Before It's News | People Powered News

Thursday, April 29, 2010

New investigation into Obama background spells trouble ahead -Thanks hungry4food
from The Betrayal by David-Crockett published

A brand new, in-depth investigation into the background of Barack Obama may spell big trouble ahead regarding the issue of Presidential eligibility.

The investigation was conducted by Northeast Intelligence Network–a team of experienced, professional private investigators whose services have been utilized by Fortune-500 companies. The director, Douglas J. Hagmann, is a 23-year veteran in high-level investigations and is a member of the International Counter-Terrorism Officers Association.

Hagmann’s investigation into the background and Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama to serve as President of the United States is extensive and thorough. His conclusions are stunning.

For example, neither of Obama’s parents were citizens of the United States at the time of his birth. Therefore, Obama would have to have been born on U.S. soil in order to qualify as a ‘natural born citizen’ according to the qualifications specified in the Constitution.

But Hagmann’s investigation reveals that, contrary to the notion of those who point to a short-form birth certificate in Hawaii, and 2 birth announcements in Hawaiian newspapers, neither of these factors proves anything at all about Obama’s status or citizenship:

the Certification of Live Birth is consistently cited by individuals, the media and others to prove the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA. Nonetheless, even an authenticated and genuine Certification of Live Birth is legally insufficient for the purpose of proving eligibility, as it merely represents that OBAMA’s birth record is on file in the state of Hawaii. It falls short of providing the information necessary to determine constitutional eligibility in at least two areas: it does not offer any information regarding who supplied the information, nor does it confirm the authenticity of the information provided. Again, it merely indicates that the information is “on file.”

In other words, the ‘certification of live birth’ as touted by Obama apologists and the mainstream media as ‘proof’ Obama meets the eligibility requirements of the Constitution actually proves nothing.

In addition, Hagmann disputes the notion that birth announcements in local Hawaiian newspapers provide proof:

Many who argue that Barack Hussein OBAMA II was born in Hawaii not only point to the COLB as direct evidence of eligibility, but they also point to two separate birth announcements that appear in the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser and the Star-Bulletin in 1961. Those doing so either fail to understand the legal definition of a natural born citizen as it applies to the eligibility factor, or are guilty of intentionally misdirecting the core issue. A birth announcement is simply that – a public announcement that a baby was born. The birth announcements do not provide any information about the child’s citizenship, cannot be authenticated, and hold no weight of evidence to support either side of the eligibility argument.

However, the key information in Hagmann’s report that casts doubts upon Obama’s eligibility is the fact that the very organizations that published the short-form certificate of live birth and the 2 birth announcements in newspapers have direct connections with Barack Obama.

The DailyKos is the primary suspect and the first entity to publish ‘proof’ of a birth certificate. The DailyKos is an ultra-Leftwing hate-group that not only is ‘in the tank’ for Obama but smears and seeks to destroy those who oppose extremist, Leftwing initiatives in politics.

‘Fight the Smears,’ which also pointed to these 2 erroneous pieces of ‘evidence,’ is owned by ‘Organizing for America,’ which was originally named ‘Obama for America.’ This speaks for itself.

And finally, there is the much-hallowed ‘’–supposedly an independent, non-partisan clearinghouse that separates truth from fiction in the media and on the Internet. Hagmann’s investigation reveals that Factcheck is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, which receives its primary funding from the Annenberg Foundation.

Barack Obama was a founding member, chairman, and past President of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was also funded by the Annenberg Foundation. Thus, the supposed ‘neutrality’ of can safely be called into question.

The bottom line is that so far absolutely no positive proof has been provided that establishes that Barack Obama was born on American soil.

Why is this important? An individual who would spend millions of dollars hiding his background and pertinent documents from the public, and who would make false statements about about his history, cannot be trusted to tell the American people the truth about what his policy initiatives are intended to do regarding the ‘fundamental change’ of America.
Obama Confirmed Ineligible for Office?
from The Betrayal by David-Crockett


Were ANY of the Founding Fathers “natural born citizens” of the United States?

No… they were not. Not even one of the Founding Fathers was a “natural born citizen” of the United States of America, even though some of them had indeed been (native) born on what would become U.S. soil.

None of them were “natural born citizens” because all of the Founding Fathers were born prior to the existence of the United States of America. No one could be the “natural born citizen” of a nation that did not yet exist.

America declared its independent status as a sovereign nation on July 4, 1776, breaking away from England and British rule. But the United States of America was not formed until September of 1787, with the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. The Founders had no choice but to exempt themselves from Article II—Section I—Clause V of the Constitution they wrote and ratified. But there would be no other exemptions or exceptions from that moment forward.
So, how could any of them become President of the United States?

The Founders made this possible with this portion of Article II—Section I—Clause V; - “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution;”

They included a grandfather section in the clause pertaining to constitutional qualifications for the office of President, - A ONE-TIME exemption from the “natural born citizen” requirement for president.

They clearly separate themselves “citizens” from others who had to be “natural born citizens” in order to hold the office of president. Citizens, who were not “citizens” at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, would forever after need to be “natural born citizens” to reside in the Oval Office.
Excluding citizens at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, who shall be eligible for the office of president?

“No person except a natural born Citizen”

We know why they had no choice but to exempt themselves, but why did they exempt only themselves? What was so important about “natural born citizen” status that they made it possible for only a “natural born citizen” to hold the office of president after the adoption of the constitution?
What did the Founders mean by the term “natural born citizen?”

As with all written laws or contracts, they are a collection of carefully chosen written words of known specific meaning or definition. Any time you study documents, you must use definitions of words as they existed at the time the document was written, as words occasionally change definition over time. In the case of a document as important as the U.S. Constitution, it is vital that we have the proper meaning or definition of those words at the time of the writing and ratification of the document, in order to properly interpret the document.

I am using Webster’s 1828 First Edition Dictionary to define the written words, as it is the closest I have access to for the era 1776-1787.

The word BORN is defined by this dictionary as—“To be born, is to be produced or brought into life”

This word is simple enough and few people want to debate what the word means.

The word Citizen is defined by the 1828 Dictionary as—“The native of a city, or an inhabitant who enjoys the freedom and privileges of the city in which he resides; the freeman of a city, as distinguished from a foreigner, or one not entitled to its franchises.”

This word is also widely accepted and seldom debated. However, ONLY as it relates to the current resident of the White House, Barack Hussein Obama, there seems to be great confusion over the meaning of the word “natural,” as it relates to whether or not Barack Hussein Obama is constitutionally eligible to be president of the United States.

Yet the word NATURAL is no more complicated than the words born or citizen.

Clearly, due to the Founders grandfather clause, any “citizen” could hold the office of president at the time of the adoption of the constitution. But after that, “No person except a natural born Citizen” could hold the office of president, or vice president for that matter.

The word NATURAL is defined as follows, in the 1828 Webster’s dictionary—“Pertaining to nature; produced or effected by nature, or by the laws of growth, formation or motion impressed on bodies or beings by divine power. Thus we speak of the natural growth of animals or plants; the natural motion of a gravitating body; natural strength or disposition; the natural heat of the body; natural color; natural beauty. In this sense, natural is opposed to artificial or acquired.”

Natural (Pertaining to nature - In this sense, natural is opposed to artificial or acquired)

Born (To be born, is to be produced or brought into life)

Citizen (The native of a city, or an inhabitant who enjoys the freedom and privileges of the city in which he resides)

As these were likely the actual definitions in play at the time these words were drafted into the U.S. Constitution, this is most likely exactly what the Founding Fathers meant by these words.

In case you have the urge to challenge the 1828 definition of “natural,” the current definition of “natural” is essentially the same—“existing in or formed by nature (as opposed to artificial)”

As a quick aside, for those having trouble with Obama’s alleged birth place, it is only the term “NATIVE” which refers to place of birth.

Native—“Conferred by birth; as native rights and privilege - Pertaining to the place of birth; as native soil; native country; native graves - One born in any place is said to be a native of that place, whether country, city or town.”
Is Barack Hussein Obama a “Natural Born Citizen” of the United States?

Although NO authenticated evidence has been offered to support the claim, those who claim that Obama was born in Hawaii would be claiming only that Obama is a “native born citizen” of the United States. As “native born citizen” is NOT the requirement for president in the Constitution, this is an argument of no real consequence.

Being born in Hawaii would make Obama a “native born citizen,” but not necessarily a “natural born citizen” of the United States.

Even if we accept the notion that Obama was “native born” to Hawaii, which was a U.S. state at the time of Obama’s alleged birth in August 1961, we would only be accepting the notion that Obama is a “native born” citizen, not a “natural born citizen.”

If Article II—Section I said - “No person except a native born Citizen” shall hold the office of president, an authentic birth certificate from Hawaii would indeed solve the problem, although no such birth certificate has ever been offered by Obama. This terminology would have qualified some of the Founders as well, without the need for a grandfathered exemption.

However, “No person except a natural born Citizen” shall be eligible for the office of president.

As a result, a Hawaiian birth certificate would not be enough to qualify Barack Hussein Obama, II - as eligible for the office he currently holds. Something else would be required…something more.

Obama supporters shouldn’t feel unfairly singled out however, as without the grandfather clause, no Founding Father could have held the office of president either, and they were all white men. In fact, all white men would have to meet the exact same requirements as Obama today. Article II—Section I mentions nothing about color or race.
What is required to be a “natural born citizen?”

In a word, nature… as in, natural law, or as the 1828 Webster’s dictionary puts it—“Pertaining to nature; produced or effected by nature, or by the laws of growth, formation or motion impressed on bodies or beings by divine power.”

WOW!—“impressed on bodies or beings by divine power.”—“produced or effected by nature, or by the laws of growth”

In terms of “nature’s effect” on human beings, what we know is the reproductive system and time honored natural laws pertaining to “birthrights.”

Webster’s 1828 definition establishes birthright as—“Any right or privilege, to which a person is entitled by birth, such as an estate descendible by law to an heir, or civil liberty under a free constitution.”

Such as, a child inherits his/her father’s name automatically at birth, as well as heir to his fortune and his citizenship.

No man-made laws are needed. In every civilized nation on earth, the “natural born child” automatically inherits their father’s name and all other related birthrights upon birth, with no statute required.

If Barack Hussein Obama’s father had been a legal citizen of the U.S. at the time of Barack II birth, Barack II would enjoy not only his father’s name, but his citizenship in the United States as well, and no man-made law could block his birthright to status as a “natural born citizen” of the USA.

However, Obama’s father was at no time a citizen of the USA. He was at all known times in his life, a citizen of Kenya, which at the time was still under British rule.

Barack Hussein Obama II father was a legal citizen of Kenya. As the “natural born” son of Barack Hussein Obama I, Barack Obama II is the “natural born citizen” of Kenya, which is why his family, friends and the press referred to him as “Kenyan Born” all the way up until he decided to run for the office of president.

From that moment forward, Obama, his friends and the press has denied that he was a “natural born citizen” of Kenya, and claimed that he was a “natural born citizen” of Hawaii.

