in on the validity of the document.

    He told Fox there is no doubt about the authenticity of the document.

    However, what Fox did not disclose is that Tremblay is an ardent Obama supporter.

    In an Amazon review of ‘Yes We Did: An Inside Look at How Social Media Built the Obama Brand,’ a book by Rahaf Harfoush about the historic nature of the Obama campaign of 2008, Tremblay wrote: ‘Rahaf Harfoush have (sic) done a marvelous job in this book to paint not only one of the most important moment (sic) in the history of the USA but also how social media can be use (sic) to engage peoples into action. Inspiring because it reveal how social media can be used not only to build online network, but help put peoples get into action in their community to make a lasting change. Yes They Did! Yes We Can! Whatever is our goals (sic).’

    ‘You should not be suspicious about this (Obama’s long-form birth certificate),’ Tremblay told Fox.”

    Also, for your consideration:

    * Hawaii Detective Charges: ‘Birth Certificate’ a Fraud
    * Colorado Graphic Artist Questions Obama Birth Certificate
    * Why Does Obama Have 2 Different Birth Doctors?
    * Washington Times Reporter: Obama’s Birth Certificate a Forgery, This May Be ‘Much Larger Than Watergate’
    * Opinion Maker: World Intelligence Agencies Call Obama’s ‘Birth Certificate’ a Blatant Forgery

    Aside from the fact that the document admits that Obama’s father was not an American citizen (which disqualifies Obama from being a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ according to the US Constitution), the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence points in only one direction: Obama’s ‘long-form birth certificate’ is a fraudulent document and must be investigated.

    Like

  3. Ellen
    06/01/2011 at 12:33 PM

    Re: “Kerning.”

    That is not kerning. That is skipping. Old manual typewriters skip, and when they do, characters are poorly spaced and are higher and lower than expected, resulting in sometimes part of one letter looking like it is under another.

    Only birther sites, as expected, have run claims of Obama’s birth certificate being forged. They said that they would do so, and they did, just as they lied about Obama’s grandmother saying that he was born in Kenya (she said repeatedly that he was born in Hawaii and that the first that her family had heard of his birth was in a LETTER FROM HAWAII). The birth certificate forgery claims are the reverse of the Kenyan birth certificate forgeries that birthers prepared and birther sites ran, and they are like the lies that Governor Abercrombie had said that he couldn’t find an original birth certificate (he said no such thing). And they are like the lies that Obama’s birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers could have been entered by his grandmother (Hawaii checked out all claims of birth outside of a hospital). And they are like the lies that Obama must have traveled to Pakistan on a foreign birth certificate because Pakistan was on a “no travel list” (It was not on any such list).

    Birther claims have no credibility because they are not objective. They are motivated by the birther position. In contrast, Fox News and The National Review checked out the allegations of forgery, and found them to be false.

    Re: “which disqualifies Obama from being a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ according to the US Constitution.”

    Answer: Who told you that? It is WRONG.

    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

    Like

    • ICA
      06/01/2011 at 1:51 PM

      Ellen, when a letter encroaches upon the space of the other letter, this is kerning. It is not ‘skipping'(?). There are examples of kerning in Obama’s alleged ‘long form birth certificate’, but not in the Nordyke twins birth certificate who were born the very next day. This is something that no one denies, except those who want to believe that the document is unaltered in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

      As has been demonstrated, the initial claims by Fox and The National that the document was legitimate has already been shown to have major, serious problems, not only in terms of the so-called expert’s credibility they parroted, but in terms of additional problems inherent to the document upon further examination.

      As for the question about what qualifies one to be considered a “Natural Born Citizen” under the US Constitution, one of the criteria that qualified John McCain as a “Natural Born Citizen” was the fact that he was born to AMERICAN CITIZENS, in other words, BOTH of his parents were citizens. The resolution on John McCain’s status as a Natural Born Citizen states that, “Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen … Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to AMERICAN CITIZENS … Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.” The resolution agrees that one of the qualifiers to being a ‘natural born citizen’ per the Constitution is both parents being American citizens which, therefore, agrees with Vattel’s definition whom the Founding Fathers themselves cited. Therefore, according to this very resolution that Barack Obama signed and agreed with, Barack Obama is not qualified due to the fact that his recently released ‘long form birth certificate’ admits that his father was a non-citizen. These are facts, and facts that speak for themselves.

      Like

  4. Ellen
    06/01/2011 at 12:43 PM

    Re: “Moreover, Loretta Fuddy (appointed by Obama friend, Governor Neil Abercrombie) has only claimed that she “approved a process” to produce a “computer-generated certified copy” of the birth certificate..”

    Answer: Who told you that? It is wrong.

    Her actual words were: ” I have witnessed the copying of the certificate and attest to the authenticity of the copies.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-correspondence.pdf

    SHE SAID: “I HAVE WITNESSED.” Not “approved a process.”

    It is errors, or deliberate misstatements, like these that have made Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck all call birthers crazy.

    Like

  5. ICA
    06/01/2011 at 1:33 PM

    Hi Ellen, you’ll need to re-read the PDF you linked to in your post above. In it, she clearly states: “As director of health for the state of Hawaii, I have the legal authority to approve the process by which copies of such records are made.”

    Even upon witnessing ‘the copying of the certificate’, what ended up being presented to the public by the White House was an altered document. This is a fact. Even subsequent wording in this regard implicitly admits as much because what the White House released is not a perfect copy of the original document, but rather is a copy of an ABSTRACT of all the data, or not, on file, or not. Look up the definition of “abstract”, which means — among other things — to draw or take away; remove; to divert or draw away the attention of; a summary of a text; abstract away from, to omit from consideration. Therefore, unless one sees the original document from which the data on the digitally created pseudo document was abstracted there is no proof that what was presented represents precisely what is on the original.

    Like

  6. ellen
    06/01/2011 at 10:00 PM

    Re: “Her actual words were: ” I have witnessed the copying of the certificate and attest to the authenticity of the copies.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-correspondence.pdf

    Yes, she said that. But what YOU said was that it was ALL that she said, and it wasn’t.

    She said: “” I have witnessed the copying of the certificate and attest to the authenticity of the copies.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-correspondence.pdf

    So what she said was that she saw the document being copied and that the copies were the same as the original.

    You say that the copies are different from the original? So, maybe in the scanning process the images may look somewhat different from the original. BIG DEAL. But she says, and the Republicans who saw the original also indicate by not making any statement, that the original and the copy HAVE THE SAME FACTS ON THEM. And that is what counts.

    Like

  7. ICA
    06/02/2011 at 12:03 AM

    Ellen: “Re: ‘Her actual words were: ‘ I have witnessed the copying of the certificate and attest to the authenticity of the copies.’ …

    Yes, she said that. But what YOU said was that it was ALL that she said, and it wasn’t.

    She said: ‘ I have witnessed the copying of the certificate and attest to the authenticity of the copies.’

    So what she said was that she saw the document being copied and that the copies were the same as the original.”

    No, I did not say that was “all” she had said. My answer was in response to your assertion that “she had seen the document being copied and that the copy was exactly the same as the original.” First, you are assuming that the PDF released by the White House is the exact same document that was given to them by the DOH, but this is blatantly false since, for one, it is impossible that any original birth certificate printed on a typewriter in 1961 would contain text that is kerned, unless the ‘original’ itself is also another forgery. In this respect, she only said that she “approved the process by which copies of the records are made.” Witnessing the copies being made and attesting to the authenticity of the copies does NOT mean that the PDF that was presented BY the White House is exactly the same as what was presented TO the White House.

    Two, the certificate that Obama presented does not even contain the required seal of the Department of Health. Although it appears that it may have something similar to a seal, it is not legible and without a legal raised seal this ‘record’ is not legally certified according to Hawaii’s own regulations (See here, Page 19).

    Think about this very carefully, Ellen. What she attests to here is simply the documents that the Department of Health gave to Obama. She did not vouch for the document that the White House presented, which contains numerous layers within the PDF, text that is haloed, text that is kerned, a document with no legible seal. She did not vouch for the altered document. There was no proof before this ‘release’ that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, and proof remains in absentia.

    Ellen: “You say that the copies are different from the original? So, maybe in the scanning process the images may look somewhat different from the original. BIG DEAL.”

    It was not a scan. It was digitally manipulated, and this has been demonstrated repeatedly by numerous experts. Do you really think that this is something that is insignificant, that should be glossed over, that should be dismissed and ignored? Which is greater, the man who stands in the Oval Office, or the Laws upon which the nation stands? Is American no longer a Republic now that Obama is President? Do you believe that the US Constitution is no longer valid, or should only be applicable when it is against someone you did not vote for?

    Ellen: “But she says, and the Republicans who saw the original also indicate by not making any statement, that the original and the copy HAVE THE SAME FACTS ON THEM. And that is what counts.”

    So the absence of a statement from them is proof that the ‘original’ is the same as the altered document released by the White House? I guess that shouldn’t be surprising, considering that the absence of the long-form birth certificate for years was proof for many then that Obama was born in the United States. But now, in light of recent events, should people still continue to blindly believe in Obama’s eligibility, despite the fact that there is now overwhelming evidence that the PDF released by the White House has been altered significantly, and that this alteration is — in Obama’s own words — indicative of ‘people with something to hide’?

    And if by “the Republicans” you mean Dr. Fukino, how do you explain the fact that Dr. Fukino told MSNBC Investigative Corespondent Michael Isikoff that she saw Barack Obama’s original birth certificate and that the original is half-handwritten and half-typed, yet the purported birth certificate released by the White House is entirely typed? Why the blatant discrepancy?

    If the ‘original’ and the PDF released by the White House are the exact same, then the so-called ‘original’ is fraudulent and an investigation needs to be opened immediately, and while that is being investigated Barack Obama needs to step down as President since, by his own admittance, he is not a Natural Born Citizen according to the US Constitution.