But here’s the problem—Even if Obama was born in Hawaii, a “native born” citizen of the United States (which has yet to be proven), he was still the “natural born citizen” of his father, and Kenya.

This would have made Barack Obama II a “dual citizen” of both the USA and Kenya.

And this is why the Natural Born Citizen clause exists in the U.S. Constitution.

Barack Hussein Obama is the poster-child for why the Founding Father’s placed Article II—Section I—Clause V in the U.S. Constitution.

Dual citizenship means dual or divided national loyalties. That’s why the qualification for the highest office in the land is “natural born citizen.” An individual with NO reason for dual or divided national loyalties…

It is on the basis of this research and further research into the history of the term “natural born citizen”—that I wrote The Bottom Line on Natural Born Citizen and make the claim that DC Knows that Obama is Ineligible for Office.

American citizens had better wake up and take action fast, as there is little time left to right their ship!

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

An investigative report detailing the Obama eligibility controversy
from The Betrayal by David-Crockett

An investigative report detailing the Obama eligibility controversy
NorthEast Intelligence Network

By Douglas J. Hagmann, Director

27 April 2010: I cannot think of any other subject in recent American history that has been so mired in controversy, so factually misrepresented, mischaracterized and so misunderstood than the matter of the eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA II to hold the office of President of the United States. Despite its importance, the topic has been summarily dismissed as fodder for conspiracy theorists by many, while others insist that the question of OBAMA’s citizenship has been “asked and answered.” But has it really been answered, and if not, why not?

In consideration of the controversy that continues to plague Barack Hussein OBAMA over his citizenship status and his well documented sustained pattern of refusal to provide authenticated documentation of his birth records and numerous other pertinent records, I’ve conducted an in-depth investigation into the matter in an effort to separate fact from fiction, myth from reality. My approach was the same I’ve used as an investigator over the last 25 years on behalf of Fortune 100 companies in their selection of corporate executives, conducting due diligence background investigations. In this case, however, I was not afforded direct and unfettered access to the “applicant’s”, or in this case, OBAMA’s original records. Nonetheless, I conducted inquiries and a lengthy investigation researching the information directly or indirectly disclosed by OBAMA, as well as collections of documents, court records, official federal and state documents, verbal statements, utterances and other documents determined to be of authentic provenance.

At issue is whether Barack Hussein OBAMA or any of his representatives have furnished sufficient documentation to prove his eligibility for the office of President of the United States under Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution that states:

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

Presently, OBAMA occupies the White House as the Chief Executive Officer of the United States of America. As president, he is the commander-in-chief of our armed forces and ultimately responsible for the security of the United States. Any person of reasonable sensibilities would logically believe that his eligibility status has long been established by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) or those in positions of oversight for such matters. But has it?

In order to be as comprehensive as possible, my investigative findings include important background information into the legal definition of a “natural born citizen” as applicable to Article II of the U.S. Constitution. This background information is provided to clear up many common misconceptions about the eligibility controversy, and to explain why so many people are confused and easily mislead over this issue. After thoroughly investigating this matter, I have found demonstrable evidence that this confusion is a deliberate and highly effective tactic used to divert attention from a constitutional issue and thus, the rule of law, to the detriment of American citizens.

This report will also provide insight into the reasons for the largely ignored yet unprecedented legal fight by Barack Hussein OBAMA II, his representatives and assigns, against any release of the authenticated copy of his long form birth certificate and a multitude of other relevant historical documents.

Natural Born Citizen Qualification: The Facts

Based on extensive research, there are two separate but equally relevant legal issues that involve the specific eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA II to legally serve as President of the United States. First is the U.S. Constitution which was adopted into law on 17 September 1787. As noted by Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution, an individual born after 1787 cannot legally or legitimately serve as U.S. President unless that person is a “natural born citizen” of the United States.

The second issue is the precise definition of a “natural born citizen.” The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, adopted on 9 July 1868, furnishes a rather broad definition of who qualifies as a “natural born citizen.” Specifically, who qualifies as a natural born citizen legally qualified to hold the office of President of the United States under Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution lies at the core of the eligibility argument. For the sake of clarity in advance of potential ancillary arguments, it is noted here that the Twelfth-Amendment to the U.S. Constitution mandates that Vice-Presidents possess the same qualifications as Presidents.

Obviously, there is no legitimate controversy over the eligibility status of Barack Hussein OBAMA in terms of his age and length of residency within the U.S. Despite popular belief by many to the contrary, there is, however, an unresolved issue over his status as “a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States.”

While many constitutional scholars hold different beliefs over the intent of the natural born citizen qualifier, I submit that an extraordinarily prescient illustration of logic behind this qualification can be found in a brief letter from John JAY, a founding father of the United States and the first chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court to George WASHINGTON dated 25 July 1787:


Dear Sir,

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.

I remain, dear sir,

Your faithful friend and servant,

John Jay.


A study of the Federalist Papers and the writings of our founding fathers clearly indicate a concern for the security of the United States stemming from “threats from within,” or to prevent foreign enemies from becoming commander-in-chief. Given the nature and various enemies we currently face, the brief but ominous note to George WASHINGTON would certainly appear as relevant today, if not more so, as it was over 200 years ago.

Three years after that note was written, Congress affirmed in 1790 that a person born abroad whose parents are both citizens of the U.S. is, in fact, a U.S. citizen. In the years that followed, there have been many legal arguments to further define a natural born citizen. Based on extensive research, it would appear that the “next best” definition originates from an 1874 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874). The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that if an individual is born in the United States and both parents are U.S. citizens at the time of birth, that individual is, in fact, a natural born citizen. That same Supreme Court decision also addressed the issue of a person born in the United States where one of the parents is not a U.S. citizen at the time of the birth of the child. The ruling noted that in such a case, the child’s natural born citizenship status is “in doubt.”

In any event, subsequent rulings by Congress and enacted by federal statute affirm that children born abroad by parents who are both U.S. citizens are not only U.S. citizens themselves, but are recognized as “natural born citizens.” On the other hand, individuals born in the United States or elsewhere by one or more parents who are not U.S. citizens are not likely to be eligible to hold the office of President of the United States absent of federal statute affirming their eligibility. Therein lays the current situation of Barack Hussein OBAMA II and the need to establish his citizenship status through authenticated documents.

Presidential eligibility; historical & current oddities

Since the U.S. Constitution was adopted into law, every elected U.S. president who was born after 1787 was born in the United States of parents who were both U.S. citizens except two: Chester Alan ARTHUR and Barack Hussein OBAMA II. It is interesting to note that when Chester Alan ARTHUR was born, his father, William ARTHUR was a British subject and not a U.S. citizen. There is ample authenticated historical evidence to substantiate that ARTHUR deliberately and publicly misrepresented his family lineage during his campaign and following his election in 1880 as the 21st President, took steps to destroy evidence, including family and birth records.

Barack Hussein OBAMA II has publicly admitted that his father was a Kenyan native and a British citizen who never became a U.S. citizen. Based on that admission and further verification of his father’s nationality, OBAMA’s status as a natural born citizen and thus, his eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States is questionable at best, at least according to the aforementioned Supreme Court ruling of Minor v. Happersett. This issue becomes more prescient and ominously nefarious when one investigates the overt and covert behavior of OBAMA as a candidate, his actions following his election, the duplicity of the media, members of the U.S. Congress, the Federal Elections Commission and other factors by those who appear to be working individually or in concert to purposely misdirect the core Constitutional argument.

It is obvious that not all presidential candidates are treated equally in terms of their eligibility, as illustrated during the 2008 election. During the 2008 campaign, a lawsuit was filed petitioning the removal of Presidential candidate John McCAIN from the ballot. Ironically, the suit stemmed from the questions over McCAIN’s constitutional eligibility as his natural-born status was in doubt. To put to rest any doubt, McCAIN responded by providing an authenticated copy of his long form birth certificate to the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) and Congress. Despite the early rumblings of controversy over OBAMA’s origins, OBAMA did not.

Although McCain provided his long form birth certificate and took proactive measures to ensure his eligibility to hold office, many political and media pundits remained unsatisfied. Before the term “birther” became synonymous with racist conspiracy theorist, an article published on 28 February, 2008 in The New York Times titled McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out questioned McCAIN’s eligibility.

On that same day, Senator Claire McCASKILL, a Missouri democrat introduced a bill titled Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act. Oddly, the bill was co-sponsored by both Senators Barack Hussein OBAMA II and Hillary Rodham CLINTON, both who were running against McCAIN at the time the bill was introduced. Despite the specificity of its title, the bill (SB 2678) was an attempt to change the legal definition of a natural born citizen as referenced by Article II, Section I, clause V of the U.S. Constitution, a move that by default, would arguably and preemptively take away any constitutional challenges against the eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA II.

Although the bill failed to progress in the Senate, the same lawmakers introduced a non-binding resolution (Senate Resolution 511) on 10 April 2008 to again ostensibly recognize McCAIN as a “natural born citizen,” the resolution contained broad language that could be applied to OBAMA.

The controversy surrounding the eligibility of John McCAIN to hold office continued, at least in the media. On 11 July 2008, an article was published in The New York Times under the title A Hint of New Life to a McCain Birth Issue. The article cited a law professor from the University of Arizona who concluded, in a detailed analysis “that neither Mr. McCain’s birth in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone nor the fact that his parents were American citizens is enough to satisfy the constitutional requirement that the president must be a “natural-born citizen.” The law professor cited in that article, Gabriel J. Chin, published a sixty-two page discussion paper in August 2008 titled Why Senator John McCain Cannot be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship (Arizona Legal Studies, Discussion Paper 08-14).

The status of Barack Hussein OBAMA, however, remained unquestioned by the majority of academia.

Arguments over importance & relevance: “Birthers” are born

Like the layers of an onion, one must peel back the layers of hyperbole, political agendas, accusations of racism, and other types of detractions and distractions to arrive at the very core of the argument, which is simply this: Is Barack Hussein OBAMA in fact legally eligible, under the United States Constitution, to serve as President of the United States?

There are many who claim that the issue of Obama’s eligibility is unimportant and irrelevant, or an unnecessary distraction to the “real” crises facing America, including but not limited to OBAMA’s policies and actions as President. It is an interesting dichotomy that some of the most vocal proponents of the first amendment are the same who appear to disregard the fourteenth amendment, a practice especially virulent among those in the media. There are also those self-proclaimed conservative media pundits who have the collective audience of millions of Americans who flatly refuse to discuss, let alone demand answers to a legitimate legal question as defined by the U.S. Constitution.

Others claim the argument is moot, as the President was duly elected by the will of the people. Those people are in need of a history lesson as that argument is technically flawed at the most fundamental level. Others assert that questioning the eligibility issue is rooted in racism and bigotry, at which point the rule of law is ultimately lost in a flurry of deliberate distractions presented in the form of incendiary accusations.

Perhaps the most calculated and methodical approach in use today to dissuade people from addressing this issue is the labeling of anyone who believes that American citizens deserve to know whether Barack Hussein OBAMA meets the eligibility requirements as a “birther.” The negative connotations of this label are vast and incisive, and the evolution of this term has grown to include ancillary questions of OBAMA’s past.

The popular but erroneous perception is that “birthers,” often lumped together with “9/11 truthers” and others who have legitimate questions and concerns about important issues either live in a world where conspiracies dominate their thoughts, or are simply branded as kooks seeking answers to non-existent questions. The fact is that there are indeed legitimate unanswered questions about the events of 9/11 as there are legitimate unanswered questions about the background and overall eligibility of OBAMA. Individuals asking rational, fact based questions about either subject are intentionally combined with others whose questions are obviously well beyond the realm of reason.

In particular, it is not only the absence of authenticated evidence regarding OBAMA’s citizenship status at birth that cause rational people to question his eligibility status under Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, but the manner in which OBAMA and those in positions of government oversight have responded to legitimate inquiries. It is also how some members of the media have chosen to report on this issue, misreport or otherwise distort the issue, or not report on it at all.

Whatever arguments are used to understate or even mock the importance of this matter, it cannot be denied that the rule of law is being ignored and as a result, the Constitution of the United States is being trampled. If the fourteenth amendment is permitted to be exploited, ignored or violated, it might not be long before other amendments, along with the entire Constitution, become nothing more than a footnote in American history. As such, questions surrounding this matter must be taken seriously.

The Obama eligibility issue: has it already been answered?

No. It has been a common tactic to refute questions about OBAMA’s eligibility by citing the Internet publication of a Certification of Live Birth (COLB), also known as a “short form birth certificate” purportedly issued by the state of Hawaii. The controversial document was originally posted on the Internet at, a political website on or about 12 June 2008 as questions about OBAMA’s place of birth and eligibility status began to become a popular Internet topic. As there was no certification of authenticity that accompanied the alleged document, its provenance could not be established.

Subsequent to the document being posted on the aforementioned website, the “Fight the Smears” website reproduced the document here. While many believe “Fight the Smears” website is an independent organization dedicated to separating fact from fiction, it is actually owned and operated by “Organizing for America,” the successor organization to “Obama for America.” Clearly, it is far from independent.

Yet another website purported to be an independent arbiter of truth is “,” which claims that the eligibility status of OBAMA has long been satisfied. Like the previous site, it is important to understand who owns or operates the site in order to assess the reliability of the site. The Fact Check website is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. It receives its primary funding from the Annenberg Foundation. It is relevant to note that Barack Hussein OBAMA II was a founding member, chairman, and past president of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was also funded by the Annenberg Foundation. Accordingly, it is reasonable to challenge the neutrality of the information provided by that site.

Since then, the image, including variations of the image, have appeared on the Internet to “prove” that Barack Hussein OBAMA meets the eligibility requirements under Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution.

Since its original posting, numerous individuals and websites have sought to disprove the authenticity of the document, which was posted as an image in JPEG format, through analysis of the image or by other means (e.g. sequencing of certificate numbers, absence of state seal, etc.). Although there appears to be sufficient evidence suggesting the document is not a valid certificate and has been falsely created or the image has been deliberately altered, limiting discussion at this time to the merits of the COLB detracts from a much larger issue: OBAMA’s massive and unprecedented campaign to keep sealed his actual birth certificate (and other relevant records) from public view.

This is not to say that the publication of the COLB document is unimportant. In fact, quite the opposite is true if the matter of legal eligibility is ever properly and thoroughly investigated by a legitimate court of inquiry within the United States. As agents, representatives or the assigns of Barack Hussein OBAMA have publicly asserted that the question of eligibility has been officially answered by the publication of the COLB as listed on officially sanctioned web sites, and it is ultimately proven that the document is deliberately deceptive by any means, an inquiry into violations of the United States Crimes Code, 18 USC Section 1028 encompassing fraud and other related activity involving identification documents might apply.

Since the initial COLB was first published in June 2008, there have been at least two additional incarnations of the document, each containing revisions that bear additional information allegedly “supporting” its authenticity. Accordingly, the Certification of Live Birth is consistently cited by individuals, the media and others to prove the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA. Nonetheless, even an authenticated and genuine Certification of Live Birth is legally insufficient for the purpose of proving eligibility, as it merely represents that OBAMA’s birth record is on file in the state of Hawaii. It falls short of providing the information necessary to determine constitutional eligibility in at least two areas: it does not offer any information regarding who supplied the information, nor does it confirm the authenticity of the information provided. Again, it merely indicates that the information is “on file.”

Hawaii officials declare Obama eligible

Yet another deception levied against the American people is the assertion that the Hawaiian officials have confirmed Barack Hussein OBAMA’s “eligibility” through a statement issued on 27 July 2009 by Dr. Chiyome FUKINO, Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, which declared Obama Hawaiian-born and a “natural-born American citizen.” Those who claim that the 2009 press release by Dr. FUKINO must understand that FUKINO has absolutely no statutory authority to make such a statement. Accordingly and based on the rule of law, that statement cannot be considered as evidence or legal documentation either to support or deny OBAMA’s eligibility status.

Hawaii birth announcements: anecdotal evidence of eligibility

Many who argue that Barack Hussein OBAMA II was born in Hawaii not only point to the COLB as direct evidence of eligibility, but they also point to two separate birth announcements that appear in the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser and the Star-Bulletin in 1961. Those doing so either fail to understand the legal definition of a natural born citizen as it applies to the eligibility factor, or are guilty of intentionally misdirecting the core issue. A birth announcement is simply that – a public announcement that a baby was born. The birth announcements do not provide any information about the child’s citizenship, cannot be authenticated, and hold no weight of evidence to support either side of the eligibility argument.

Coming next: Legal Stonewalls & identifying the money & people behind the fight

This report is available for downloading in PDF format: Click here.
DC Knows that Obama is Ineligible for Office - Thanks Bulldog
from The Betrayal by David-Crockett
1 person liked this


Members from all three branches of the Federal government already know that Barack Hussein Obama is ineligible for the office of President. National leaders, to include members of the US Supreme Court, already know that Barack Hussein Obama is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States of America, and therefore, is ineligible for the office he currently holds.

What they don’t know is how long it will take for most Americans to figure it out, or what to do about it.

The diversionary search for an authentic birth certificate is ongoing and Obama has now spent in excess of $2 million in legal fees to keep that search

Eric Holder’s Department of Justice continues to deploy taxpayer funded attorneys around the country to file dismissals on behalf of Obama, denying all American citizens access to the courts as a peaceful remedy, which only fuels the fire of discontent and the questions about Obama persist.

Michelle Obama states that Kenya is Barack’s “home country.” She knows, after twenty years with Barack. The Ambassador or Kenya has confirmed the same His family friends all know it, and are in fact quite proud of the fact that Americans had no hesitation in electing a “black man from Kenya” as President of the United States.

The US Supreme Court knows what the constitutional condition of “natural born citizen” means. Even the most far left member of that court, Justice Ginsberg, is on record proclaiming that a “natural born citizen” is a birth child of TWO legal US citizens.

Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi knows that Barack Hussein Obama is not eligible for the office of president, which is why she refused to certify the following language when certifying Obama as the DNC candidate for president in 2008.

This is the normal language for certification of nomination for president and vice president, filed by the DNC only in the state of Hawaii…


This is the language filed by the DNC in the other 49 states, however…


Note that the language which certifies that Barack Hussein Obama meets all constitutional qualifications is missing in the DNC documents filed in 49 of the 50 states. The certification of constitutional qualification for the office of president was filed only in Hawaii. That text is missing in the DNC certification filings for all other states.

Whereas the RNC filed the exact same certification document, including the constitutional text for John McCain in all 50 states, Obama was technically certified in only one state, Hawaii. A mere inconvenient technicality, I’m sure…

The US Congress knows that Barack Hussein Obama is not constitutionally qualified for the office he holds. Although the congress passed a resolution proclaiming Senator John McCain a “natural born citizen” as the son of two US citizens, no such congressional resolution exists for Barack Hussein Obama.

The press knows that Obama is not a “natural born citizen,” having written on several occasions about the “Kenyan born” senator from Chicago. A number of citizens have already been arrested and jailed for asking these questions.

Over four-hundred law suits have been filed across the country asking the courts to force Obama to become the “transparent president” he promised to be, and all four-hundred are being dismissed before discovery, all on the basis that “no citizen has proper legal standing” to ask who and what their president really is…

Over a half-million citizens have now signed a petition demanding to see Obama’s birth records.

Numerous members of the US Military have refused deployment orders from Obama, on the basis that he refuses to evidence his constitutional qualifications to issue such orders. In most cases, the soldiers have simply been reassigned, so as to avoid any disciplinary action that could end in “defense discovery” which might finally force Obama to open up his files once and for all.

Now an eighteen year veteran flight surgeon and active Lt. Colonel faces court martial as he makes his demands for proof that Obama is constitutionally eligible to issue orders as Commander-in-Chief.
Obama’s entire domestic, foreign and national defense agenda has proven to be wholly anti-American

Obama’s entire domestic, foreign and national defense agenda has proven to be wholly anti-American on every possible level. Still, the answers concerning who and what Barack Hussein Obama Jr. really is remain elusive in the face of unprecedented efforts to ask the right questions.

No matter who asks, how they ask or where they ask, not one single individual in Washington DC or even state government seems willing to weigh in on the most important issue of our era. Who and what is the man sitting in the people’s White House?

How in the hell did we get an overtly anti-American resident of the people’s White House without so much as a simple birth certificate to prove who this person really is?

And why won’t a single elected representative of the people engage in the effort to force an answer to this question?

The answers to these and many more questions are likely very simple and equally chilling…
The Speaker of the House does not refuse to certify her candidate as “constitutionally qualified” in forty-nine of fifty states by accident

Nobody spends $2 million in legal fees to hide an authentic birth certificate. The Speaker of the House does not refuse to certify her candidate as “constitutionally qualified” in forty-nine of fifty states by accident. A press that knew he was the “first Kenyan born senator” didn’t forget that he was Kenyan born when he decided to run for president.

Most importantly, the people DO have a right (read - proper standing) to ask who and what their president really is, in any court, any time. And soldiers are court-martialed for refusing orders, unless those orders were issued by an illegitimate Commander-in-Chief.

DC knows what most Americans have yet to figure out…

Obama is NOT a natural born citizen no matter where he might have been born. Obama’s birth father was at no time an American citizen and on this basis alone, Obama cannot be a constitutionally qualified resident of the White House.

They know something else that the American people have yet to figure out…

The US Constitution no longer stands as the governing law of this land. Obama’s many unconstitutional policies, Czars, executive orders and statements provide the proof, and the fact that nobody in DC cares whether or not Obama is constitutionally qualified to be president of the United States should send a shiver down the spine of every red blooded American citizen, no matter their partisan agendas.

The people willing to ask the tough questions are deemed crackpots and conspiracy theorists, racists or bigots. But those tough questions should be obvious questions to all Americans and every president should have to answer those questions, no matter race, creed, color or party affiliation.