    Like

  8. ICA
    06/02/2011 at 11:20 AM

    For any others who still haven’t taken the time to watch any of the posted videos in order to understand what ‘kerning’ is and still confuse it with ‘skipping’, at least take the time to view this one. There is also other information after the ‘kerning’ explanation that needs to be considered:

    Like

  9. foxviewer1
    06/03/2011 at 10:56 AM

    It should be obvious that a child born outside of the USA requires either a US visa on a foreign passport or to be entered on the mother’s US passport to get to the USA. Those documents or the applications for them would still exist and would have been found easily IF Obama was born outside of the USA. But no such document has been found.

    Second, there were notices of Obama’s birth in the newspapers in Hawaii in 1961. And these were not ads placed by relatives. They could not have been ads because the Hawaii newspapers did not accept birth notice ads in 1961. They only took the official notices sent to them by the government of Hawaii, which only sent out the notices for births IN Hawaii. And, the government could not have been fooled by a claim of a birth at home because in those cases it demanded witness statements.

    So Obama’s parents would have had to have:

    (1) traveled to Kenya or some other country late in pregnancy at high risk and high expense (particularly to Kenya);

    (2) got the child back to the USA without either a visa or his being entered on his mother’s US passport or somehow had the files of the document and the applications for the document all sealed;

    (3) lied about the place of birth (which is also unlikely because when you have done something interesting like give birth in a foreign country you generally boast about it. And it is also unnecessary to lie since for all purposes but the presidency a naturalized child is as good as a natural born one);

    (4) gotten away with the lie despite evidence that Hawaii demanded witness statements whenever there was a claim of a birth outside of a hospital;

    (5) got three Republican officials in Hawaii to lie about the fact that the original birth certificate in Obama’s files verified that he was born in Hawaii.

    ALL of that would have had to have happened for Obama to have been born outside of the USA.

    Like

  10. ICA
    06/03/2011 at 11:46 AM

    Contrary to the claims of critics of citizens who demand Obama produce evidence of his presidential eligibility, newspaper birth announcements in Hawaiian newspapers in 1961 did not necessarily indicate a baby was even born in the state. The birth announcements offer no proof of citizenship, because they might reflect nothing more than information a family filed with the Hawaii Department of Health to obtain a state Certification of Live Birth for a baby born outside Hawaii. Any parent presumably would see the benefit of securing American citizenship for their child [1].

    Obama has paid millions to seal all records relating to him such as his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records [2]. What is he afraid of? In fact, the federal government had serious questions about Obama’s citizenship since he was born and began investigating it when he was 5 years old [3]. Why? Let’s see for ourselves the so-called ‘original’ that the three Republicans were shown (one of whom described it as half-written and half-typed, but what the White House presented was entirely typed).

    The Kenyan National Intelligence Service claims Obama was born in Kenya [4]. His grandmother, half-sister and half-brother have all stated that he was born in Kenya and were present at his birth [5]. Kenyan ambassador Peter Ogego admitted that Obama was born in Kenya [6]. For the sake of argument, however, let’s say that Obama was born in Hawaii. This still does not quality him to be President as a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ according to the US Constituation because, by Obama’s own admission, his father was not a US citizen when Obama was born.

    As I stated above with respect to the question about what qualifies one to be considered a “Natural Born Citizen” under the US Constitution, one of the criteria that qualified John McCain as a “Natural Born Citizen” was the fact that he was born to AMERICAN CITIZENS, in other words, BOTH of his parents were citizens. The resolution on John McCain’s status as a Natural Born Citizen states that:

    “Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen … Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to AMERICAN CITIZENS … Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”

    Therefore, if you replace John Sidney McCain III’s name with Barack Hussein Obama II then the very same criteria that was used to qualify John McCain as a “Natural Born Citizen” disqualifies Barack Obama. This resolution — which Barack Obama himself signed — agrees that one of the qualifiers to being a ‘natural born citizen’ per the Constitution is that both parents must be American citizens, which concurs with Vattel’s definition whom the Founding Fathers themselves cited. Therefore, according to the very resolution that Barack Obama signed and agreed with, Barack Obama is not even qualified due to the fact that his recently released “long form birth certificate” admits that his father was a non-citizen.

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=296677

    http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=306425

    Like

  11. foxviewer1
    06/03/2011 at 5:14 PM

    First, the Kenyan Intelligence service did NOT find that Obama was born in Kenya. It investigated whether or not Obama was born in Kenya, and it did not find ANY evidence to support it, not even records of Obama’s mother arriving in Kenya. That is not proof of birth in Kenya. That is proof that he WAS NOT born in Kenya.

    Re: “The birth announcements offer no proof of citizenship, because they might reflect nothing more than information a family filed with the Hawaii Department of Health to obtain a state Certification of Live Birth for a baby born outside Hawaii. ”

    Answer: You did not read my posting closely did you?

    First, Hawaii did not send out the notices for children born outside of Hawaii.
    Second, it could not have been fooled by relatives merely claiming that their child had been born outside of a hospital. Why not? Because in those cases IT INSISTED ON A WITNESS STATEMENT. In other words, there had to have been proof in 1961 that Obama was born in Hawaii or there would not have been the announcements in the newspapers.

    The announcements came ONLY from the government. The newspapers did not run ads for birth announcements. The government sent announcements only for births in Hawaii, and it required witness statements for claims of birth outside of a hospital.

    Re: “Any parent presumably would see the benefit of securing American citizenship for their child [1].”

    And who could disagree. However, IF a child were born outside of the USA, there would be no reason to lie about the place of birth to get those advantages. ALL that you would have to do would be to nationalize the child, make him a citizen through the nationalization process.

    Re: “Obama has paid millions to seal all records relating to him…”

    Answer. That is a birther lie. The figure is entirely made up by birthers.

    Like

  12. foxviewer1
    06/03/2011 at 5:19 PM

    Re: not showing his records.

    NO president has ever shown detailed school or college transcripts (a few showed college grade-point averages). None has ever shown his parents’ marriage license. A lot of people do not even have their parents’ marriage license.

    Re Natural Born Citizen status.

    Your definition is wrong. Brth in the USA is sufficient to create Natural Born Citizens regardless of whether one or even two of the parents were not US citizens at the time.

    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

    Like

  13. foxviewer1
    06/03/2011 at 5:21 PM

    The reason that the US Senate did not hold hearings on the eligibility of Obama, and vote on a resolution declaring the eligibility of Obama was, duh, that there wasn’t ANY question about the eligibility of Obama.

    He fell clearly under the definition of Meese, and other Constitutional scholars.

    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

    Like

  14. ICA
    06/03/2011 at 10:52 PM

    foxviewer1: “First, the Kenyan Intelligence service did NOT find that Obama was born in Kenya. It investigated whether or not Obama was born in Kenya, and it did not find ANY evidence to support it, not even records of Obama’s mother arriving in Kenya. That is not proof of birth in Kenya. That is proof that he WAS NOT born in Kenya.”

    Hi foxviewer1, please allow me spell it out for you:

    According to an article in the Kenyan Daily national newspaper in July of 2010, the Kenyan government was planning to build a cultural center at Kogelo. The Daily Nation, which published an artist’s sketch of the proposed Kogelo cultural center, referred to it as Obama’s ancestral home. But a Kenyan National Security Service memo, released in PDF format, clearly states that the building of this center was to “honour the birthplace of President Obama and re-dedicate the tomb of Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., the president’s late father.” This is a 2010 Kenyan National Security Service memo, a pretty authoritative source.

    In March of 2010, Kenyan parliament member, James Orengo, is documented to have asked Kenya’s parliament publicly, “How could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the president of America?”

    On the day after Obama’s election, parliament member Boni Khalwale asked fellow members, “Could we allow a motion for adjournment so that we could also continue the celebrations of having a Kenyan ruling the United States of America?”

    In addition, National Public Radio (NPR), prior to his election as president, reported Barack Obama’s birthplace as Kenya.

    Another reference was made in 2008 in the Nigerian Observer. Under a Washington dateline, the author of the article wrote, “Americans will today go to the polls to elect their next president with Democratic Party candidate Senator Barack Obama largely favored to win. The Kenyan born senator will, however, face a stiff competition from his Republican counterpart.”

    An African travel magazine reported, “As Kenyan born US Senator Barack Obama jets into Kenya today, as part of his African tour …” etc. etc. That article is still carried online.

    Also, an African news site and an MSNBC broadcaster referred openly to President Obama’s birthplace as being in Kenya

    It seems that almost everyone knows that Obama was born in Kenya. Everyone except the United States Congress and the United States Federal courts, both of which refuse to investigate this condemning information and evidence. They had no problem investigating John McCain, a United States war hero and prisoner of war. But they can’t seem to bring themselves to admit that THEY — the Congress and the courts — may have allowed the Office of President of the United States of America to be usurped by a foreign power.

    foxviewer1: “First, Hawaii did not send out the notices for children born outside of Hawaii. Second, it could not have been fooled by relatives merely claiming that their child had been born outside of a hospital. Why not? Because in those cases IT INSISTED ON A WITNESS STATEMENT. In other words, there had to have been proof in 1961 that Obama was born in Hawaii or there would not have been the announcements in the newspapers.
    The announcements came ONLY from the government. The newspapers did not run ads for birth announcements. The government sent announcements only for births in Hawaii, and it required witness statements for claims of birth outside of a hospital.”

    How Hawaiian papers published announcements

    WND discovered the following in previous discussions with the two Honolulu newspapers:

    * Neither newspaper had an editor to vet birth announcements;
    * Neither newspaper independently checked the truthfulness or accuracy of birth announcement information derived from Hawaii Department of Health vital statistics records;
    * Both newspapers merely published birth announcements, as received, from information published in Hawaii’s Department of Health vital statistics announcements.
    * Hawaiian hospitals did not report to newspapers any birth information;
    Hawaiian Certifications of Live Birth do not typically list the hospital of birth or attending physician;
    * Errors and misstatements in birth announcements published in the two Hawaiian newspapers have been documented, stemming from incorrect information recorded by the Hawaiian Department of Health.

    The Advertiser and Star-Bulletin began collaborating on reporting birth announcements in 1961. On June 1, 1962, they signed a Formal Letter of Agreement to create the Hawaiian News Agency to jointly publish both papers, an agreement that remains in place even today.

    A comparison of the Obama birth announcement in the two newspapers shows they are identical in every detail, including the order of other announcements preceding and following the Obama listing.

    Birth announcements from the Star-Bulletin (left) and Honolulu Advertiser (right), with Barack Obama’s announcement marked

    Why COLB does not prove Hawaiian birth

    The publication of the Obama birth announcements in 1961 suggests the Hawaii Department of Health issued a Certification of Live Birth, or COLB, for Barack Obama. But that alone is not proof he was born in Hawaii.

    In 1961, Hawaiian law specifically allowed “an adult or the legal parents of a minor child” to apply to the health department and, upon unspecified proof, be given a birth document in the form of a Certification of Live Birth.

    The only requirement stated in Hawaiian law is “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.”

    So, even the listing of an address on a COLB or in a newspaper birth announcement is no proof the baby was born in Hawaii.

    Under Hawaiian law, a family wishing to register the birth of a baby born outside Hawaii can list a family residence in Hawaii as the birth address, even if the mother was residing outside Hawaii at the time the baby was born.

    Hawaii refuses to authenticate

    WND previously reported the Hawaii Department of Health refused to authenticate either of the two versions of Obama’s short-form Certification of Live Birth posted online – the image produced by the 2008 Obama presidential campaign and the images released by FactCheck.org.

    WND also reported that until recently, even the Hawaii state government refused to accept a short-form COLB as proof of a Hawaiian birth required for eligibility in state programs. The Hawaiian Home Lands program, for example, required a “long-form birth certificate” filled out in the hospital with details such as the name of the hospital and the attending physician.

    If a short-form COLB was not good enough for the Department of Hawaiian Homelands, submitting a newspaper-printed birth announcement as proof of a Hawaiian birth would have been rejected immediately.

    Moreover, WND has reported a discrepancy in reports of where Obama was born. The myth-busting website Snopes.com – along with several news agencies and Obama-related blogs – have stated he was born in Queens Medical Center in Honolulu while Obama has claimed he was born in the city’s Kapi’olani Medical Center.

    After WND’s report of the descrepancy, sources such as the United Press International and Snopes.com scrubbed their websites to eliminate any reference to Queens Medical Center, without explaining the move.

    Obama’s parents didn’t live at listed address

    The birth address listed on the Certification of Live Birth produced by the 2008 Obama presidential campaign is evidence of the type of error that can occur because of Hawaiian laws and the procedures for placing birth announcements in newspapers.

    Moreover, the repeat of the address error in the Obama newspaper birth announcements is further evidence the papers simply published the information they were given by the Hawaii Department of Health.

    Barack Obama Sr. and Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama’s parents, apparently did not live together as husband and wife at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway in Honolulu, the address listed in the announcement.

    As WND reported, that address belonged to Ann Dunham’s parents, Madelyn and Stanley Dunham.

    Moreover, Obama’s parents lived apart, at two different addresses, after their marriage, with Ann Dunham evidently remaining in the rented house at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway after she was married.

    Barack Obama Sr. lived alone in an 11th Avenue address, closer to the university. Ann Dunham left Hawaii with her newborn son just two weeks after the birth.

    Why Barack Obama Sr. did not establish a residence with his wife and son in Hawaii is unknown, but WND can find no listing in the Polk directories for 1961-1962 that document Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Sr. ever lived at the same address.

    A search of that edition of the directory indicates 6085 Kalanianaole Highway was being rented by the grandparents. Madelyn L. Dunham is listed as a loan interviewer and escrow agent at the Bank of Hawaii and Stanley A. Dunham is listed as a manager with Pratt Furniture.

    Polk listing for Stanley and Madelyn Dunham

    In a separate listing, Obama’s mother is identified as a student living at the 6085 Kalanianaole Highway address; Barack H. Obama, her husband, is listed as a student living at a separate address, closer to the University of Hawaii at Manoa.

    Polk listing for Ann Obama and Barack Obama Sr.

    WND has separately documented that Ann Dunham was enrolled in extension classes at the University of Washington in Seattle 15 days after Barack Obama Jr. was born.

    The Polk directory for Seattle in 1961-1962 listed the residence for “Mrs. Anna Obama,” a student, at 516 13th Ave. E, apartment 2.

    Polk Directory listing

    WND has also documented Obama’s mother resettled in Seattle and did not return to Hawaii until after Barack Obama Sr. left the state to begin his studies at Harvard in September 1962.

    Like

  15. ICA
    06/04/2011 at 12:01 AM

    foxviewer1: “And who could disagree. However, IF a child were born outside of the USA, there would be no reason to lie about the place of birth to get those advantages. ALL that you would have to do would be to nationalize the child, make him a citizen through the nationalization process.”

    Are you contending that the government had all the records they needed under their noses when they decided to investigate Obama’s citizenship status when he was just five years old? Why would the immigration files clearly state: “There is nothing on file to document the status of the spouse’s son. Please inquire into his citizenship and residence status and determine whether or not he is the applicant’s child …”? Why do you think they asked this very important question?

    foxviewer1: “Re: ‘Obama has paid millions to seal all records relating to him…’
    Answer. That is a birther lie. The figure is entirely made up by birthers.”

    Maybe just hundreds of thousands then, if that makes you feel better. That is not the point. See the executive order here btw. What this executive order is saying is that only the Attorney General (Obama’s good buddy) and Council to the President are able to review requests for records and determine if they can be made public or not. Did the ‘birthers’ invent this, too? :)

    foxviewer1: “Re Natural Born Citizen status.
    Your definition is wrong. Brth in the USA is sufficient to create Natural Born Citizens regardless of whether one or even two of the parents were not US citizens at the time.”

    Please allow me to spell this one out a bit as well.

    It is not my definition. George Washington, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, John Adams and other Founding Fathers are on record as appealing to Vattel’s Law of the Nations for their definition for United States Constitutional principles. Vattel defines natural born citizenship status as being born on native soil to both parents who are citizens of that country. It was the definition agreed to by Barack Obama who co-sponsored the resolution validating John McCain’s status as a Natural Born Citizen, reflecting the Founding Father’s definition, not Meese’s ‘re-definition’.

    The ONLY candidates who were born outside of the United States who were understood to be eligible to be president were the original framers of the Constitution — the Founding Fathers — and they were grandfathered in by the Constitution itself. Everyone AFTER them was required to be born on American soil to American parents, and the resolution validating John McCain’s status as a Natural Born Citizen reflects this:

    “Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen … Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to AMERICAN CITIZENS … Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”

    The two issues that had to be settled were:

    1) Where was he born? Is an American military base ‘American soil’? The Senate said YES.

    2) Who were his parents? Were they both US citizens? In John McCain’s case, YES.

    The Senate said that John McCain met BOTH definitions of a Natural Born Citizen. Obama co-sponsored this resolution. He sat on the hearings. He signed the document. By his own resolution, and his own ‘birth certificate’ which he now has presented, he has proven that he is not eligible to serve as president. In other words, if you replace John Sidney McCain III’s name with Barack Hussein Obama II then the very same criteria that was used to qualify John McCain as a “Natural Born Citizen” disqualifies Barack Obama.

    What you are stating is that the proper measure by which John McCain was judged should not be the same measure by which to judge Barack Obama. It’s not hard to figure out why.

    Like

  16. RealFoxViewer
    06/04/2011 at 9:40 AM

    Quote:

    The Senate said that John McCain met BOTH definitions of a Natural Born Citizen. Obama co-sponsored this resolution. He sat on the hearings. He signed the document. By his own resolution, and his own ‘birth certificate’ which he now has presented, he has proven that he is not eligible to serve as president. In other words, if you replace John Sidney McCain III’s name with Barack Hussein Obama II then the very same criteria that was used to qualify John McCain as a “Natural Born Citizen” disqualifies Barack Obama.

    What you are stating is that the proper measure by which John McCain was judged should not be the same measure by which to judge Barack Obama. It’s not hard to figure out why.
    ————-

    I admit that this is a very powerful argument, I agree.

    Like

  17. 06/04/2011 at 2:16 PM

    Right on, RealFoxViewer. Tsk, tsk Fox Viewer 1. But nice arguments, and well laid out. There are people reading this, with interest, so if you have more, please continue. I would love to enter the fray, but don’t have the depth you all do, with all the historical facts, background, research, etc. Nor the time. Nor inclination.

    I would, however, like to ask some forensic questions on this “Fox” fixation. Are we talking about FOX News? As in “if FOX supported Obama’s legitimacy, and they’re conservative, then it MUST BE true?” Or is it more in the vein of a farmer guarding the hen house from a fox (birther’s trying to question Obama’s right to be president)? Or even, you really like checking out pretty girls? Just curious.

    The birth certificate has turned out to be a modern-day Rorschach test–people definitely bring into it their preconceived notions. But like any duality argument, one side actually IS true (i.e., creation v. evolution). And I think it is possible to know, based on facts.

    What are the FACTS of that electronic “birth certificate” document?

    Like

  18. foxviewer1
    06/05/2011 at 3:23 PM

    WND has recently run an article in which it said that the US government checked the place of birth of Obama when Soetoro was asking for an extension of his residence. Way down at the bottom of the article WND reported the fact that the US government concluded at that time that Obama had been born in Hawaii.

    WND then commented that the US government did not state how that it knew that Obama was born in Hawaii. But, of course, there was only one way that it would even try to check such a fact, it saw Obama’s birth certificate. So, in addition to the THREE Republican officials in 2008 and subsequently who said that there was an original birth certificate in Obama’s file, there is the US government check in the late 1960s or early 1970s–those officials saw the original birth certificate also.