I fear that those questions will only be answered at the tip of pitch forks and torches one day. Sooner or later, the people will run out of patience with a system built to exclude them. When that day comes, I fear what methods will be employed and whether or not there will be a country left to save by then.

But sooner or later, one way or another, Obama will have to answer those questions. One day, the world will know who and what this man is and there will be a day of reckoning like no other in American history.

The longer it takes for that day to arrive, the more dangerous the situation will become. A man not even qualified to hold the office is using that office to destroy the greatest nation on earth. How much patience can the people be expected to display?

Obama is not eligible for the office he currently holds and everyone in a position to know - already know.

What they don’t know is how much longer they can keep it all a secret, or what will happen next.
We are the media!
from The Betrayal by David Crockett

The Post & Email

by Sharon Rondeau

We can break through the cloud that is hanging over America(Apr. 21, 2010) — A CBS report from yesterday demonstrates how willfully irresponsible the “mainstream” media has become. The writer of the story states that the White House “slammed former Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado Monday for his recent remarks suggesting President Obama was not born in the United States,” yet she gives no examples of that. The only remark she quoted, from White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, was, “I could probably fill the better part of my afternoons responding to the general lunacy of somebody like Tom Tancredo.” If that was all he said, that can hardly be called a “slam.”

Further, the writer, Stephanie Condon, provides no context or background as to why Tancredo might have made such a comment. Instead of providing a link to a story with the video of Michelle Obama stating that Kenya is her husband’s “home country,” quoting from the transcript, or even questioning how Tancredo arrived at that conclusion, she incorrectly stated that there is “overwhelming evidence he (Obama) was born in the United States — including his 1961 birth announcement, printed in two Hawaii newspapers.”

Two birth announcements for an unnamed child from 1961 are not exactly “overwhelming evidence” when the Minister of Lands and member of the Kenyan Parliament states that Obama was born in his country, as did the Kenyan ambassador.

The ludicrous position of writers such as Condon is becoming more evident by the day. In spite of their previous attempts to squelch all discussion about Obama’s background, they are admitting that the doubts about his birthplace and other details of his life have “steadily persisted” from the campaign through today. But they dare ask no questions, or seek information, and it has been up to blogs, e-newspapers like this one, and other online news sources to do the old-fashioned investigating which the media used to perform.

The media is getting desperate, and that’s because all of us are doing the job they used to do. This is one job that Americans are more than willing to do!

The irresponsibility, dereliction of duty and downright leftist agenda of the major media are the factors which installed Obama in the Oval Office, most likely in violation of the U.S. Constitution. While the sycophant writers working for CBS, the AP, NBC, MSNBC, Fox News and ABC are busy trying to do damage control as more and more people are learning that Obama has lied about his background and is probably constitutionally ineligible to serve, we are working to uncover the truth and expose the deception which has been perpetrated for many years, quantified by the ascension of the most anti-American, foreign, ineligible imposter this country has ever known.

If there weren’t something phony about Obama, then CBS and the AP wouldn’t be mentioning that there are rumors he was born in Kenya. They wouldn’t be accusing Tancredo and others of making “incendiary remarks” but failing to quote them. Their shameless shilling for Obama during the campaign now has them in a deep funk, as they can no longer ignore the “birther movement” and all of us who have been out there informing our neighbors.

There are many more of us than there are of them.

All of us have a circle of influence. If each day, we tell one new person about Obama’s highly questionable eligibility, we are doing our duty by informing our fellow citizens of the constitutional crisis we face. The sooner every adult in this country knows what we are up against, the sooner we will have the numbers to do something about it. We don’t have the luxury of remaining quiet because we think someone will argue with us or suggest we get a brain scan. Samuel Adams, George Washington, Patrick Henry, John Hancock and all of the other Founding Fathers didn’t care what someone thought when they talked about liberty or death and breaking away from England, which only 30% of the colonists at the time supported. They meant what they said, and they did something about it. They founded the greatest, freest nation on earth, and even though we are held hostage now by an illegally-installed dictator and his criminal cronies, we can do something about it.

So every time you meet a new person, say something. Every time you run into an old acquaintance, say something. Talk about the situation we’re in and what can be done about it. Recruit others to help us get the old America back, the free one, the one in which personal ambition and hard work could be combined to produce whatever future a person could envision. Not Obama’s America; our America.

We are the media. Let’s keep the pressure on, and eventually the dam will break. It has to. Because the truth will always emerge, sooner or later. And you can all be part of making that happen.

This national nightmare can be over if we all work hard to spread the word. That’s how they did it back in 1776. And we have many more ways to inform others than they did back then.

Critical mass is building.

We’re almost there.

Here comes the sun.
Health-care mandates could be ‘null and void’
from The Betrayal by David-Crockett

wnd logo
Citizens launch drive to put feds back in their constitutional place
By Drew Zahn
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

no noA group of Americans who believe the federal government overstepped its constitutional bounds in passing the recent health-care legislation is rallying allies to a bold and controversial initiative: state nullification of the federal law.

“Now that health-care reform has been signed into law, the question people ask most is, ‘What do we do about it?’” said Michael Boldin, founder of the Tenth Amendment Center, in a statement. “The status quo response includes lobbying Congress, marching on D.C., ‘voting the bums out,’ suing in federal court and more. But the last 100 years have proven that none of these really work, and government continues to grow year in and year out.”

Instead, the Center is reaching back into the history books to suggest states take up “nullification,” a controversial measure that would essentially involve states saying to the federal government, “Not in our borders, you don’t. That law has no effect here.”

The Center is partnering with to announce release of model nullification legislation for states, called the Federal Health Care Nullification Act, and a call for 100,000 Americans to join a state-by-state petition to prompt legislators into action.

Now you can join nearly 15,000 Americans and 100 members of Congress in declaring your independence from Obamacare by signing Rep. Michele Bachmann’s Declaration of Health Care Independence.

“Nullification will allow Americans to stop the overreaching federal government now, not years from now,” said Trevor Lyman of in a statement. “We can make our biggest waves in local politics. Our state governments understand the impact of a vocal and irate minority, and they simply need to hear from us.

“ and The Tenth Amendment Center’s Federal Health Care Nullification Act give our state legislators their marching orders,” he continued.

The question of whether nullification is a legal and permissible step, however, has been battled over since the ink was still wet on the U.S. Constitution.

The controversy stems largely from Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, which reads in part: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.”

Many scholars today point to the Article VI “Supremacy Clause” as evidence that federal laws (such as the health-care legislation) override state laws (such as any proposed nullification act).

But not so fast, say nullification advocates, pointing to a different interpretation offered by some of America’s Founding Fathers, based on the phrase in Article VI that suggests only federal laws made “in pursuance” of the Constitution are supreme.

Alexander Hamilton

In 1788, Alexander Hamilton wrote to the people of the state of New York in Federalist No. 33, arguing that the yet unratified Constitution limited the Supremacy Clause to only constitutional acts, and that federal laws that strayed outside those bounds deserved to be treated by “the smaller societies,” meaning states, as “usurpation.”

“It will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land,” he wrote (all italics in the original). “These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. … It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution.”

Ten years later, when faced with the unpopular Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison penned the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, respectively, which asserted that the Acts had infringed on powers reserved “solely and exclusively to the respective states” and were therefore “altogether void and of no force.”

In 1822, the General Court of Massachusetts blasted a federal embargo as “usurpation” and “oppression.”

“We tremble for the liberties of our country! We think it the duty of the present generation, to stand between the next and despotism,” the Court ruled. “The Committee are of opinion that the late act laying an embargo is unconstitutional, and void in divers of its provisions; not upon the narrow ground that the Constitution has expressly prohibited such acts, but upon the more broad and liberal ground that the People never gave a power to Congress to enact them.”

The Court’s solution was nullification, writing, “Whenever the national compact is violated, and the citizens of this State are oppressed by cruel and unauthorized laws, this Legislature is bound to interpose its power, and wrest from the oppressor its victim.”

All the talk of nullification, however, came to a head in 1832, when South Carolina passed the Ordinance of Nullification, declaring a pair of federal tariffs unconstitutional and void within the sovereign boundaries of South Carolina. The Ordinance, in turn, prompted Congress to pass a bill permitting the president to use military force if necessary against the state, a showdown that nearly began the Civil War decades early.

President Andrew Jackson then became one of history’s loudest voices against nullification, arguing that it was “incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed.”

Congress changed its tariff laws in 1832, and South Carolina, in turn, backed off its nullification, thus averting the crisis.

Nullification returns

Over the past five years, dozens of states have taken up laws or resolutions to reassert state’s rights against an ever-expanding federal government. And while none of these has been so bold as to use the word “nullification,” several measures, in effect, look much the same.

Maine, for example, led the nation in 2005 by passing a resolution in opposition to the Bush-era law establishing a REAL ID system. But in 2007, Maine also passed LD 1138, the Act To Prohibit Maine from Participating in a National Identification Card, an act that essentially nullifies the federal law.

According to the Tenth Amendment Center, 24 other states have since passed similar resolutions and laws resisting the REAL ID Act of 2005. Should the Act – enforcement of which has been delayed incessantly and resisted at the federal level – be put into full effect, America may have to resolve the controversy that has been brewing since at least 1788.

As WND has reported, six states now have taken a similar stand on gun laws. Earlier this month, Arizona declared that guns made and kept inside its borders essentially are free from federal application, registration and ownership regulations.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer issued a statement that her state’s new law is intended to give Washington the message that they should not try to “get between Arizonans and their constitutional rights.”

WND also reported earlier when Wyoming joined the states with self-declared exemptions from federal gun regulation, officials there taking the unusual step of actually including penalties for any agent of the U.S. who “enforces or attempts to enforce” federal gun rules on a “personal firearm.”

The costs could be up to two years in prison and $2,000 in fines for an offender.

But the bellwether likely is to be a lawsuit pending over the Montana law, which was the first to go into effect.

As WND reported, the action was filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Montana Shooting Sports Association in U.S. District Court in Missoula, Mont., to validate the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, which took effect Oct. 3, 2009.

Gary Marbut of the Montana Shooting Sports Association argues that the federal government was created by the states to serve the states and the people, and it is time for the states to begin drawing boundaries for the federal government and its agencies.

In demanding the dismissal of the case, the government claimed the authority to regulate even “intrastate” commerce if it chooses.

In an analysis by the Tenth Amendment Center, the gun laws were described as a nullification.

“Laws of the federal government are to be supreme in all matters pursuant to the delegated powers of U.S. Constitution. When D.C. enacts laws outside those powers, state laws trump. And, as Thomas Jefferson would say, when the federal government assumes powers not delegated to it, those acts are ‘unauthoritative, void, and of no force’ from the outset,” said the analysis.