    Now, you want further proof? Obama returned from Indonesia to attend school in Hawaii alone. His mother stayed in Indonesia. So, he must have traveled on his own passport. Could it have been an Indonesian passport? No because Indonesia has said that (1) Obama was never a citizen of Indonesia and was never issued an Indonesian passport. (The crap about he had to have a foreign passport to visit Pakistan is pure crap because Pakistan was not on any “no travel list” and it welcomed US tourists using US passports.) and (2) if he traveled on any other passport than a US passport, he would have needed a US visa on that passport. IF he had applied for a US visa in Indonesia, that would have been recorded and would have been found long ago.

    So, it can be added that in addition to there being NO US travel document for Obama in 1961, and that he would have needed one to get from Kenya to the USA. In addition to that, there is no application for a US visa when Obama returned from Indonesia, and hence he must have had a US passport.

    What does that mean? It means that in addition to the US officials who had checked Obama’s place of birth for the Soetoro application, there were ALSO US officials who checked Obama’s place of birth for his birth certificate. This is in addition to the THREE Republican officials who confirmed Obama’s birth in Hawaii. In addition, there is of course, the clerk who filled out the form that generated the short-form birth certificate. The clerk copied the information from the document in the file. That is the way that it works, and the document in the file listed the place of birth as Honolulu.

    If you do not believe that Obama was born in Hawaii despite all the above, then you must believe that the US government was fooled twice about Obama’s place of birth, and the same with the three Republican officials and the clerk. Or, that they are lying.

    You have indicated that you feel that the officials could have been fooled because you quote a complicated explanation from WND, which includes that the newspapers did not check the birth notices and that there have been errors in the notices, which were caused by government mistakes.

    There is no doubt that governments make mistakes. Still, the fact remains that Obama’s relatives could not have fooled the Hawaii government by lying about the place of birth. Why not? Because, when there was a claim of a birth outside of a hospital, the government of Hawaii insisted on statements from witnesses.

    We know that Obama was born in the Kapiolani Hospital, as his long-form birth certificate shows, and as the former Republican governor of Hawaii and the current Democrat governor of Hawaii have both confirmed. Also, we have the statement of this witness, who recalls being told of Obama’s birth in Kapiolani Hospital by the chief of the obstetrics department at the time (not the actual doctor who delivered Obama, but that is a natural mistake.) There have been birther claims that the doctor was retired at the time. No he wasn’t. (http://mysite.ncnetwork.net/res10o2yg/obama/Teacher%20from%20Kenmore%20recalls%20Obama%20was%20a%20focused%20student%20%20Don%27t%20Miss%20%20The%20Buffalo%20News.htm)

    The point, however, is that IF the documents from the hospital did not exist and the family had claimed that Obama was born at home or in a taxi, Hawaii would have required witness statements to confirm the place of birth. That was the practice at the time. And the result was that IF there were such a claim, the notice in the newspapers would have been delayed about a month until Hawaii checked the witness statements. But there was no delay in the Obama notices, which appeared about ten days after the birth–which was a normal delay for a birth on a Friday.

    Re minor points such as the address of the parents being given and that not being the place where Obama’s parents lived. Answer: It is entirely legal, and proper, to give the address of your parents when you haven’t yet picked out a permanent place to live.

    I notice that you have not attempted to deal with the absence of a US travel document to get Obama from Kenya to Hawaii. Instead, you have repeated chestnuts such as the Kenyan newspaper article. One answer to that is that some people in this word believe that the phrase “Kenyan-born” means that one or more of their parents came from Kenya. The fact that one of Obama’s parents came from Kenya is well-known. Neither the newspaper, nor any other government official or report ever said that Obama’s birth in Kenya could be proven by official Kenyan government documents.

    Recently WND has run yet another article about the Kenyan allegation. It reported that the Kenyan security officials checked out whether Obama was born in Kenya because at one time there was a notion to put up some kind of memorial or plaque.

    What the article buried was the conclusion, that Kenya DID NOT FIND A SHRED OF EVIDENCE that Obama was born in Kenya. In particular, one thing that it did not find (and the WND report would certainly have said it if it did) was evidence that Obama’s mother had arrived in Kenya in 1961. You would think that the Kenyan government would be able to find files of arrivals at its airports and/or records of visas checked on arrival. And yet, it found no evidence that Obama’s mother had ever arrived.

    Well, she didn’t. It was a long, expensive (and they were hardly rich) and risky trip to take late in pregnancy. (The response that it could have been done early in pregnancy or before pregnancy does not work with the other facts that are available on Obama’s mother’s presence.)

    And, for the few rich people able to take such a trip and willing to take the risk, they would not lie about it. People who take such expensive trips generally are proud of it, and show pictures.

    And, if you respond, “they lied to get Obama citizenship.” I respond that that would also have been risky (because it was illegal), and it would have been unnecessary because for all purposes except the presidency a Naturalized citizen gets all the rights of a Natural Born Citizen.

    At this point I suspect that you will switch to the other myth, that two citizen parents are required for Natural Born Citizen status (No, all US citizens who were born in the USA are Natural Born Citizens). But, let’s dispose of the place of birth allegations first.

    Like

  19. foxviewer1
    06/05/2011 at 3:34 PM

    Re: “George Washington, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, John Adams and other Founding Fathers are on record as appealing to Vattel’s Law of the Nations for their definition for United States Constitutional principles. ”

    Answer: IF that were true, there would be no question that Obama (and Jindal and Rubio) would not have been eligible.

    But in fact, not one of them ever said: “Let us use Vattel’s definition.” Nor did they ever say in any letter or article: “Two US citizen parents should be required.”

    What we do know is that the words “Natural Born Citizen” do not appear in any English-language volume of Vattel until TEN years after the US Constitution. So the source cannot have been Vattel. (He said that an “indigines,” whatever that is, requires two citizen parents.)

    Where did it come from? From the common law, which used Natural Born only to refer to citizenship due to the PLACE of birth. There is no record of any of the leaders you mention, or any others, ever using the phrase Natural Born to refer to the parents, only to the place of birth.

    Oh, and reading through Vattel makes this very obvious. At no point EVER in his book does Vattel recommend that government officials, even the sovereign, be even citizens, much less that they or the top leader be an Indigines or, if you will, a Natural Born Citizen. In fact, Vattel gives several examples of countries picking their kings and emperors from the nobility of other countries, and he never says that that is a bad thing–or that it would have been better to pick citizens or Indigines.

    And Vattel is not referred to even once in the Federalist Papers, while the common law is referred to about twenty times.

    The Natural Born Citizen clause does provide protection against foreign influence. It requires that the president must be a US citizen, and it requires that the president be Natural Born, hence not naturalized. But, there is absolutely no evidence that the writers of the US Constitution considered the US-born children of foreigners to be foreigners, or that they considered the US-born children of foreigners as less likely to be loyal, good citizens than the US-born children of US citizens.

    Like

  20. foxviewer1
    06/05/2011 at 3:44 PM

    Re the Executive Order.

    In order to understand it, you have to compare it with the similar executive order issued by George W. Bush. The Obama executive order in fact makes it HARDER than the Bush executive order to seal records.

    And, neither of those executive orders apply to state birth certificate records or college records. They only apply to federal presidential records.

    As for your temporizing, that the figure was not made up (it was), and that if it were only hundreds of thousands that would be significant. Even that is probably very high. It probably costs no more than a few hundred bucks and a few hundred in lawyer fees to get a case thrown out (which they all have been). That is a great deal cheaper that filing detailed papers: “My kindergarten records do not exist anymore: “I don’t have the marriage license of my parents;” “No president has ever shown his passport before, so I won’t either;” “No president has ever shown his transcripts before, so I won’t either,” Etc.

    So, not only was the figure made up, a LIE, but whatever small sum was paid to get the cases thrown out is perfectly legal and proper, and does not hide anything that other presidents have not hidden as well.

    However, if the Republican candidate in the next presidential election shows her or his transcripts, passport, etc.–then Obama is likely to voluntarily do so too.

    Like

  21. ICA
    06/05/2011 at 11:20 PM

    foxviewer1: “WND then commented that the US government did not state how that it knew that Obama was born in Hawaii. But, of course, there was only one way that it would even try to check such a fact, it saw Obama’s birth certificate.”

    Which ‘birth certificate’, the one that is half-written and half-typed, or the one that is entirely typed? The ‘original’, or another one that was doctored? The one that immigration was unable to find? Again I will ask: Are you contending that the government had all the records they needed under their noses when they decided to investigate Obama’s citizenship status when he was just five years old? Why would the immigration files clearly state: “There is NOTHING ON FILE to document the status of the spouse’s son. Please INQUIRE INTO HIS CITIZENSHIP AND RESIDENCE STATUS and determine whether or not he is the applicant’s child …”? Why do you think they asked this very important question?

    foxviewer1: “So, in addition to the THREE Republican officials in 2008 and subsequently who said that there was an original birth certificate in Obama’s file, there is the US government check in the late 1960s or early 1970s–those officials saw the original birth certificate also.”

    One of these Republicans who claimed to see the ‘original’ stated that the ‘original’ she saw was half-written and half-typed, yet what the White House presented is entirely typed. Why? What ‘original’ document did they see? Do you not agree that this is the one that should be released?

    foxviewer1: “Now, you want further proof? Obama returned from Indonesia to attend school in Hawaii alone. His mother stayed in Indonesia. So, he must have traveled on his own passport. Could it have been an Indonesian passport? No because Indonesia has said that (1) Obama was never a citizen of Indonesia and was never issued an Indonesian passport. (The crap about he had to have a foreign passport to visit Pakistan is pure crap because Pakistan was not on any “no travel list” and it welcomed US tourists using US passports.) and (2) if he traveled on any other passport than a US passport, he would have needed a US visa on that passport. IF he had applied for a US visa in Indonesia, that would have been recorded and would have been found long ago. So, it can be added that in addition to there being NO US travel document for Obama in 1961, and that he would have needed one to get from Kenya to the USA. In addition to that, there is no application for a US visa when Obama returned from Indonesia, and hence he must have had a US passport.”

    And how would you know what type of passport he traveled on, or what was on the passport? Obama HAS SEALED THOSE RECORDS as well. Why? What is he hiding?

    New documents point to Indonesian citizenship

    Documents released by the State Department in two separate Freedom of Information Act requests bolster evidence Barack Obama became a citizen of Indonesia when he moved to the Southeast Asian nation with his mother and stepfather in the late 1960s.

    In a passport amendment submitted Aug. 13, 1968, Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, identified her son with an Indonesian surname and asked the State Department to drop him from her U.S. passport.

    The transaction could have been part of an effort by Dunham to obtain Indonesian citizenship for her son. It took place before the State Department began requiring all citizens traveling abroad, regardless of age, to obtain their own passport.

    Several court cases challenging Obama’s presidential eligibility have argued he gave up his U.S. citizenship in Indonesia and used an Indonesian passport to travel to Pakistan in the early 1980s. Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship.

    The amendment was submitted less than a year after Dunham joined her second husband, Lolo Soetoro, in Indonesia. It requested “Barack Obama II (Soebarkah)” be removed from her U.S. passport, No. 777788.

    A letter from Lolo Soetoro to immigration officials in Hawaii pleading for an extension of his student visa, because anti-American sentiments in Indonesia could endanger his family, offers a possible reason for seeking Indonesian citizenship for Obama.

    Meanwhile, an Indonesian school registration card that surfaced during the 2008 presidential campaign presents evidence Obama was an Indonesian citizen during his time in the country as a child.

    WND reported in August 2008 the Associated Press published a photograph purportedly of Obama’s registration card at Indonesia’s Francis Assisi school. The card showed he was enrolled as “Barry Soetoro” and listed as an Indonesian citizen whose official religious identification was Muslim.

    An AP spokesman affirmed to WND that the photograph of the registration card was authentic.

    Turbulent politics

    Lolo Soetoro’s letter to Immigration and Naturalization officials in the Department of Justice in Hawaii explained his wife’s U.S. citizenship could be a problem in the turbulent politics of Indonesia in the mid-1960s.

    “My wife, Ann Soetoro, is a citizen of the United States and has resided here all her life,” Soetoro wrote the immigration officials, pleading hardship should he be forced to return to his Indonesian home. “It is presently impossible for my wife to return to Indonesia with me.”

    Soetoro argued “anti-American feeling has reached a feverish pitch under the direction of the Indonesian communist party, and I have been advised by both family and friends in Indonesia that it would be dangerous to endeavor to return with my wife at the present time.”

    “Complicated internal problems are causing the Indonesian government to crumble rapidly,” he pleaded. “The anti-Western forces are gaining in strength and have brought about government conviscation (sic) of all United States industry in Indonesia as well as sacking of the United States embassy, and burning and sacking of United States Information Service libraries. The United States Peace Corps has recently been asked to leave because the Indonesian government is no longer able to guarantee the safety of corps members.”

    The newly released State Department records show Obama and his mother traveled to Indonesia to join her husband in October 1967, with Obama listed on her passport as her son and an American citizen.

    When Obama’s mother returned to the U.S. Oct. 20-21, 1971, she entered with State Department forms allowing her to travel with the passport she used in 1967 to go to Indonesia, even though it had expired.

    The expired passport contained no reference to Barack Obama, although he had traveled with his mother on the October 1967 flight from the United States to Indonesia.

    The only known testimony that Obama returned home from Indonesia alone and on a U.S. passport is his own account in his autobiography, “Dreams from My Father.” That source, however, has proved to be unreliable in various material aspects.

    Questions

    Did Obama’s mother remove him from her passport to establish him as an Indonesian citizen, both for his safety and his acceptance in Indonesian schools?

    If Dunham had wanted her son to retain U.S. citizenship, she could have kept him on her passport and avoided the trouble of filing an amendment with the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta.

    On Aug. 13, 1968, the date Dunham filed the amendment, there was no reason to anticipate she would send her son home alone, something she did not decide to do until three years later, in 1971.

    In her own handwriting on the passport amendment, Dunham declared, “I intend to continue to reside abroad for the following period and purpose,” stating her stay in Indonesia is “indefinite” because she is “married to an Indonesian citizen.”

    Lolo Soetoro also appears to have had an influence on convincing Dunham to change her mind about sending Obama to school in Indonesia. Both were worried about that prospect when they were pleading for Lolo not to be forced home in 1966.

    A letter to the file by INS/DOJ investigator Robert R. Schultz, dated May 24, 1967, documents a telephone call he had with Dunham in Hawaii on May 12, 1967.

    “She also indicated that her son is now in Kindergarten and will commence the first grade next September and if it is necessary for her and the child to go to Indonesia she will educate the child at home with the help of school texts from the U.S. as approved by the Board of Education in Honolulu,” Schultz wrote.

    Obama would not have needed Indonesian citizenship to study in Jakarta at home with his mother.

    Clearly, from the registration record from the Assisi school, being listed as an Indonesian citizen was useful to Obama, much as his mother and stepfather had pleaded to U.S. officials before Lolo Soetoro was denied the waiver he needed to stay in the U.S. legally past 1966.

    foxviewer1: “What does that mean? It means that in addition to the US officials who had checked Obama’s place of birth for the Soetoro application, there were ALSO US officials who checked Obama’s place of birth for his birth certificate. This is in addition to the THREE Republican officials who confirmed Obama’s birth in Hawaii. In addition, there is of course, the clerk who filled out the form that generated the short-form birth certificate. The clerk copied the information from the document in the file. That is the way that it works, and the document in the file listed the place of birth as Honolulu…”

    So, would you not agree then that Obama should just release the original, complete and unaltered in any way, so that we can see for ourselves what is supposedly on the ‘original’? Why release a doctored ‘abstract copy’ and call it official when it doesn’t even contain a legal, raised seal?

    foxviewer1: “There is no doubt that governments make mistakes. Still, the fact remains that Obama’s relatives could not have fooled the Hawaii government by lying about the place of birth. Why not? Because, when there was a claim of a birth outside of a hospital, the government of Hawaii insisted on statements from witnesses… The point, however, is that IF the documents from the hospital did not exist and the family had claimed that Obama was born at home or in a taxi, Hawaii would have required witness statements to confirm the place of birth. That was the practice at the time. And the result was that IF there were such a claim, the notice in the newspapers would have been delayed about a month until Hawaii checked the witness statements. But there was no delay in the Obama notices, which appeared about ten days after the birth–which was a normal delay for a birth on a Friday.”

    This was already addressed in the previous post, but let me see if I get this straight. You admit that governments can make mistakes, but then state that it was impossible for the Hawaiian government to make a mistake? If Hawaii has a government, then by your own admission the Hawaiian government can make a mistake. If it was impossible for the Hawaiian government to make a mistake, then why would the immigration files clearly state: “There is NOTHING ON FILE to document the status of the spouse’s son”?

    foxviewer1: “We know that Obama was born in the Kapiolani Hospital, as his long-form birth certificate shows, and as the former Republican governor of Hawaii and the current Democrat governor of Hawaii have both confirmed.”

    You mean, as an Obama supporter, “We think that Obama was born in the Kapiolani Hostpial”. You haven’t seen the ‘original’, and evidence has already been demonstrated suggesting that the alleged ‘original’ that (at least one) of the Republicans saw does not match the description of what the White House presented to the public. If one of the witnesses of the ‘original’ was not shown the same document that was released to the public, why assume that the others actually did see the real ‘original’? How many ‘original’ birth certificates are there??

    foxviewer1: “I notice that you have not attempted to deal with the absence of a US travel document to get Obama from Kenya to Hawaii. Instead, you have repeated chestnuts such as the Kenyan newspaper article. One answer to that is that some people in this word believe that the phrase “Kenyan-born” means that one or more of their parents came from Kenya. The fact that one of Obama’s parents came from Kenya is well-known. Neither the newspaper, nor any other government official or report ever said that Obama’s birth in Kenya could be proven by official Kenyan government documents.
    Recently WND has run yet another article about the Kenyan allegation. It reported that the Kenyan security officials checked out whether Obama was born in Kenya because at one time there was a notion to put up some kind of memorial or plaque.
    What the article buried was the conclusion, that Kenya DID NOT FIND A SHRED OF EVIDENCE that Obama was born in Kenya. In particular, one thing that it did not find (and the WND report would certainly have said it if it did) was evidence that Obama’s mother had arrived in Kenya in 1961. You would think that the Kenyan government would be able to find files of arrivals at its airports and/or records of visas checked on arrival. And yet, it found no evidence that Obama’s mother had ever arrived.”

    And, to be frank, at this point I am less concerned with what Kenya did NOT find regarding Obama’s birth or his mother’s record of arriving in Kenya than I am with what has been presented so far. Just as no unaltered, unquestionable documentation has yet been provided proving that Obama was born in Kenya, no unaltered, unquestionable documentation has yet been provided proving that Obama was born in Hawaii, either. What HAS been presented has been demonstrated by numerous experts to be an ALTERED document. Why was it doctored? Given the fact that so much history surrounding Barack Obama has been hidden, his records sealed, and efforts have been made to thwart any and all requests for those records — not to mention the fact that he is a proven liar and the so-called ‘birth certificate’ that has been released has been proven to be a doctored document — do you honestly believe it is inconceivable that other records have been hidden, destroyed or sealed as well? And do you think that his grandmother, half-brother and half-sister were lying when they said they were present during Obama’s birth in Kenya?

    foxviewer1: “At this point I suspect that you will switch to the other myth, that two citizen parents are required for Natural Born Citizen status (No, all US citizens who were born in the USA are Natural Born Citizens). But, let’s dispose of the place of birth allegations first.”