Now, however, the Center is calling Americans to start calling a spade a spade and insist on nullification of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

“It’s time to remind the federal government that We the People are in charge and not the other way around,” said Boldin. “Following the Constitution every issue, every time, without exceptions or excuses requires us to resist federal overreach and keeping our health care decisions where the Founders assured us that they’d be and where they belong – close to home.”
Beyond Coincidence - Thanks Courage
from The Betrayal by David-Crockett

By Lynn M. Stuter

Let us examine what we already know about the eligibility of Also Known As (AKA) Obama. We know that he claims to have been the child of Ann Dunham Obama and Barack Hussein Obama (Sr), a British subject at the time of AKA’s birth. We only know what he claims as we have seen no proof.

We know that while AKA claims his birthplace as Hawaii, we don’t know that is really true because, while AKA admits that his birth certificate exists — that is, the one issued at or near the time of his birth — all that anyone has seen are pictures of a Certification of Live Birth (COLB) supposedly issued in 2007, printed on a form established in 2001 and printed with a laser printer. We only know what he claims as no one, of authority, has actually seen, handled, or inspected what AKA contends is his COLB.

The state of Hawaii, while issuing COLB’s in lieu of a certified copy of the actual birth document, has categorically refused to authenticate the document AKA claims is his authentic COLB. Likewise, the state of Hawaii has been unable/unwilling to produce any documents that would prove AKA actually requested a COLB, a prerequisite to obtaining a certified COLB.

We also know that the pictures that have turned up on the internet of the document AKA claims is his COLB have been photoshopped. We also know that pictures are not proof of the authenticity of a document; the only proof is in examination of the actual document which has not occurred.

We know that AKA claims he was a dual citizen at birth, of both U.S. and British citizenship which became Kenyan citizenship when Kenyan became independent of Great Britain. Of course, dual citizenship precludes his eligibility to the office of president of the United States under Article II, Section I, Clause 5, United States constitution, requiring he be “natural born”. This clause was used by the Founding Fathers in reference to Vattel’s Law of Nations, Part I, Chapter 19, Section 212, which states:

“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.”

This clause, of course, makes it clear that if Obama Sr is AKA’s father, that AKA was a British subject at birth, then a citizen of Kenya when Kenya became independent of Great Britai, following his father’s citizenship. This also comports with the British Nationality Act of 1948, Part II, Section 5; much of which was repealed in 1981 but in force in 1961.

The contention has been made that AKA is a U.S. citizen by virtue of his birth in Hawaii to an American mother. Beyond the fact that if Obama Sr is his father, AKA would have followed the citizenship of his father, we do not know that he was born in Hawaii because we do not know that the COLB is authentic and we do not know that he actually was born in Hawaii. He says he way, but AKA has told so many lies, can we believe this is anything other than another lie?

We do know that under Act 96, Laws of the Territory of Hawaii, Regular Session of 1911, Special Session of 1909 and the Organic Act, in effect from 1911 until repealed in 1972, foreign-born children could be birth registered in Hawaii. We also know that Obama’s supposed birth certificate number is out of sequence with babies born in the same time-frame; that his birth certificate number is after the birth certificate numbers of babies born after he was supposedly born. We also know that, if born in Hawaii, his name does not exist in the Hawaii birth index, in 1961, before or after.

All of this, of course, raises the specter of who registered his birth in Hawaii and where was he actually born. We know that no hospital in Hawaii has claimed title to his birth, not even the hospital where he now contends he was born, Kapi’olani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital. Only inspection of the actual birth document, the one that AKA has but refuses to provide for inspection, will reveal the facts.

Then there are the social security numbers that AKA has used; one issued in Connecticut and one issued in Michigan, neither a state he has ever lived in. These two social security numbers are tied to addresses where AKA is known to have lived in Chicago. True to nature, his mother also used social security numbers that were not hers, one belonging to a western Washington woman who is still living. We know that illegal aliens use social security numbers that are not theirs but that law-abiding American citizens don’t need to.

Added in is the matter of AKA’s adoption by Lolo Soetoro and his subsequent registration, on January 1, 1967, at the Fransiskus Assisi Primary School in Jakarta, Indonesia, as Barry Soetoro, Indonesian citizen of Muslim faith. We know that in the divorce papers of Ann Dunham Soetoro vs. Lolo Soetoro, Barack, then over the age of 18, no longer a minor, was listed as a dependent of Lolo Soetoro for the purposes of education. Since step-children are not the responsibility of a step-father, under divorce proceedings, this points to Barry Soetoro actually having been adopted by Lolo Soetoro, of his being an Indonesian citizen. That Barry was mentioned as a dependent of Lolo Soetoro for the purposes of education raises the specter that such was done so Barry Soetoro could receive aid as a foreign student to attend college or university in the United States. AKA’s Occidental College records have been sealed, making it impossible to ascertain whether he received aid as a foreign student while attending there. If he did, it is obvious that he was not an American citizen when he attended there.

Beyond this, there has been no proof presented that Barry Soetoro, if even able to do so, reclaimed American citizenship.

And there seems to be a large discrepancy between AKA’s Selective Service registration and support documents and other Selective Service registrations and support documents, also from Hawaii in the same time period. By all appearances, AKA’s selective service documents have been altered or forged bringing further into question when those documents were actually submitted, in 1980 or in 2008.

As an American, AKA would have been required to register with the Selective Service in 1980; as a non-resident student going to school in the United States, he would not have been required to register. Further, if an American in 1980, if he did not register for the Selective Service in 1980, such would preclude him from ever holding a public office.

The anomalies in his Selective Service registration indicate one of three things: 1) he was not a citizen in 1980; or 2) he was a citizen in 1980 but did not register; or 3) his Selective Service registration was forged in 2008 to make it appear he was an American in 1980.

Many have questioned what country issued the passport on which AKA traveled, in 1981, to Pakistan. In the spring of 2008, the passport files of AKA, Hillary Clinton and John McCain, held by the State Department, were breached. Two contractors were fire and a third disciplined. A key witness in this matter, cooperating with “federal investigators”, was found shot to death in his vehicle on April 19, 2008. The shooter has never been found.

Like his Occidental records, his Columbia University records have also been sealed. What we know is that no one, graduating the same year as AKA supposedly graduated from Columbia, can remember him, either in their class or in their classes; nor does he appear anywhere in the Columbia University year books. Reverend David Manning claims that the years AKA claims to have spent at Columbia were actually spent working for the CIA in Afghanistan. That Dr Manning has had his life threatened by “government types“, following his voicing of these claims, lends credence to his claims.

Equally so, AKA’s years at Harvard are sketchy with no information forthcoming and his records sealed. Even though he was supposedly the first “black” president of the Harvard Law Review, the articles required of him as president of that prestigious publication don’t seem to exist.

Then there is the claim that he was a Law Professor teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago. As it turns out, he was not a professor but a lecturer, big difference; that he was not well-liked by others who viewed his presence as politically connected.

Recently, more evidence has surfaced that brings into question AKA’s eligibility. A video has surfaced of a speech given by Michelle Obama on August 26, 2008 at the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender (LGBT) Delegate Luncheon during the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado. Michelle Obama’s speech was not “off the cuff.” Why this is important is because of what she said.

The speech, approximately sixteen minutes in length, can be listened to, in its entirety, here. Toward the end of her presentation, Michelle Obama made the following remark:

“He has also spoken out against the stigma surrounding HIV testing, which is still plaguing so many of our communities, which you all know … a lot of that is due to homophobia. Barack has led by example. When we took our trip to Africa and visited his home country in Kenya, we took a public HIV test … for the very point of showing folks in Kenya that there is nothing to be embarrassed about in getting tested.” (emphasis added)

This, of course, makes it very apparent that Michelle Obama knows where AKA was born, and that it wasn’t in Hawaii or even the United States. She has made similar remarks before. This lends credence to the claim of Obama’s paternal step-grandmother, Sarah, that he was born in Mombasa, Kenya; that she was present at his birth.

This also comports with the comments of the Kenyan Ambassador to the United States, Peter Ogego, made to the hosts of the WRIF Mike in the Morning show out of Detroit, Michigan, on November 21, 2008, that AKA was born in Kenya. That conversation was recorded and can be listened to here. (Note: the original website for the Mike in the Morning show and audio transcripts no longer exists.)

One can understand one or two anomalies or coincidences. Coupled with AKA’s absolute refusal to produce his actual birth document, all of these anomalies are just a little too far beyond coincidence.

The Senators and Representatives have a fiduciary responsibility to investigate what American citizens have been turning up since November 4, 2008, in spite of AKA’s (and the lamestream media’s) attempt to squelch all questions concerning his eligibility; and the Senators and Representatives have a fiduciary responsibility to the people of the United States to remove AKA.

Richard Nixon was forced to resign under circumstances far less serious than being ineligible to the office of president, of being an illegitimate usurper in the Oval Office, occupying the White House.

What does this matter?

If the Constitution of the United States does not matter than neither does your freedom.

If the Constitution of the United States does not matter than neither does the rule of law.

But, if the Constitution of the United States does matter, than whether or not AKA is eligible to the office he holds also matters. If he is not eligible, then it is the duty of Congress to remove him. And if he is not eligible, all that he has done, since sworn into office on January 20, 2009 is null and void. And if he is not eligible, not only has he committed a crime but those who aided and abetted him have committed crimes against the American people.

Considering the AKA makes no bones that he is a Marxist, makes no bones about his intent to steal the freedom of the American people, if the Congress refuses to act, the American people are duty-bound to do so.

© 2010 Lynn M Stuter – All Rights Reserved♠
It is now a fact that Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” - By Dan Smith
from The Betrayal by David-Crockett

Dan Smith wrote the following excellent comment on this site

It is now a fact that Obama is not a “natural born Citizen”. Obama admits he was born a British subject of Kenya, which makes him “ineligible” to be President under Article II, section 1, clause 5. Obama father was never a u.s. citizen. In fact, Obama’s allegiance by law is to the British Empire forever.

Then Dan Smiththe fact he became a Indonesian citizen when he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro. Obama is the phony in chief. Why else would the other Military “cases” be dis-missed due to “change” of orders. It was to avoid “DISCOVERY”.

No one in the Military has been guilty of anything since Obama took Office. All “order’s” by the Military are subject to Chain-of-Command. In this case, it is Colonel Roberts who issued unlawful commands, and will be most likely be charged with conspiracy and treason for aiding a “usurper”. These are very interesting statutes cited at 8 USC 1481. (Indonesia) ALSO: MISPRISION OF TREASON 2383 to 2386—-000-.html ANOTHER IS: MISPRISION OF FELONY FYI: 18 U.S.C. 4 imposes a legal obligation to report all Federal Felonies to an officer in the Judicial, Civil or Military authorities of the United States (Federal Government): (Failure to do so is another Federal Felony!) I did not make these Laws up, Congress did. There are many more that apply.

Nowhere in Our Constitution allows anyone except a “natural born Citizen” to be President. The 14 th Amendment only addresses qualifications for Congressmen and Senators, NOT PRESIDENT. The 14 th Amendment also only addresses “citizens” (small cap c), wheras the Articles address Citizens with a (Capital C) as there were two classes of citizens at that time.

Big Difference. If “one” studies Our Constitution you would know. The 14 th Amendment only allows for any child born on u.s. soil to be a (native) “citizen”, which is only a “citizen”, unless the child is born to two “natural” (biological) Parents who are u.s. citizens at the time of the childs birth. see 1101 natural parent. If the “simple” meaning of “all persons born on u.s. soil” as stated in the 14 th Amendment is a “citizen”, then that would allow for “any” child born here to be President, even if Fidel Castro had a girlfriend who he impreganated and sent to the u.s. to have the child born here. He could claim that child as being a Cuban citizen, who would be under Castro’s Allegiance and dual- citizenship. The sooner Our Citizens realize that Obama is a puppet of a NWO the faster we can put him in jail as a common crimminal who presented false identification. No Impeachment needed as he never met the qualification clause to begin with.

The real “criminals” are those that conspired with him and failed to meet their solemn Oath to protect Our Constitution. This is no joke my friends, regardless if you support Obama or Not, he is not Constitutionally “eligible” to be President who works for We the People. If you really enjoy the future “taxes” then so be it. I don’t have any kids to worry about, but I do worry about others whose Parents are too busy “working” to pay for all this crap of free healthcare, and bogus cap & trade. Ooops, I left out illegal Aliens. My mistake. Let me remind you that under “International Laws” , Obama can be subject to any Laws provided by the British, Kenya, and Indonesia Countries whether Obama denounced them or not. British Law states that any British subject (now citizen) is their “citizen” forever….regardless of any other Law. The United States has no power to take away another Country’s right’s to their citizens.

IF England passed a Law that any of their “citizens” (which includes Obama) were to be drafted into their Military to fight in a War, then Obama would have to go, regardless if he was our President or not. You might laugh at this, but its true under International Law which We adhere to. Think about, then decide who Obama really is! If any of You have Legal verified proof that Obama is a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, section 1, clause 5, I will help You collect over $25 Million Dollars in Rewards being offered by several individuals in the United States (and Abroad) for a small commision. Colonel Gordon R. Roberts, Colonel Peter M. MeHughs will most likely be charged with unlawful orders under their “usurper” Commander-in-Chief Obama, who has failed to present “any” Legal verifiable evidence of even being a u.s. citizen other than a “forged” COLB (certifiication of live birth) which allows “foreign” citizens.under Hawaii State Statutes, not Federal. (Since when does a single Sovereign State of 1959 rule over the other States and Federal???)

In my opinion, LTC Lakin will prevail, unless dooped by corrupt Judges who will be charged accordingly, and later on…… The American People will eventually realize who Obama really is, and his conspiritors. This is only just starting.
Papering Barry - By Judi McLeod
from The Betrayal by David-Crockett

Read in relation to DC Knows that Obama is Ineligible for Office

By Judi McLeod

Barry DoeNote to Obamabots: JB Williams is a full-blooded American. In point of fact, you can file him under genus: American Patriot.

When Google News ran JB’s DC Knows that Obama is Ineligible for Office on its front page yesterday, Canada Free Press (CFP) was hit by 20,000 visitors within the first five minutes.

Hundreds of letters started pouring in using the Obamabot’s favourite one line message: “Idiot!” Being familiar with the term it was the only word they spelled correctly.

For anyone who may have been thinking that the Obamabots returned to the local pool halls after the election of their Messiah, Google proves that they are alive and seething.

Many letters accused JB of being a “dirty Canuck”. Interesting how they bandy the word “racist” about, but feel it’s okay to smear those they disagree with as a “dirty Canuck”.

“Don’t come here, Canada, you’re not welcome!” was the theme of their collective message.

JB, of course, is American and has the birth certificate to prove it. It is CFP who is the “dirty “Canuck”.

Reading all of the letters from these courageous Obamabots, like their master hiding their identities, in this case behind GMail, hotmail and Yahoo accounts, made me stop and think about the Big O’s missing education records.

You see, it’s not the controversy of his BC that troubles me, it’s that all of the straw man’s papers are locked away from public view.

Knowing he wasn’t born in a manger is about all we know for sure about the president of the most powerful nation on earth.

For all we know, little Barry Soetoro may have failed kindergarten.

Since Obama’s arrival to the Oval Office, documents don’t seem to matter anymore. Plebes (unless illegal aliens) have to show their driver’s license when stopped by police. No one but terrorists fly anywhere without a valid passport. Countless Americans are now further identified by being put on a variety of government lists that track dissenters as though dissent is now an indictable crime.

Would you let a stranger enter your door? You (Obamabots) let one into your White House!

We seem to be moving into a world where documents don’t matter. The pretend world of Hollywood and Reality TV have become reality.

Did the brief stint Obama performed as an interpreter for the CIA in Afghanistan decades later enable him to a brand new identity in the Witness Protection Program ripoff of all time?

Back in that era it was the Ahmad Masoud-led Northern Alliance and not the Taliban who put the run to the most dreaded army on earth, the Red Russian Army. The Taliban back then were the warlords. It would be a stretch to think that Barry Soetoro would get to do active duty with the courageous Northern Alliance. Who, then, was he fighting for? Is it a Freudian slip that Soetoro-cum-Obama pronounces “Taliban as “Tal-ee-ban”?

With the CIA in there, we’ll never really know.

But one thing we do know is that once we start accepting the missing identity of the President of the United States of America, how long is it before we let through charlatans in medicine and the military?

With no onus on proof, anybody can be anybody they want to be.

If I were going to recreate my identify, I’d try for Einstein. How about you?

Perhaps the Obamabots and FoxNews, which goes so far to promote the smearing those still asking the questions about who Obama really is, should be rebranding them as “Documentarists” rather than “Birthers”.

Getting rid of documents is a convenient agenda in the first-the-pond-tomorrow-the-word Power Game.

Only in America can a man who doesn’t exist grow up to be President.

Meanwhile, the latest attack of the Obamabots on the incomparable JB Williams and CFP only gave us more traffic.

Thanks, guys!
Revisiting Obama’s Selective Service Registration… Got Deferment!? - Thanks Charles
from The Betrayal by David-Crockett

Birther report

Obama Lying like he always doesby JeanWTPUSA - This article appeared in the Post & Email awhile ago. It pertains to Obama’s mulitiple records of Selective Service registration.
The Selective Service Registration records indicate that Obama received a 1H Classification. Class 1-H means “Registrant is Not Subject to Processing for Induction.”
Typically, registrants are given a 1-A Classification, which mean “Available for unrestricted military”
If Obama received ANY other type of classification other than 1-A, he would have had to applied for it, which means that there is an additional file on him.
If you read about the Selective Service Classifications at this link:
you will see that when someone registers for the Selective Service, in order to get a Classification that is NOT 1-A, the person registering has to request it.
And, that evidence is kept in a separate file.
I really didn’t understand the Selective Service Classifications until I performed some research.

During my research, I came across this “obscure” thread regarding Karl Rove. The thread appeared under a post titled Karl Rove’s special Draft Classification.

The thread, pertaining to Karl Rove’s Classification, indicates that Class 1H NEVER gets drafted. I have yet to find an explanation why. But, essentially, this Classification is a “get out of war free card.”
Again, it is my understanding that in order for Obama to be given this type of classification, he MUST have provided evidence as to WHY he felt that he qualified for a 1H Classification.
Could it be because he said he was MUSLIM? Did the Military make special exceptions for MUSLIMS at that time or was it because he was NOT A US CITIZEN?
Here’s some info about MUSLIMS and the Selective Service. I’m not sure if this pertains to Obama, but it is quite interesting.
In any case, according to the law, Obama was required to register for the Selective Service and he had to present Identification, which he DID NOT. You will see from the form that the “No ID” box is check marked.
Therefore, Obama DID NOT comply with the law, which is as follows:
Proclamation 4771–Registration Under the Military Selective Service Act

Source: The provisions of Proclamation 4771 of July 2, 1980, appear at 45 FR 45247, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 82, unless otherwise noted.

1-3. Manner of Registration.

1-301. Persons who are required to be registered shall comply with the registration procedures and other rules and regulations prescribed by the Director of Selective Service.

1-302. When reporting for registration each person shall present for inspection reasonable evidence of his identity. After registration, each person shall keep the Selective Service System informed of his current address.

Obama’s lack of ID, as indicated on the Selective Service Registration Form makes me wonder what type of ID Obama had at the time he actually registered for the Selective Service. Did he have a driver’s license? If he did, what documentation, e.g. birth certificate, social security card, etc., did he present to get his Driver’s license? I know my DMV marks down what type of Identification I bring in to verify my identity. Could the DMV be another avenue to obtain information on Obama?
I don’t know whether or not the Selective Service Registration Form is a Forgery. It appears that Obama
registered the date/month/year he was suppose to register. The SS Proclamation outlines the requirements for males born in 1960 and 1961 and it appears that Obama did comply.
However, Obama DID NOT comply with “each person SHALL present for inspection reasonable evidence of his identity.” SHALL means MUST!

Could Obama’s non-compliance make him INELIGIBLE to hold public office (see If this is the case, then the birth certificate and/or dual citizenship may not even matter. Obama would have NEVER been eligible to hold ANY public office.

So the real question is, DID Obama WILLFULLY withhold documentation that would verify his identity?

Whatever the case, the Selective Service MUST have additional written documentation on Obama in a special Selective Service file pertaining to his 1H Classification. Therefore, is it worth a visit to the Local Selective Service Board in Hawaii, or could these files be obtained through an FOIA request?

I just have a “nagging gut feeling” that there is something more to this and no one has bothered to investigate. Looking into it just might yield some valuable information.

For more on Obama’s Selective Service registration, view Debbie Schlussel’s investigative report on this titled; - Did Next Commander-in-Chief Falsify Selective Service Registration? Never Actually Register? Obama’s Draft Registration Raises Serious Questions, HERE.
John Jay’s Letter in 1787 to George Washington - Thanks Charles
from The Betrayal by David-Crockett

Country First
by Mountain Publius Goat

Image of the letter John Jay wrote in 1787 to George Washington requesting the term “natural born citizen” be inserted in the Constitution for the qualifications of future persons to serve as President and Commander-in-Chief of our military. George Washington was the President of the Constitutional Convention as a “strong check” against foreign influence on the person in that office after the original/founding generation had passed. The “natural born citizen” term was subsequently agreed to by the delegates and included in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution in the eligibility requirements for the office of the Presidency.


John Jay’s letter to George Washington in the summer of 1787 suggesting that the requirement that the person who would be President after the founding generation is gone must be a “natural born Citizen” of the USA as a “strong check” against foreign influence on that person. George Washington took his advice and had the requirement added.
Concerned Americans Have Good Reason to Doubt that Putative President Obama Was Born in Hawaii - Thanks CDR Charles Kerchner
from The Betrayal by David-Crockett

And even more so now see: Original Certificate of Live Birth from Hawaii is different from Obama’s COLB

A Place to Ask Questions to Get the Right Answers Published

HawaiiThe New York Times on April 21, 2010, did a story entitled, Obama and the ‘Birthers’ in the Latest Poll, by Dalia Sussman and Marina Stefan. The article reported that “[i]n a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, 58 percent said Mr. Obama was born in the United States. That leaves a significant minority who said they thought he was born in another country (20 percent) or said they did not know (23 percent).” Question No. 50 in the poll was: ”According to the Constitution, American Presidents must be ‘natural born citizens.’ Some people say Barack Obama was NOT born in the United States, but was born in another country. Do YOU think Barack Obama was born in the United States, or was he born in another country? Born in US 58 Another country 20 DK/NA 23.” Hence, these numbers show that 43 percent do not believe that Obama was born in the United States. The New York Times article is written in such a way as to give the reader the impression that Obama has convincingly proven that he was born in Hawaii and that those who do not believe that Obama was born there are misinformed and poorly educated. What the authors of the article fail to realize or refuse to report is that concerned Americans have very good reasons to doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii.

One might wonder why so many Americans are not convinced that Obama was born in Hawaii as he claims. Let us review the evidence pro and con on his place of birth being Hawaii or Kenya.

Was Obama born in Hawaii? What is the evidence for and against?

Obama supporters provide the following evidence as proof that Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii and that he is therefore a born “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. First, Obama must be an Article II “natural born Citizen” in order to be eligible to be President. I have written that showing that he is a Fourteenth Amendment born “citizen of the United States” without more is not sufficient to show that he is a “natural born Citizen.” Second, in any event, Obama must at least prove that he is a born “citizen of the United States” before he can prove that he is a “natural born Citizen.” The comments in parenthesis are my response to the proffered evidence:

(1) He was a State and U.S. Senator (although we do not know what type of vetting was done for those offices);

(2) Obama posted on the internet a copy of what his supporters call his “birth certificate” (although the image is only of a 2007 Certification of Live Birth [COLB] computer form, which is a computer generated and easily forged form that was posted online in 2008 which is not a true Birth Certificate and is not a typed contemporaneous birth certificate from 1961 which would have the name and signature of the delivering doctor or witnesses to the birth. No witnesses or hospitals have ever attested to Obama being born in Hawaii.);

(3) John McCain and Hillary Clinton would have told us he was not born in Hawaii during the primary and presidential campaigns (although they might have had political and racial reasons for not doing so);

(4) The media would have discovered his not being born in Honolulu (although the media was afraid to properly vet Obama because of not wanting to be labeled racist);

(5) The FBI, CIA, and other security agencies would tell us if he was not born in Hawaii (although we do not know if they can legally even raise the question and who among them would);

(6) The Electoral College elected him President (although electors under most state statutes are beholden to their political party);

(7) A majority of Americans elected him President (although many of them may not have known of the constitutional issue of or even cared about where he was born);

(8) Congress confirmed his election (although political party politics and race sensitivity could have motivated it to avoid addressing the issue);

(9) Obama is currently the sitting President (although that defacto status is not proof of where he was born);

10) No court has told us that he was not born in Honolulu (although no court has granted discovery or reached the merits of the question of where Obama was born);

(11) Obama has traveled internationally allegedly on a U.S. passport (although he has not ever publicly produced one);

(12 The Hawaiian Department of Health has confirmed that he was born in Hawaii (although its statements are incomplete and inconclusive and they have never confirmed the online COLB computer form image is genuine); and

(13) There exists a birth announcement in two local Honolulu newspapers printed in August 1961 (but these announcements alone do not prove that Obama was born in Honolulu. See No. 20 below).

Those concerned Americans who question where Obama was born provide the following evidence as proof that Obama has not conclusively proven that he was born in Hawaii:

(1) Obama’s step-grandmother, Sarah Obama, told Bishop McRae, who was in the United States, during a telephonic interview on October 12, 2008, while she was in her home located in Alego-Kogello, Kenya, that was full of security police and people and family who were celebrating then-Senator Obama’s success story, that she was present to witness Obama’s birth in Kenya, not the United States (the English and Swahili conversation is recorded and available for listening). She was adamant about this fact not once but twice. The conversation which was placed on speaker phone was translated into English by “Kweli Shuhubia” and one of the grandmother’s grandsons who were present with the grandmother in the house. After the grandmother made the same statement twice, her grandson intervened, saying “No, No, No, He [sic] was born in the United States.” During the interview, the grandmother never changed her reply that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya. The fact that later in the same interview she changed her statement to say that Obama was born in Hawaii does not change the fact that she initially stated twice that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya. One would think that a grandmother would know whether she was present or not at the birth of her American Senator and U.S. Presidential candidate grandson;

(2) The Kenyan Ambassador to the United States, Peter N.R.O. Ogego, confirmed on November 6, 2008, during a radio interview with Detroit radio talk-show hosts Mike Clark, Trudi Daniels, and Marc Fellhauer on WRIF’s “Mike In the Morning,” that “President-Elect Obama” was born in Kenya and that his birth place was already a “well-known” attraction;

(3) Ms. Odhiambo a Member of the Kenyan Parliament said in session and recorded in the official record of the Kenyan National Assembly on 5 Nov 2008 on page 3275 that Obama was a son of the soil of their country;

(4) Several African newspapers said in 2004 that Obama was born in Kenya. Also see this more recent one in Ghana. Africa’s press knows what the American media refuses to investigate. There have also been other reports in the media that Obama was born in Kenya. A good list of these reports may be found at where actual screen shots of the stories may be viewed;

(5) Obama’s wife, Michelle Obama stated in a video taped speech she made a couple years ago that Kenya is Obama’s home country. During a speech that Michelle gave to an audience of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) delegates at the 2008 Democrat Party Convention on the topic of getting tested for HIV and in showing that Obama leads by example, Michelle Obama told them: “He has also spoken out against the stigma surrounding HIV testing, which is still plaguing so many of our communities, which you all know–a lot of that is due to homophobia. Barack has lead by example. When we took our trip to Africa and visited his home country in Kenya, he took a public HIV test for the very point of showing the folks in Kenya that there is nothing to be embarrassed about in getting tested.” “Home country” is defined as “the country in which a person was born and usually raised, regardless of the present country of residence and citizenship.” It is highly suspicious that Obama’s transcripts of Michelle’s speech now do not contain the reference by Michelle to Kenya being his “home country.” Obama’s facebook page has a transcript of her “home country” speech. The transcript omits the “home country” wording and says this instead: “He has supported full funding for the Ryan White CARE Act and has pledged to implement a national HIV/AIDS strategy to combat the continuing epidemic in the United States. He has also spoken out against the stigma surrounding HIV testing, a stigma tied all too often to homophobia. And he’s led by example: On our trip to Kenya, (omission) we both took a public HIV test.” The words “Barack’s home country” are omitted;

(6) NPR public radio archived story says Obama in Kenyan-born;

(7) No hospital in Honolulu has yet to confirm that he was born there. One would think that given that Obama is the first African-American President elected in the U.S., that his birth in any hospital would be an historic event. One would also expect the birth hospital to be boasting about the birth there and naming the wing of the hospital where Obama was allegedly born after him. Why would any such hospital not make its claim to Obama and even publicize the event to increase its exposure and marketing appeal? It is only reasonable to ask oneself why all the secrecy and mystery?;

(8) Obama and his sister stated different Honolulu hospitals at which he was allegedly born. In a November 2004 interview with the Rainbow Newsletter, Maya told reporters that her half-brother, then Sen. Barack Obama, was born on Aug. 4, 1961, at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu. Then in February 2008, Maya told reporters for the Honolulu Star-Bulletin that Obama was born at the Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children which is also located in Honolulu. Obama claims he was born in Kapi’olani Medical Center;

(9) Obama has refused to give consent to Kapi’olani Medical Center for it to release minimal documents confirming he was born there as he claims;

(10) No witness with any personal information has come forward to confirm he was born in Honolulu;

(11) New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson publicly stated during the 2008 campaign that Obama was an immigrant;

(12) Obama has refused to release to the public his education, work, and travel documents (including passports he used for international travel);

(13) Obama’s kindergarten records have allegedly disappeared;

(14) Obama’s application to the Franciscus Assisi Primary School in Indonesia states he was an Indonesian citizen;

(15) Obama has only produced for public viewing a 2008 computer image of an alleged computer generated June 6, 2007 Certification of Live Birth (COLB) which contains no independently verifiable information to corroborate his alleged birth in Honolulu as would be found on a Certificate of Live Birth (Birth Certificate). web site has this to say about the COLB: “The document is a “certification of birth,” also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents’ hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details. The Hawaii Department of Health’s birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department. We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response.” FactCheck did provide an “Update,” on August 26, when they stated: “We received responses to some of our questions from the Hawaii Department of Health.” They go on to explain they did get some clarification from them to “some” of their questions. But they do not address why DOH did not answer their question as to why DOH “only offer the short form” COLB. It is unbelievable that a fact-checking organization such a FactCheck (actually a reading of their “objective” information on this issue shows that they are quite biased and prejudiced on the issue in favor of Obama) would allow such an important matter to just die with the excuse that the DOH did not provide a response to their request for information. Would any reasonable person call that responsible and thorough fact investigation? Hawaii Department of Heath has “affirmed that no paper birth certificate records were destroyed when the department moved to electronic record-keeping in 2001.” For an explanation as to who at the FactCheck organization allegedly handled and photographed the COLB and “authenticated” the document (Jess Henig and Joe Miller) go to;

(16) Various experts on documents and digital images state the digital image of the alleged 2007 computer generated Certification of Live Birth (COLB) placed on the internet by Obama’s campaign in 2008 and the alleged underlying document later pictured on the internet is a forgery;

(17) Obama refuses to produce a contemporaneous birth certificate created in 1961;

(18) Hawaii Health Department has publicly released incomplete and inconclusive information which Obama supporters claim shows that Obama was born in Honolulu. Anyone who is only relying on the fact that Hawaii officials do not say that Obama was born in any place other than Hawaii is missing the point which is what sufficient and credible proof exists that Obama was born in Hawaii. We do not know what evidence Hawaii is relying on to simply say that he was born in Hawaii. If the underlying root “evidence” is fraudulent, then anything Hawaii says is of no value and surely not evidence that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii. In other words, in such a case, Hawaii would be picking fruit from a poisonous tree.

Section 338-5 of the Hawaiian statute provides: “§338-5 Compulsory registration of births. Within the time prescribed by the department of health, a certificate of every birth shall be substantially completed and filed with the local agent of the department in the district in which the birth occurred, by the administrator or designated representative of the birthing facility, or physician, or midwife, or other legally authorized person in attendance at the birth; or if not so attended, by one of the parents. The birth facility shall make available to the department appropriate medical records for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the provisions of this chapter. [L 1949, c 327, §9; RL 1955, §57-8; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-5; am L 1988, c 149, §1].”

Obama alleges he was born in Kapi’olani Medical Center. At no time during the ongoing public debate about whether Obama was born in Hawaii has any official from Hawaii at least informed the pubic that Obama’s alleged vital records show that his birth certificate from 1961 was “completed and filed” with the health department in Honolulu by some official of that hospital or a physician or midwife associated with that institution. If Obama was born in a hospital as he claims, we cannot reasonably believe that his birth certificate would have been completed and filed by one of his parents. Additionally, under this statute, Hawaii has the power and authority to obtain medical records from Kapi’olani Medical Center to confirm Obama’s alleged Hawaiian birth. At no time did Hawaii inform the American public that it in fact confirmed with that hospital that Obama was in fact born there which it can do under the cited statute. Hawaii has withheld this underlying evidence from the public. This withholding of evidence is a grave matter given that there exists such reasonable doubt as to whether Obama, the putative President and Commander in Chief of our military might, was in fact born in Hawaii.

We will know what the underlying evidence is about Obama’s alleged birth in Hawaii only if we can examine Obama’s contemporaneous birth certificate from 1961 which is readily available since Obama claims he was born in Kapi’olani Medical Center in 1961. That root document will tell us the name of the hospital in which he was born and the name of the doctor or midwife who delivered him. Those pieces of information are highly corroborative of the place and time of birth, for they provide a whole other dimension of contemporaneous facts that would support Hawaii’s or anybody else’s bare statement as to the place and time of Obama’s birth.

Under Section 338-5, any birth certificate has to be completed and filed by some institution (hospital) or person (doctor, midwife, or parent). This statute also shows that Hawaii has the authority to confirm any reported birth by examining medical records. While Hawaii pretends to have come clean with the American public, it did not even provide such basic information or conduct such due diligence which would at least give the public greater assurance that Obama’s birth record is genuine;

(19) In 1961 it was not very difficult for a family member to defraud the State of Hawaii by registering and claiming a child was born there when he or she was not and obtain a Hawaiian birth certificate;

(20) A newspaper birth announcement from local Honolulu newspapers was simply a confirmation that the Honolulu health department “registered” a birth as occurring there based on what someone told them. Given Hawaii’s very lax birth registration laws in 1961, without independent contemporaneous evidence and non-family member witnesses, the registration of a birth as having occurred in Hawaii does not 100% prove the birth actually occurred there. The placement of the identical birth announcements in the Star-Bulletin and Honolulu Advertiser does not prove that Obama was born in Hawaii. The only thing the ads do is confirm that someone at the time told the newspapers that Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama had a son, who was born on August 4, 1961. Simply telling a third party that someone was born in a certain place and at a certain time is not conclusive evidence that the birth in fact occurred there at that time. Corroborating evidence is needed to support such a statement. For in-hospital births such as is alleged for Obama, such evidence would be naming the hospital in which the child was born and the doctor who delivered the child. The birth ads that appear in the two newspaper are identical in content, with the same format and the same chronological order. The ads do not contain the name of the baby, for it does not give the name of the “son.” The ads were not placed by the family but rather were generated by the Hawaii Health Department which would explain the format of the ads and why the same exact information appears in two separate newspapers. Finally, common sense tells us that if someone defrauded the Hawaii Health Department regarding whether Obama was born in Hawaii, the ads would be based on fraudulent information and would prove absolutely nothing. The August 13, 1961 ad in the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser announcing the Obama birth along with the August 16, 1961 ad in the Honolulu Advertiser announcing the Nordyke twins birth can be viewed at Note the heading of both of the ads says “Health Bureau Statistics” which confirms that the information was provided to the newspaper by the Hawaii Health Department and not any family member;

(21) The proffered online image of the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) put on the internet states in the lower left corner a date of “Filing” the birth registration. It does not state that the birth registration was “Accepted.” Computer generated COLBs obtained for other people registered in Hawaii have the word and date “Accepted” in that field. See these examples compared to Obama’s COLB. This implies the birth registration was never finally accepted and that additional information on the birth registration was requested by the state but never received. If the state questioned the evidence in 1961 provided by the family to register the birth as occurring in Hawaii, that is all the more reason now to investigate the birth registration method and statements provided to the Health Department by the family back in 1961. What evidence was missing such that the registration was never “Accepted;”

(22) There is no public drive to commemorate Obama’s place of birth. This is even more suspect given that so many people have questioning his place of birth. One would think that Obama’s supporters would want to make a public event out of commemorating his place of birth so that those who question his place of birth (who Obama supporters disparagingly call the “birthers”) could be put in their place once and for all;

(23) No government, political, security, or police agency or media entity has confirmed for the American people that Obama was born in Honolulu;

(24) Attorney Phil Berg has filed with a Federal Court an affidavit in which an investigator recounts how he went to the hospital in Mombasa, Kenya and was told by officials there that Obama was born in that hospital;

(25) Susan and Gretchen Nordyke (”the Nordyke twins”) were born at Kapi’olani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital Aug. 5, 1961, one day after Obama was allegedly born at the same facility on August 4, 1961. These twins produced for the public copies of their long-form birth certificates, otherwise known as a Certificate of Live Birth, issued by the Hawaii Department of Health. The Nordykes’ certificates include information missing from the short-form document that Obama published online (a Certification of Live Birth or know as a COLB), including the name of the hospital where the babies were born and the name of the attending physician that delivered them. Apart from the fact that it is clear that a long-form Certification of Live Birth actually exists for the same time when Obama was born, the twins’ birth certificates also raise an issue regarding sequential numbering of Hawaii birth certificates. One would reasonably assume that the Nordyke twins’ certificate number on their birth certificate should be higher since their birth would have occurred after Obama’s and their birth also increased the population. Susan Nordyke was born at 2:12 p.m. Hawaii time and was given No. 151 – 61 – 10637, which was filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961. Gretchen Nordyke followed at 2:17 p.m. and was given No. 151 – 61 – 10638, which was also filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961. The Obama Certification of Live Birth (COLB) shows his certification number to be 151 1961-010641, which is three numbers later from the last born twin rather than being a number earlier than the first born twin. Raising more questions is the fact that Obama’s birth was registered with the Hawaii registrar three days earlier, Aug. 8, 1961. How could his birth be registered earlier than the twins but be given a certificate number later than the twins? Another question is why the middle figure in Obama’s purported registration is 1961, indicating the year of birth, while the Nordykes’ is merely 61? WND was unable to receive a response from Hawaii officials regarding the state’s procedure for issuing registration numbers and their providing a reasonable answer to these questions. The Nordyke twins birth certificate story was fully reported at;

(26) A debate on the adoption of a new Constitution took place in the House of the National Assembly of Kenya on Thursday, March 25, 2010. The Official Report of that House, dated Thursday, March 25, 2010, provides the details of that debate. One of the speakers during that debate was The Minister for Lands, Mr. Erengo. Ironically, he expressed that “[i]f we do not live by the values and principles contained in this Constitution, all that is contained in this Constitution will be of no significance….” He continued saying that Kenyans must follow the rule of law and especially the Constitution, stating that the “unmaking of Kenya began by disregard and non-compliance of the law. We ended up in a dictatorship that we had to fight for so many years….” He further explained that under the new proposed Constitution, the “Executive authority of the President . . . is derived from the people….” He then explained that Kenya must overcome its problem of elements of its population excluding people from participating in Kenyan life because of ethnic factors. He asked that all Kenyans unite, regardless of ethnic or tribal affiliations, stating: “The other thing that we are addressing through devolution is exclusion. What has made us suffer as a nation is exclusion. Once people feel excluded, even when you want to employ a policeman or constable or you want to build a dispensary, it must come from the centre. In the colonial days, these things were being done on the ground and they could give bursaries and build roads. I commend devolution. Those who fear devolution are living in the past. They are being guided by their ethnic consideration and objectives. They are living in the past. If America was living in a situation where they feared ethnicity and did not see itself as a multiparty state or nation, how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the President of America? It is because they did away with exclusion. What has killed us here is exclusion; that once Mr. Orengo is President, I know of no other place than Ugenya. That is why we were fighting against these many Presidencies in the past. I hope that Kenya will come of age. This country must come of age. People want freedom and nations want liberation, but countries want independence.” Mr. Erengo’s statement to the Kenyan Assembly in session is recorded in the official record/minutes of the Kenyan National Assembly meeting on the 25th of March, 2010, that the President of the USA was born in Kenya and is not a native born American. Scroll down to page 31 in the official record of the Kenyan Assembly meeting of 25 March 2010. There we have it clearly stated by a current member of the Kenyan Cabinet that Obama was born in Kenya and is not a “native American.” It is unbelievable that a high-ranking member of the Kenyan government would make such a matter-of-fact statement, given the debate that is raging in the United States about whether Obama was born in Hawaii or Kenya. The full report may be found at The speech of Mr. Erengo starts at page 29 and ends at page 31. The above quote is found on page 31;

(27) Another Kenyan Minister on April 14, 2010, made a statement about Obama’s origins and says that Obama should repatriate himself to Kenya. “What commitment did they make about compensation and more importantly, the biggest artefact [sic] in the USA today that belongs to this country is one Barrack Obama. How does he intend to repatriate himself or part of the money that is realized from all the royalties that he is attracting across the whole world?” Kenyan Minister Khalwale Asks When Obama Will Repatriate Himself @ Jefferson’s Rebels

None of these factors alone would be sufficient to disprove that Obama was born in Hawaii. But the totality of them raises legitimate doubts which Obama should dispel by providing corroborating evidence supporting his claim that he was born in Hawaii. That evidence must be more than just posting a computer image of an alleged 2008 COLB which at best is only prima facie evidence that he was born in Hawaii, for it does not contain the name of the birth hospital in Honolulu or of the delivering doctor there or other corroborating evidence.

Given America’s military might and who her current enemies are, Americans know that an attack upon America will most likely not come from without but rather from within. They also know the amount of power that the President and Commander in Chief of the Military wields and how that power affects their lives every day. Given these circumstances, it should not be difficult to understand why Americans, concerned for their life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property, want to protect themselves by making sure that their President and Commander in Chief was born in Hawaii as he claims he was and that he is a “natural born Citizen” to whom they can entrust their very lives.

It is Obama who chose to run for President. We cannot imagine that he does not realize that he has no reasonable expectation of privacy as to his place of birth and as to what he has done in his life. Regardless of where Obama was born, he has lost what he probably perceives to be nothing more than a little birth certificate game given that he has disrespected so many Americans who have every right to know who their President is. Obama is supposed to be a constitutional scholar. Maybe he never learned or he forgot that the President works for and answers to the people who under our Constitutional Republic are the sovereigns. Obama’s refusal to provide basic credible information showing where he was born can only leave us thinking what is Obama hiding.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 25, 2010

A comment about the Hawaiian birth certification issue by Commander Kerchner:
Birth certificate registration fraud is more common than people realize. Here is an example of how people born in other countries were being falsely registered as born in the USA.

Birth Registration Fraud. It’s Been Done Before. As reported by

Charles Kerchner
Commander USNR (Retired)