    It is not a myth. Again, and this very significant fact is one that you seem to ignore at every turn, the Senate said that John McCain met BOTH definitions of a Natural Born Citizen. Obama co-sponsored this resolution. He sat on the hearings. He signed the document. By his own resolution, and his own ‘birth certificate’ which he now has presented, he has proven that he is not eligible to serve as president. In other words, if you replace John Sidney McCain III’s name with Barack Hussein Obama II then the very same criteria that was used to qualify John McCain as a “Natural Born Citizen” disqualifies Barack Obama. What you are stating is that the proper measure by which John McCain was judged should not be the same measure by which to judge Barack Obama. It’s not hard to figure out why.

    Like

  22. ICA
    06/05/2011 at 11:52 PM

    foxviewer1: “But in fact, not one of them ever said: “Let us use Vattel’s definition.” Nor did they ever say in any letter or article: “Two US citizen parents should be required.”
    What we do know is that the words “Natural Born Citizen” do not appear in any English-language volume of Vattel until TEN years after the US Constitution. So the source cannot have been Vattel. (He said that an “indigines,” whatever that is, requires two citizen parents.)
    Where did it come from? From the common law, which used Natural Born only to refer to citizenship due to the PLACE of birth. There is no record of any of the leaders you mention, or any others, ever using the phrase Natural Born to refer to the parents, only to the place of birth.
    Oh, and reading through Vattel makes this very obvious. At no point EVER in his book does Vattel recommend that government officials, even the sovereign, be even citizens, much less that they or the top leader be an Indigines or, if you will, a Natural Born Citizen. In fact, Vattel gives several examples of countries picking their kings and emperors from the nobility of other countries, and he never says that that is a bad thing–or that it would have been better to pick citizens or Indigines.
    And Vattel is not referred to even once in the Federalist Papers, while the common law is referred to about twenty times.
    The Natural Born Citizen clause does provide protection against foreign influence. It requires that the president must be a US citizen, and it requires that the president be Natural Born, hence not naturalized. But, there is absolutely no evidence that the writers of the US Constitution considered the US-born children of foreigners to be foreigners, or that they considered the US-born children of foreigners as less likely to be loyal, good citizens than the US-born children of US citizens.”

    Found in the Library of Congress Website [1].

    If you look at Article III in the body of the text below, you will see,

    Les consuls et vice consuls respectifs ne pourront être pris que parmi les sujets naturels de la puissance qui les nommera. Tous seront appointés par leur souverain respectif, et ils ne pourront en conséquence faire aucun trafic ou commerce quelconque ni pour leur propre compte, ni pour le compte d’autrui.

    Going down further to the end you will find under number 3,

    The respective Consuls and Vice Consuls shall only be taken from among the natural born subjects of the power nominating them. They shall all be appointed by their respective Sovereign, and in Consequence of such appointment they shall not exercise any traffic or commerce whatsoever either on their own account, or on account of any other

    Translation by Charles Thomson secretary of the Continental Congress

    This is pretty conviencing proof that the framers did not need to wait for the translated edition of Vattel’s Law of Nations. It appears they were well apt to translate it themselves. This accepted translation of naturel, predates John Jay’s letter to George Washingtion by 6 years.

    Moreover, in his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the “original citizens” were and then defined the “natural born citizens” as the children born in the country to citizen parents. He said concerning the children born after the Declaration of Independence, “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” He added that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the Declaration of Independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” He continued that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” [2].

    foxviewer1: “The Obama executive order in fact makes it HARDER than the Bush executive order to seal records.”

    Read the Executive Order for yourself.

    As you can read, in EXECUTIVE ORDER 13489, in Section 3; subsection D, it shows that the first order of business Obama took care of on day one of his Presidency was to sign off on an Executive Order that states that only the records he chooses to be made public will be released?

    (d) If the President decides to invoke executive privilege, the Counsel to the President shall notify the former President, the Archivist, and the Attorney General in writing of the claim of privilege and the specific Presidential records to which it relates. After receiving such notice, the Archivist shall not disclose the privileged records unless directed to do so by an incumbent President or by a final court order.

    I thought Obama promised more openness and transparantency in government? [3].

    Like

  23. 06/06/2011 at 12:04 AM

    Foxviewer1 has made many convincing arguments about lack of records of travel documents to Kenya, etc. Indeed, if Obama was ever in Kenya as an infant, or born there, certainly some evidence should still exist, even if a concerted effort was made to scrub historical records of that fact. Has anything along those lines turned up? FV1 says no.

    But what FV1 has NOT done is to explain the literal dozens of evidences of tampering of the released BC document. And that fact alone pushed the birther door further open than it could have without it.

    Like

  24. 06/06/2011 at 12:09 AM

    Perhaps the birth issue has been a rouse, a distraction all along, to get people to focus on THIS rather than THAT–i.e., THIS birth certificate issue rather than THAT relinquished citizenship issue… Maybe it all was a ploy initiated by Obama because an Indonesian citizenship would be problematic. On the other hand, this doesn’t explain the released-BC problems.

    Just wondering out loud.

    Like

  25. ICA
    06/06/2011 at 12:14 AM

    Something fishy is obviously going on, and there is information that Obama does not want the public to find out.

    Like

  26. foxviewer1
    06/06/2011 at 7:41 AM

    The following quotation does not come from VATTEL: “Les consuls et vice consuls respectifs ne pourront être pris que parmi les sujets naturels de la puissance qui les nommera. Tous seront appointés par leur souverain respectif, et ils ne pourront en conséquence faire aucun trafic ou commerce quelconque ni pour leur propre compte, ni pour le compte d’autrui.”

    It comes from a letter to the US Continental Congress from the King of France, or his representatives. And it applies to diplomatic consuls.

    It is TERRIBLE for your case. First, it hints that the word “indigines” in Vattel may not mean Natural Born Citizen. Why so? Because the phrase in French would be “sujets naturels” or “citoyen naturels.” Second, there is no definition of what a Natural subject should be. So, the rule would have to be that a US definition of Natural Born would apply to American consuls and the French definition to French consuls. Third, it indicates that even before the US Constitution, people were thinking that American-born people were Natural Born and hence all the birther stuff about George Washington not considering himself Natural Born is phoney. (By the way, there also are NO letters between American leaders at the time saying “hey George, John, James or Tom–did you realize that we are not Natural Born Citizens.”

    In any case, the quotation is not from Vattel. Here is its source: http://books.google.com/books?id=3xNOAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA794&dq=Les+consuls+et+vice+consuls+respectifs+ne+pourront+%C3%AAtre+pris+que+parmi+les+sujets+naturels+de+la+puissance+qui+les+nommera.+Tous+seront+appoint%C3%A9s+par+leur+souverain+respectif,+et+ils+ne+pourront+en+cons%C3%A9quence+faire+aucun+trafic+ou+commerce+quelconque+ni+pour+leur+propre+compte,+ni+pour+le+compte+d%E2%80%99autrui.&hl=en&ei=ubTsTc25Hqrk0QG6vezGAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Les%20consuls%20et%20vice%20consuls%20respectifs%20ne%20pourront%20%C3%AAtre%20pris%20que%20parmi%20les%20sujets%20naturels%20de%20la%20puissance%20qui%20les%20nommera.%20Tous%20seront%20appoint%C3%A9s%20par%20leur%20souverain%20respectif%2C%20et%20ils%20ne%20pourront%20en%20cons%C3%A9quence%20faire%20aucun%20trafic%20ou%20commerce%20quelconque%20ni%20pour%20leur%20propre%20compte%2C%20ni%20pour%20le%20compte%20d%E2%80%99autrui.&f=false

    The full English-language text of Vattel is searchable online http://books.google.com/books?id=NukJAAAAIAAJ&q=consul#v=snippet&q=consul&f=false

    And a search for consul and consuls never shows anything about them having to be citizens, much less Natural Born Citizens. And, as I said before, Vattel never says that any official should be even a citizen, much less a Natural Born Citizen. He gives several examples of countries that picked their rulers from the nobility of other countries–and he never says that that was a bad thing, or that it would have been better to pick citizens or, ideally, Natural Born Citizens.

    Getting back to the birth certificate. There are no problems with it. The director of health of stated in writing that she had seen it being copied and that the copy is the same as the original. THREE Republican officials confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    The original birth certificate IS partially handwritten and partially type. All the names and signatures are written in, duh. However, supposing that she had really remembered that the document she had seen had handwritten words in it, would that mean that the original did not say “Place of Birth: Honolulu?” Obviously not. In fact, if the document did not say it, she and the other Republican official would have to be lying.

    To be sure, they both could be lying. But then you have to say that the officials in 1961 who issued the birth certificate were also part of the plot, as were the US federal officials who waved baby Obama through on the trip from Kenya to Hawaii without either a passport or a US visa. Or, other officials would have had to have hidden the documents AND the applications for them–or else they would have been discovered.

    Obama’s Kenyan grandmother, who said that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of Obama’s birth was in a letter from Hawaii, would also have to be lying, as would this witness http://mysite.ncnetwork.net/res10o2yg/obama/Teacher%20from%20Kenmore%20recalls%20Obama%20was%20a%20focused%20student%20%20Don%27t%20Miss%20%20The%20Buffalo%20News.htm (To be sure, she was incorrect that Dr West delivered Obama, but he was the chief of obstetrics at the hospital, so he knew who was being delivered).

    ALL of those people would have had to have lied, plus the former Republican governor of Hawaii. Plus Obama’s parents would have had to have taken the enormously expensive and risky trip to Hawaii (they were not rich) and then lied about it (Why? All they would have had to do was to naturalize the child, if he really were born abroad) and gotten away with the lie. Put them all together—and you get a sequence of events as unlikely as winning two or more major lotteries on a single day.

    Re: Indonesian citizenship. Obama was never an Indonesian citizen. All you have to do is call the Indonesian Embassy in Washington and ASK (ask for the press officer). The US State Department in a legal filing has also stated that Obama was never an Indonesian citizen.

    Like

  27. foxviewer1
    06/06/2011 at 7:56 AM

    Re: “There is NOTHING ON FILE to document the status of the spouse’s son. Please INQUIRE INTO HIS CITIZENSHIP AND RESIDENCE STATUS and determine whether or not he is the applicant’s child …”? Why do you think they asked this very important question? ”

    Answer:

    The answer to this is very simple. There was indeed nothing on file at the time. The official who wrote it asked another official to check. The other official did check, and the result of the check was that he determined that Obama had been born in Hawaii, and the files STATE that the official determined that Obama had been born in Hawaii.

    It is the ANSWER to the question that is important. It is natural for US officials to question the birth status of everyone; that is their job. When alien-resident X says that he should be eligible for an extension because the is a US-born child whom he supports, do you think that the US officials do not check it out? Of course they do. So, they checked on Soetoro’s claim, and what did they find? That Obama was born in Hawaii.

    As to whether the birth certificate that they saw was hand-written or typed–who cares? It was a birth certificate sufficient to convince them. And the fact that they were convinced that Obama was born in Hawaii can be added to the fact that in 1961 Hawaii officials were ALSO convinced that Obama was born in Hawaii. That is why they issued him a birth certificate with the words: “Location of birth, Honolulu” on it.

    And as I said before, they could NOT have been fooled by a claim of a birth outside of a hospital because in those cases they insisted on witness statements. Both the former Republican governor, the current governor, the witness cited and the long-form birth certificate all say that Obama was born in Kapiolani Hospital. But if there were not evidence of this, Hawaii would NOT have issued a birth certificate unless there had been a witness statement that he had been born outside of a hospital. The requirement for a witness statement would have forced a delay of at least a month, so the notices could not have appeared in the Hawaii newspapers when they did.

    Like

  28. foxviewer1
    06/06/2011 at 8:05 AM

    Re: “And how would you know what type of passport he traveled on, or what was on the passport? Obama HAS SEALED THOSE RECORDS as well. Why? What is he hiding?”

    As I commented earlier, Obama has not sealed any records. The executive order you referred to is limited to federal presidential papers, and does not apply to birth certificates or college records or passports–all of which are simply private, and none of which have been shown by other presidents or presidential candidates.

    How do I know that the document must have been a US PASSPORT?

    First, a call to the Indonesian embassy will show that he never had an Indonesian passport. But if that is not enough (maybe he traveled on a British passport or a UN passport?) there is the logic of the situation. Foreign passports require US VISAS. US visas have to be applied for. IF someone applies for a US visa, there is a record of the application. No one has found a record of an application for a US visa for Obama.

    So, what passport did Obama travel on? A US passport.

    What does that mean? It means that the passport officials, plus the Hawaii officials in 1961, plus the Sate Department officials who checked out Soetoro’s application, plus the witness, plus THREE recent Republican officials, plus Obama’s Kenyan grandmother–all were convinced that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Like

  29. foxviewer1
    06/06/2011 at 8:15 AM

    Re: “And, to be frank, at this point I am less concerned with what Kenya did NOT find regarding Obama’s birth or his mother’s record of arriving in Kenya than I am with what has been presented so far.”

    Answer: There is no evidence from Kenya. There is no US government evidence that Obama traveled in 1961. There IS evidence that he was born in Hawaii.

    In addition, it was X#@%^**%@X unlikely that Obama’s parents made the long, highly expensive and highly risky trip from Hawaii to Kenya. And, in the highly unlikely case that they did, why should they lie about it? And, if in the highly unlikely case that they did lie about it, what are the odds of them getting away with the lie? We know that US travel documents were required to get a child from Kenya to Hawaii—and none have been found. We know that the officials in Hawaii checked out claims of birth outside of a hospital.

    So, what are the odds of getting away with getting a child from Kenya to Hawaii without documentation (or to get the documents hidden or lost) and ALSO to convince officials in Hawaii that the child was born in Hawaii? In addition to the lack of the travel document and the officials in Hawaii in 1961, there is the witness who recalls being told of Obama’s birth in Kapiolani, and there is the Kenyan grandmother who said that the first that her family had heard of Obama’s birth was in a letter from Hawaii.

    Like

  30. RealFoxViewer
    06/06/2011 at 9:41 AM

    Quote:

    I would, however, like to ask some forensic questions on this “Fox” fixation. Are we talking about FOX News? As in “if FOX supported Obama’s legitimacy, and they’re conservative, then it MUST BE true?” Or is it more in the vein of a farmer guarding the hen house from a fox (birther’s trying to question Obama’s right to be president)? Or even, you really like checking out pretty girls? Just curious.

    The birth certificate has turned out to be a modern-day Rorschach test–people definitely bring into it their preconceived notions. But like any duality argument, one side actually IS true (i.e., creation v. evolution). And I think it is possible to know, based on facts.

    What are the FACTS of that electronic “birth certificate” document?
    —-

    I think this ‘foxviewer1’ poster was trying to present themself as a conservative who watches FOX News. I’ve seen his exact same arguments all over the net on different forums, just different usernames, and the first poster ‘ellen’ and ‘foxviewer1’ may even be the same person. Youd think they worked for Obama or something. At the end of the day though they still fail to answer why the white house released a faked document and why they refused to release the long form birth certificate for years, and why Barack Obama should not be vetted the same way that John McCain was vetted, using both definitions of Natural Born. They might make some good arguments about lack of documentation on something, but that means little though IMHO in light of those questions. Answer those first instead of running around them. I didnt care about the birther question until Obama released that so obviously fake birth certificate. Like ica said, something fishy is obviously going on, and there is information that Obama does not want the public to find out. So is there reasonable doubt here regarding Obama’s eligibility? Without question, definitely. That is something that ‘foxviewer1’ is unable to dispel.

    Like

  31. ICA
    06/06/2011 at 10:00 AM

    foxviewer1: “It comes from a letter to the US Continental Congress from the King of France, or his representatives. And it applies to diplomatic consuls.

    It is TERRIBLE for your case. First, it hints that the word “indigines” in Vattel may not mean Natural Born Citizen. Why so? Because the phrase in French would be “sujets naturels” or “citoyen naturels.” Second, there is no definition of what a Natural subject should be. So, the rule would have to be that a US definition of Natural Born would apply to American consuls and the French definition to French consuls. Third, it indicates that even before the US Constitution, people were thinking that American-born people were Natural Born and hence all the birther stuff about George Washington not considering himself Natural Born is phoney. (By the way, there also are NO letters between American leaders at the time saying “hey George, John, James or Tom–did you realize that we are not Natural Born Citizens.”

    Vattel’s Influence on the term a Natural Born Citizen

    What is a natural born citizen? Where did the framers come up with this term? Where was it used before? So many questions, and the answers are right there if anyone wishes to search out the truth.

    The term Natural born Citizen appears in our Constitution, in Article 1, Section 2, with these words, “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”

    Before the Constitution the closest reference we have to Natural Born Citizen is from the legal treatise “the Law of Nations,” written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758. In book one chapter 19,

    § 212. Of the citizens and natives.

    “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot 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 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; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

    “Please note that the correct title of Vattel’s Book I, Chapter 19, section 212, is “Of the citizens and naturals”. It is not “Of citizens and natives” as it was originally translated into English. While other translation errors were corrected in reprints, that 1759 translation error was never corrected in reprints. The error was made by translators in London operating under English law, and was mis-translated in error, or was possibly translated to suit their needs to convey a different meaning to Vattel to the English only reader. In French, as a noun, native is rendered as “originaire” or “indigene”, not as “naturel”. For “naturel” to mean native would need to be used as an adjective. In fact when Vattel defines “natural born citizens” in the second sentence of section 212 after defining general or ordinary citizens in the first sentence, you see that he uses the word “indigenes” for natives along with “Les naturels” in that sentence. He used the word “naturels” to emphasize clearly who he was defining as those who were born in the country of two citizens of the country. Also, when we read Vattel, we must understand that Vattel’s use of the word “natives” in 1758 is not to be read with modern day various alternative usages of that word. You must read it in the full context of sentence 2 of section 212 to fully understand what Vattel was defining from natural law, i.e., natural born citizenship of a country. Please see the photograph of the original French for Chapter 19, Section 212, here in the original French if you have any doubts. Please do not simply look at the title as some have suggested that is all you need to do. Vattel makes it quite clear he is not speaking of natives in this context as someone simply born in a country, but of natural born citizens, those born in the country of two citizens of the country. Our founding Fathers were men of high intellectual abilities, many were conversant in French, the diplomatic language of that time period. Benjamin Franklin had ordered 3 copies of the French Edition of “Le droit des gens,” which the deferred to as the authoritative version as to what Vattel wrote and what Vattel meant and intended to elucidate.”.

    If not Vattel, then where did they arrive at this term. Many of those who ridicule us like to quote Blackstone as authoritative that the United States adopted English Common Law. They like to state that Blackstone’s natural born subject is equivalent of a natural born citizen. There is no doubt that the Founding Father’s were influenced from Blackstone’s Commentary. However, the Framers of the Constitution recognized that it was Blackstone, who argued that the Parliament and King could change the constitution at will. Blackstone was increasingly recognized by the Americans as a proponent of arbitrary power. In fact, the framers rejected the notion that the United States was under English Common Law, “The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” George Mason one of Virginia’s delegates to the Constitutional Convention.

    As to what is a natural born subject, Blackstone went on to say that any person, freeman or alien, except those of diplomats who were born in the realm of the King of England was a natural born subject. There is a problem with a simple substitution of citizen in place of subject, that some people think are synonymous. In England, not all natural born subjects of the Crown can become the King. This is reserved for a very small subset of natural born subjects called the royalty. This is drastically dissimilar to the American concept that any Natural Born Citizen can become President. Under Blackstone’s subjects only a very, very small subset of Natural Born Subjects could rise to be King, the American Presidency is drawn from the largest class of citizens, the natural born. Like the analogy of a field of clover, the Founding Fathers were not looking for that elusive genetic mutation of a four-leaf clover, they were looking for the common, naturally occurring three-leaf clover to be President.

    But Blackstone is confusing on this issue. Blackstone also writes, “To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.” This use of Blackstone gave Great Britain claim over US Citizens, which lead to the war of 1812, when Britain went about impressing American sailors into their navy because English law did not recognize the right of our Founding Father’s naturalizing themselves into our new country. “Once an Englishman, always an Englishman,” was the reason the British used to impress our citizens into service for the Crown. This law and concept of claim to the subjects to the Crown, regardless of place of birth is still in effect in Great Britain, and had the effect of Congress passing a law that required all the officers and three fourths of the seamen on a ship of the United States be natural born citizens. (Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, February 9, 1813) Further, the Crown passed a law that made it treason for former British subjects, even though they were now American citizens to participate on the side of America during the war of 1812. (Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, February 23, 1813) to If the Founding Fathers accepted Blackstone’s definition of a natural born subject, then impressments of American-British citizens into the Royal Navy would not have been a casus belli, for the War of 1812. The fact that Madison included the impressments of American Citizens as a reason for a state of War clearly indicates that they rejected Blackstone’s definition of a natural-born subject.

    John Jay’s letter to Washington address this dual and permanent loyalty to England that Blackstone introduces. To George Washington, President of the Constitutional Convention, Jay writes “Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.” Jay not only knew of Vattel, , as can be seen from his correspondence with James Madison in 1780 during treaty negotiations with Spain, but he was also a proponent of Vattel as well.

    What further discredits Blackstone as being the author of the Natural Born Citizen clause, is the first immigration act passed by our First Congress in 1790. In chapter III we find direct references to Vattel’s assertion that citizenship is derived from the father, in that citizenship was prohibited to children whose fathers have never gave intent to permanently reside of the Untied States. Interestingly in this same act, we also find the clarification of a Natural Born Citizen, as being one “And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been a resident in the United States:” Residency was defined in that same act as someone under oath declaring that they wished to remain and live in the Untied States. It should be noted that the Supreme Court was tasked with defining several phrases in this law, and since Jay was the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and had reviewed the immigration law of 1790. If Jay was in favor of Blackstone’s definition, he remained silent.

    To add further proof to the intent of the Founding Fathers literal meaning of Vattel’s definition of a natural born citizen being born of two citizens, and in the country itself, and wanting a natural born citizen having no other claim to his loyalty except that of the United States of America, in 1795 the Congress amended the Naturalization Act of 1790. The Naturalization Act of 1795, which was also signed by George Washington, recognized Blackstone’s commentaries on English Common Law, making children born overseas in the lands under British rule, British Subjects. Even if their parents were American. This act removed the words natural born from children born overseas of American parents, so that no other potentate could lay claim to this person, and thus establish “a presence of influence” in the Executive Branch. It was the intent of our Founding Fathers to “naturalize at birth” these children, but not give them the status “natural born citizens.” Also in this act of 1795, we see the importance of complete allegiance to the United States for all people naturalized, as this is the first appearance of the oath of allegiance “to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whereof such alien may at that time be a citizen or subject.” This oath is still in effect today.

    If it was not Blackstone who they relied on for defining the term Natural Born Citizen, then the only remaining source is from Vattel. Many of these detractors say we are reaching to extremes to use Vattel, as the source of a Natural Born Citizen clause. Some of there arguments are that the Law of Nations is a obscure mention to an idea, found in Article I, Section 8. What they fail to mention that this phrase is capitalized, if it was an inference to a general idea, it would not have been capitalized. School children know well the rules of capitalization, and the use of the capitalized Law of Nations would indeed make it uses consistent with a title of a publication. Let us take this and consider if indeed Vattel was a source of inspiration for the Founding Fathers and the Framers of our Constitution. The question we need to understand is were the founding fathers truly influenced by Vattel, or not.

    The answer to this lies with none other than Thomas Jefferson, who penned Virginia’s Citizenship statue in 1779, “Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.” As can be seen Jefferson is equating citizenship of the child to that of the parents, and not the land.

    For further proof on the question of Vattel’s influence we only need to look at Benjamin Franklin. In 1775, he observed, the importance of the Law of Nations, on the Founding Fathers and he then ordered 3 copies of the latest editions. The Library Company of Philadelphia which holds one of the three copies, lists the 1775 reference to this book, as “Le droit des gens,” from the publishing house of Chez E. van Harrevelt in Amsterdam, Holland, with a personal note to Franklin from the editor of this edition, C.G.F. Dumas. The fact that this particular volume that Franklin ordered is in French is significant, for at that time French was considered by the “family of nations” to be the diplomatic language, and the 1775 edition was considered the most exact reference of Vattel’s Law of Nations.

    There is no doubt that the Founding Fathers did not exclusively use the English translation, but relied upon the French original. On December 9th of 1775, Franklin wrote to Vattel’s editor, C.G.F. Dumas, “ I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting. Accordingly, that copy which I kept has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.”

    Samuel Adams in 1772 wrote, “Vattel tells us plainly and without hesitation, that `the supreme legislative cannot change the constitution” Then in 1773 during a debate with the Colonial Governor of Massachusetts, John Adams quoted Vattel that the parliament does not have the power to change the constitution. John Adams as so taken by the clear logic of Vattel that he wrote in his diary, “The Idea of M. de Vattel indeed, scowling and frowning, haunted me.” These arguments were what inspired the clause that dictates how the Constitution is amended. The Framers left no doubt as to who had the right to amend the constitution, the Nation, (that is the individual States and the people) or Legislature (which is the federal government.)

    In the Federalist Papers number 78, Alexander Hamilton also echoed Vattel, and both of the Adams, when he wrote, “fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness.” Then in 1784 Hamilton arguing for the defense in the case of Rutgers v. Waddington extensively used Vattel, quoting prolifically from the Law of Nations. The Judge James Duane in his ruling described the importance of the new republic abiding by the Law of Nations, and explained that the standard for the court would be Vattel. He ruled that the Statues passed under the color of English Common Law, must be interpreted from the standpoint of its consistency with the law of nations. This concept of Vattel lead to the creation of the Judiciary branch of our government to insure that Congress could never legislate away the provisions of the Constitution.

    In 1794, then President Washington was faced with the first threat to his Neutrality Proclamation of that same year by the Ambassador of France, Citizen Edmond-Charles Genêt to honor their treaty and support France’s wars with England and Spain. In a very rare agreement both Jefferson and Hamilton using Vattel’s Law of Nations they were able to give Washington the international legitimacy not to commit the United States to war in 1793. Genêt wrote to Washington, “you bring forward aphorisms of Vattel, to justify or excuse infractions committed on positive treaties.”

    At this point there can be little doubt that the Framers of our Constitution considered both Blackstone and Vattel, and they choose Vattel over Blackstone. The Founding Fathers placed into Constitutional concept that the loyalty of a Natural Born Citizen is a loyalty can never be claimed by any foreign political power. The only political power that can exclusively claim the loyalty of a natural born citizen is that power that governs of his birth. Vattel by including the parents and place removes all doubt as to where the loyalties of the natural born citizen ought to lie, as Vattel’s definition removes all claims of another foreign power by blood or by soil, and is the only definition that is in accord with Jay’s letter to Washington. [1].

    Like

  32. ICA
    06/06/2011 at 10:39 AM

    foxviewer1: “Getting back to the birth certificate. There are no problems with it. The director of health of stated in writing that she had seen it being copied and that the copy is the same as the original.”

    Right, no problems with it. That statement alone is indicative of one who is blinded to reality, and facts. That’s why there are now people who were not previously ‘Birthers’ that now are (myself included). The release of this ‘birth certificate’ has opened up a whole new can of worms, and will in the end only backfire on Obama. The DOH vouched for what they gave to the White House, not what the White House gave to the public.

    foxviewer1: “The original birth certificate IS partially handwritten and partially type. All the names and signatures are written in, duh.”

    Do you honestly believe that an official — someone intelligent enough to get themselves elected to office — would confuse a few required signatures with the entirety of the document?

    foxviewer1: “The answer to this is very simple. There was indeed nothing on file at the time. The official who wrote it asked another official to check. The other official did check, and the result of the check was that he determined that Obama had been born in Hawaii, and the files STATE that the official determined that Obama had been born in Hawaii.”

    So you admit then that the government made a mistake by having nothing on file. Why was nothing on file? Why did they lack this documentation? And what did they see that allowed them to conclude that he was likely born in Hawaii? The files do not state how the office determined Obama was born in Hawaii.

    foxviewer1: “As to whether the birth certificate that they saw was hand-written or typed–who cares? It was a birth certificate sufficient to convince them.”

    Who cares? Millions of people. In a Gallup Poll conducted after the release of the ‘birth certificate’, only 47% believed that Obama was ‘definitely’ born in Hawaii. A full 33% have their doubts. Extrapolate using 350 million Americans, and that’s well over 100 million doubters. So if it was the birth certificate that they saw, let’s see it.

    foxviewer1: “As I commented earlier, Obama has not sealed any records. The executive order you referred to is limited to federal presidential papers, and does not apply to birth certificates or college records or passports–all of which are simply private, and none of which have been shown by other presidents or presidential candidates.”

    Yes, he has. Why has no one been able to get any of those records made public then, including any records that would answer why Obama has a Connecticut Social Insurance Number when there are no records of him ever living in Connecticut? [1]. What is he hiding that he does not want the world to know?

    Like

  1. 06/04/2011 at 4:06 AM
  2. 03/22/2014 at 5:04 AM
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: