WHAT CAN WE THE PEOPLE DO TO MAKE SURE THAT TRUMP’S TRUMPETING ABOUT OBAMA’S HIDDEN PAST IS NOT FOR NAUGHT?

by Neil Turner

Editor's Note: Reprinted with permission of The Post & Email.

Will Donald Trump continue to call for Obama to open his hidden medical, college, birth and school records?

(Apr. 11, 2011) — Recently Donald Trump has helped to revive and revitalize the oft-asked question: ‘Where’s The Birth Certificate?’

And recently, the Arizona State Assembly has introduced an ‘Eligibility Bill’, requiring that anyone’s name to be placed on the Arizona ballot for President must show proof that they meet the Article II requirements of being a ‘natural born Citizen’. It sounds like a ‘no-brainer’, I know, but believe it or not, there is strong resistance to any State passing any Law that requires strict adherence to the Constitution, especially in this area of fundamental national security – that no one, without absolute and unassailable allegiance to this country, be elected to the Office of President and Commander in Chief.

Mr. Carl Seel, Arizona State Representative, is a co-sponsor of that bill, now coming up for a critical vote in the Arizona State Legislature. He felt that an endorsement by Mr. Trump, considering his recent involvement in the issue, would be a great help in securing its passage. So he contacted Mr. Trump’s office to ask if he (Mr. Trump) might visit Arizona before the vote scheduled sometime in April, 2011, and was himself invited to come to New York for a brief meeting concerning this matter.

Consequently, Mr. Seel, together with several of his constituents who had been pushing for this kind of legislation for the last two years, Mr. Jeff Lichter and Ms. Kelly Townsend, flew to New York and met with Mr. Trump and his attorney, Michael D. Cohen, on Friday, 8 April, 2011.

Some of the results of this ‘very positive and informative’ meeting were presented to over a dozen members of the mainstream media (press and TV) in the lobby right afterward (they were excluded from the meeting), but their failure to report on it should indicate to us not only just how complicit they are in this massive cover-up of the seating of an ineligible person as President, but also how afraid they are that the truth is about to be revealed. Their actions lend new meaning to their most fitting name: ‘Enemedia’.

The Arizona contingent left with a Trump promise to address their issues, his full endorsement of the Arizona eligibility bill, and a ‘homework’ assignment for the ‘contingent’ to get back to him within ten days with a list of the most salient issues concerning the size and depth of the ‘cover-up’ of Obama’s ineligibility.

AN INUNDATION of FACTS and FIGURES and ISSUES

Mr. Trump has been so inundated by facts and figures from patriots (as well as Obama supporters and ‘cover-up’ artists) from all across the Nation, it has now become non-productive to the cause of ousting the usurper. It has, however, made him – and the Enemedia – aware of the size and depth of the wave of anger engulfing this issue.

First of all, let me assure you that the ‘Arizona contingent’ is now receiving the best of information from the best of the best – to put into a cogent, realistic, and easily understood and absorbable packet to be presented to Mr. Trump within the next 7-10 days. It will be addressing:

* The political imprisonment of LTC Terry Lakin in Leavenworth – for asking the very same question that Mr. Trump has been asking!
* The real Supreme Court adjudicated meaning of ‘natural born Citizen’, and why the posted COLB is meaningless and unacceptable. Also, that being born of a U.S. citizen mother only – does not a ‘natural born Citizen’ make.
* How the two Hawaiian newspaper announcements of Obama/Soetoro’s birth could get posted in 1961 – without him being born in Hawaii;
* The details behind the CT Social Security number he used for his purported Selective Service Registration;
* The how and why of Obama’s forged and fraudulent Selective Service Registration using the stolen CT Social Security number that he now uses;
* The findings of ‘guilty on all counts’ of the C.I.A. COLUMBIA OBAMA Sedition & Treason TRIAL (see www.CRS-Reports.org), and his failure to attend Columbia University at all (despite recently posted documents showing that he attended for 9 months in 1983 – fraudulent records produced AFTER the Trial held on May 14-18, 2011, in order to obfuscate and confuse);
* The rejection of multiple lawsuits by the judiciary on the grounds that the plaintiffs, like Mr. Trump, have ‘no standing under the Constitution’.

The executive summary for each of these issues, and more, will be backed by a packet of information and references supplied by each of the experts in these matters.

SO WHAT CAN ‘WE THE PEOPLE’ DO? (and what NOT to do)

Since it has been requested by Team Trump that all submissions of facts and figures and theories and solutions concerning these matters please cease and desist, we suggest that the most helpful will be the following:

1. Go to the website www.ShouldTrumpRun.com and compliment him on his patriotic stand, offer your support if so inclined, and vote in the polls that are there.

2. Tell your friends and contacts that you are most concerned that Mr. Obama/Soetoro has not proven his eligibility for President, nor his authority to issue anything other than unlawful orders as the putative Commander in Chief, and that you would like their support in demanding that proof of eligibility.

3. Tell every unsolicited phone caller that all your time and money is going into the number one issue facing this Nation – not abortion, not taxes, not electing anyone in particular – but to remove the person legally known as Barry Soetoro (aka Barack Hussein Obama) from our White House! e.g. “Please tell (Newt or Michelle or Harry or WHOMever) that I have ($100 or $1,000) to donate to whomever steps up to the plate and demands removal of Mr. Soetoro/Obama for ineligibility – and charges him with TREASON! Please go to www.ThePostEmail.com for details.”

That’s it for now. Please get busy and do your part to help save our Nation and our Constitution. Time is of the essence. (Help TRUMP to DUMP the CHUMP).

In Liberty.





© 2011, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.

Obama Presidential Eligibility - An Introductory Primer
Last revised: June 5, 2009

Abstract

Despite the mainstream news media's silence regarding this matter, an increasing number of Americans are concerned that Barack Obama might not be eligible, under the Constitution, to serve as President.

According to the U.S. Constitution, an individual born after 1787 cannot legally or legitimately serve as U.S. President unless he or she is a "natural born citizen" of the United States.

Among members of Congress and the mainstream news media, the consensus of opinion is that anyone born in the United States is a "natural born citizen". However, when we researched this issue a bit more carefully, we found that the consensus opinion is not consistent with American history.

In Minor v. Happersett (1874), the Supreme Court said that, if you were born in the United States and both of your parents were U.S. citizens at the time of your birth, you are, without doubt, a natural born citizen. In the same case, the Supreme Court also said that, if you were born in the United States and one of your parents was not a U.S. citizen when you were born, your natural born citizenship is in doubt. So far, the Supreme Court has not resolved this doubt because, until now, there has never been any need to do so.

With only two exceptions, every American President, who was born after 1787, was born in the United States, to parents who were both U.S. citizens. The two exceptions were Chester Arthur and Barack Obama. When Chester Arthur ran for office, the public did not know about his eligibility problem. Only recently did historians learn that, when Arthur was born, his father was not a U.S. citizen. The 2008 election was the first time in history that the United States knowingly elected a President who was born after 1787 and whose parents were not both U.S. citizens.

Barack Obama publicly admits that his father was not a U.S. citizen. According to Minor v. Happersett, there is unresolved doubt as to whether the child of a non-citizen parent is a natural born citizen. This doubt is not based on the imaginings of some tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorists on the lunatic fringe of society. This doubt comes from what the Supreme Court has actually said, as well as a variety of other historical and legal sources which are presented and discussed here.

This Primer introduces and explains the Obama Eligibility Controversy, in question-and-answer format, for a non-technical general audience. We've double-checked the facts presented here, and we've cited the sources of each fact.
Questions and Answers
1. What is a "birther"?
2. What are the eligibility requirements for President?
3. Why do birthers think Barack Obama is not eligible to be President?
4. How is "natural born citizen" defined?
5. In a nutshell, what is the Obama eligibility controversy?
6. Does the birthers' viewpoint have any historical or legal merit?
7. What was the original purpose of the presidential "natural born citizen" requirement?
8. What is the difference between a "Constitutional" and a "statutory" natural born citizen?
9. Wouldn't the most recent modern-day statutory meaning of "natural born citizen" take precedence over the original Constitutional meaning?
10. If Obama is not a "Constitutional natural born citizen", so what? Why should anyone care?
11. Why has every birther lawsuit been dismissed?
12. What is a 14th Amendment natural born citizen?
13. In the 14th Amendment, what does "jurisdiction" mean?
14. Doesn't the Wong Kim Ark decision make Obama a "natural born citizen"?
15. Doesn't the Julia Lynch case show that Obama is a "natural born citizen"?
16. Could "natural born citizen" be based on the British Common Law principle of jus soli?
17. What's the "beef" with President Obama's birth certificate?
18. Didn't the State of Hawaii recently verify that President Obama was born in Hawaii?
19. Doesn't the mere existence of Barack Obama's original Hawaiian birth certificate prove that he was born in Hawaii?
20. Do birthers actually believe that President Obama was born in a foreign country?
21. If President Obama's birth certificate shows conclusively that he was born in Hawaii, would it end the eligibility controversy?
22. Where do we go from here?

1. What is a "birther"?

News commentators and Internet bloggers invented the word "birther" as a term of derision and contempt towards people who question Barack Obama's presidential eligibility. Ironically, many birthers accepted the label and adopted it as their own. See, for example, The Birthers Web Site.

In this paper, "birther" does not refer to any particular group or organization. Rather, it refers respectfully to people who think Barack Obama is not eligible to serve as U.S. President.
2. What are the eligibility requirements for President?

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution 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.

This means that, in modern times, you cannot legally or legitimately serve as President of the United States, unless you are:

* at least 35 years of age
* a resident of the United States for at least 14 years
* a natural born citizen.

Regarding the third requirement ("natural born citizen"), the Constitution made a special exception for people who were citizens when the Constitution was adopted. Such people did not need to be natural born citizens. Their pre-Constitution citizenship, by itself, was sufficient to meet the third requirement.

Today, this special exception is no longer applicable. No one alive today was a citizen when the Constitution was adopted. In modern times, if you wish to be President, it is not enough to be a U.S. citizen. You must be a natural born citizen in order to be "eligible to the Office of President".
3. Why do birthers think Barack Obama is not eligible to be President?

Birthers believe Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen and, for that reason alone, he is not eligible to serve as President. They say that, in order to be a natural born citizen, you must meet two requirements:

* You must be born in the United States; and
* Both of your parents must be U.S. citizens at the time of your birth.

According to birthers, it does not matter how your parents became U.S. citizens. They could have acquired citizenship at birth. They could have been immigrants who became citizens through naturalization. At one time in American history, a woman's citizenship was that of her husband. A woman became a U.S. citizen automatically when she married a man who was already a U.S. citizen. For you to be a natural born citizen, your parents had to be citizens at the time of your birth, but they did not have to be natural born citizens.

There is some question as to whether President Obama meets the first requirement. Unsubstantiated rumors suggest he might have been born in Kenya (Affidavit of Reverend Kweli Shuhubia, Affidavit of Bishop Ron McRae, and Interview with Kenyan Ambassador).

But far more importantly, Obama publicly admits he does not meet the second requirement. His father was a British subject who never became a U.S. citizen. (FactCheck.org: Does Barack Obama have Kenyan citizenship?)

At the time of this writing, to the best of our knowledge and belief, Barack Obama has referred to himself as a native born citizen but has never publicly claimed to be a "natural born citizen".
4. How is "natural born citizen" defined?
4.1 "Natural born citizen" is not defined in the Constitution or in any existing Federal law

The U.S. Constitution, and the Naturalization Acts of Massachusetts (1776-1790), use the term "natural born citizen" but do not define it.

So far, Congress has not passed any law that defines "natural born citizen". In 1790, Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, which extended the meaning of "natural born citizen" to include the foreign-born children of U.S.-citizen parents:

And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens (Naturalization Act of 1790)

Five years later, Congress repealed the 1790 Act and replaced it with the Naturalization Act of 1795. The wording of the 1795 Act was essentially the same as the 1790 Act, except that the term "natural born citizens" was deleted and replaced with "citizens".

Thereafter, Congress has passed laws that convey American citizenship to certain people at birth, but Congress never again passed any law that explicitly clarified, defined or extended the meaning of natural born citizenship. Senate Bill S.2128 was supposed to define "natural born citizen", but it was never enacted. The bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee in 2004, where it has remained ever since. In 2008, the Senate passed Resolution 511 regarding Presidential candidate John McCain's natural born citizenship, but the resolution was nonbinding and had no legal effect.

4.2 A similar term, "natural-born Subject", appeared in British Common Law

In 1736, Matthew Bacon defined "natural-born Subject" as:

All those are natural-born Subjects whose Parents, at the Time of their Birth, were under the actual Obedience of our King, and whose Place of Birth was within his dominions. (Page 77 in this 724-page (48MB) PDF file: Matthew Bacon, A New Abridgement of the Law, Vol 1, 1736).

The "parental obedience" requirement does not appear in later definitions of "natural-born Subject".

In 1765, William Blackstone defined "natural-born Subject" as anyone born in British territory, regardless of the parents' allegiance or citizenship. A child born in England, for example, was a natural-born subject, even if the child's parents were aliens:

The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. (Blackstone, Commentaries, 1765).

Sir Alexander Cockburn, Lord Chief Justice of England, leaves little doubt that, under British Common Law, a "natural-born Subject" was someone born in British territory, regardless of parental nationality:

By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality. (Alexander Cockburn, Nationality, 1869, page 7).

When the Constitution was written, British natural-born Subject status was determined by birthplace alone. If you were born in British territory, you were automatically a British natural-born Subject. The nationality or citizenship of your parents didn't matter.

But did the same principle also apply to natural born citizen? If natural born Subject status was determined by birthplace alone, was natural born citizen status also determined by birthplace alone, without regard to parental citizenship?

4.3 "Natural born citizen" appeared in English-language Literature

In 1774, Patsall translated Institutio Oratoria from Latin to English. Patsall's work might be the earliest English-language writing in which the term natural born citizen appears (What is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States?).

Institutio Oratoria is a twelve-volume classic written by Marcus Fabius Quintilianus during the first century AD. It contains this Latin sentence:

Quare, si fieri, potest et verba omnia et vox huius alumnum urbis oleant, ut oratio Romana plane videatur, non civitate donata. (Quintilianus, Institutio Oratoria, Book 1, Chapter VIII)

Patsall translated this sentence as:

Therefore, if possible, every word and the very tone of voice, should bespeak the natural born citizen of Rome, that the language may be purely Roman, and not so by a right different from birth and education.

Other English translations of Institutio Oratoria, such as Guthrie's translation in 1756, use "native" instead of "natural born citizen".

In Patsall's work, natural born citizen is an English rendering of alumnum urbis.

* Alumnum means "nourished, brought up; reared/fostered by; native, brought up locally" (Latin-English Dictionary 1.97FC). It refers to a "child not born of the family, but brought up and educated as one's own child" (Meaning of Alumni).

* Urbis means "city".

Thus alumnum urbis -- the "natives" or "natural born citizens" of a city -- are those who were not merely born in the city, but were raised or parented by the city -- specifically, by residents or citizens of the city.

In 1797, an English translation of Emmerich de Vattel's Law of Nations gave this definition of "natural born citizen":

The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. (Vattel, Law of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 19)

In both Patsall and Vattel, "natural born citizen" meant much more than someone who was born in a particular place. Parentage, upbringing and education also contributed to the meaning of "natural born citizen".

4.4 "Natural born citizen" appeared in Supreme Court decisions

In 1874, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed Vattel's definition of "natural born citizen":

At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens (Minor v. Happersett, 1874)

The Supreme Court said, in effect:

* There is no doubt that, if you were born in the United States and both of your parents were U.S. citizens at the time of your birth, you are a natural born citizen.

* Throughout American history, various "authorities" (judges, district attorneys, legal experts, etc.) have expressed support for the "citizenship-by-birthplace-alone" theory. According to this theory, U.S.-born children of non-citizen parents are citizens at birth and presumably natural born citizens as well.

* The "citizenship-by-birthplace-alone" theory is unproven and remains subject to doubt.

In 1898, in the Wong Kim Ark case, the Supreme Court reexamined the "citizenship-by-birthplace-alone" theory, but did not decide whether it applied to natural born citizenship. The Court ruled that Mr. Ark was a citizen, but did not rule that he was a natural born citizen (SCOTUS in 'Wong Kim Ark').

To summarize, we know for sure that persons born in the U.S., of parents who are U.S. citizens, are definitely, without doubt, natural born citizens. So far, the Supreme Court has not decided whether natural born citizenship also includes U.S.-born children of non-citizen parents.
5. In a nutshell, what is the Obama eligibility controversy?

The following information comes directly from Barack Obama's website:

When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom's dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.'s children. Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982. (FactCheck.org, as quoted in Obama's "Fight the Smears" webpage regarding his birth certificate, emphasis added).

The main controversy boils down to this one question:

If Barack Obama Jr. was born in the United States but, at the time of his birth, his father was a citizen of a foreign country and not a U.S. citizen, does Barack Obama Jr. meet the Constitutional "natural born citizen" requirement for presidency?

Obama apologists say "Yes". They believe there are only two kinds of American citizens: naturalized and natural born. A naturalized citizen is someone who becomes a citizen after his or her birth, through a legal process called "naturalization". A natural born citizen is anyone who is a U.S. citizen at birth. Since President Obama was born in the United States and was consequently a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth, he is a natural born citizen, regardless of his parents' citizenship.

Birthers say "No". They believe that, when the Constitution was written, a "natural born citizen" was someone who was born in the United States and whose parents were both U.S. citizens at the time of his or her birth. You cannot be a Constitutional natural born citizen unless both of your parents were U.S. citizens when you were born. If you are not a Constitutional natural born citizen, you are not eligible to serve as President.

Thus we have two opposing viewpoints regarding the meaning of "natural born citizen". Which one is correct? So far, the Supreme Court has not answered this question because, until now, there was no reason to. Now, the Supreme Court needs to do its job and answer the question.
6. Does the birthers' viewpoint have any historical or legal merit?

Birthers believe that, in order to be a natural born citizen, you must be born in the United States and both of your parents, at the time of your birth, must be U.S. citizens. The birthers support their viewpoint with the following information:

* Every U.S. President who was born after 1787 -- except President Barack Obama and President Chester Arthur -- was born in the United States, to parents who were both U.S. citizens. The general public did not learn until recently that, when Chester Arthur was born, his father was not a U.S. citizen. The 2008 election is the first time in American history that America knowingly elected a post-1787-born President whose parents were not both U.S. citizens.

* When Chester Arthur ran for Vice President and later President, he told outright lies and burned historical records, to conceal the fact that, although he was born in the United States, his father was a British Subject and not a U.S. citizen at the time of his (President Arthur's) birth. If "natural born citizen" means anyone born in the United States, regardless of parental citizenship, why did Chester Arthur go through so much trouble to convince the public that his parents were U.S. citizens when he was born? It is inconceivable that Chester Arthur would have taken such extraordinary measures, unless he believed that his birth to non-citizen parents made him ineligible to serve as VP or President (Historical Breakthrough -- Chester Arthur)

* On March 9, 1866, Representative John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the 14th Amendment, said the following in a speech before House of Representatives:

[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. (John Bingham, 1866, as quoted in Defining Natural Born Citizen)

* The Supreme Court has, on occasion, used the word "citizen" in reference to certain individuals who were either not born in the United States or not born of U.S.-citizen parents. Such individuals were citizens by law or by naturalization, but the Supreme Court has never referred to them as "natural born citizens". In those few cases in which the Supreme Court has declared an individual to be a "natural born citizen", the individual was always U.S.-born to U.S.-citizen parents. For example, in Perkins v. Elg (1939), Miss Elg was declared to be a natural born citizen. She was born in the United States and, when she was born, both of her parents were naturalized U.S. citizens.

* In 1797 (a decade after the Constitution was adopted), the English translation of Emmerich de Vattel's, Law of Nations was revised to include the term "natural born citizen". The revised English translation helps to clarify the meaning of "natural born citizen", as English-speaking people generally understood it towards the end of the 18th Century:

The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. ... 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. (Vattel, Law of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 19)

* In 1874, in the Minor v. Happersett case, the Supreme Court affirmed the definition of natural born citizen which had appeared in the 1797 English translation of Vattel's Law of Nations:

...it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. (Minor v. Happersett, 1874)

* In Minor v. Happersett, the Supreme Court expressed "doubts" regarding the citizenship of U.S.-born children whose parents were not U.S. citizens. In Wong Kim Ark, 1898, the Supreme Court examined these "doubts", but did not render any decision or ruling pertaining to natural born citizenship. The Court ruled that Mr. Ark was a citizen; it did not rule that he was a natural born citizen. To date, the Supreme Court has never answered the question as to whether natural born citizenship extends to children of non-citizen parents.

These sources do not prove the birthers' case. But they show that birthers have a rational basis for requesting a public inquiry into Barack Obama's presidential eligibility.
7. What was the original purpose of the presidential "natural born citizen" requirement?

The presidential natural born citizenship requirement originated with John Jay, who recommended it in a letter to George Washington. The letter said:

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. (John Jay letter to George Washington, 25 July 1787)

John Jay believed, and the Founding Fathers agreed, that anyone who is subject to foreign influence should be barred from the presidency. St. George Tucker (1752-1827) explained why:

That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against... To have added a [foreign] member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora's Box. (St. George Tucker, as quoted in Defining Natural-Born Citizen)

The Founding Fathers undoubtedly understood that natural born citizenship is acquired only at birth. Thus the presidential natural born citizenship provision was limited in scope. It could not protect the presidency from all possible forms of foreign intrusion. It could not exclude, from the presidency, people who had developed foreign sympathies or allegiances after their birth. At most, it could only bar, from the presidency, persons who were subject to foreign influence at birth -- specifically, persons who were foreign citizens at birth or were, at birth, subject to the laws of a foreign country.

When the Constitution was written, there were only two ways that a child could acquire foreign citizenship at birth or fall under foreign legal jurisdiction at birth:

* by being born in a foreign country; or
* by being born of parents who were citizens of a foreign country.

At the time, the United States did not recognize dual citizenship. No one could become a U.S. citizen without completely renouncing all foreign allegiance.

Therefore, in 1787, if you were born in the United States and your parents were U.S. citizens at the time of your birth, you were, without doubt, completely free of foreign influence at birth -- you were, without doubt, not a foreign citizen at birth and not subject to foreign legal jurisdiction at birth. On the other hand, if you were born outside of the United States or your parents were not U.S. citizens when you were born, you might have been, at birth, subject to foreign legal jurisdiction to some extent.

Thus the Founding Fathers undoubtedly understood that, in order for the presidential natural born citizen provision to be effective, the term "natural born citizen" had to mean "U.S.-born of U.S.-citizen parents". Otherwise, the provision would not work in all cases. It would occasionally allow, into the Office of President, individuals who were foreign citizens at birth or subject to foreign legal jurisdiction at birth -- the very kind of situation that the Founding Fathers had undoubtedly hoped to prevent, given their abhorrence of foreign influence in general.
8. What is the difference between a "Constitutional" and a "statutory" natural born citizen?

"Constitutional natural born citizen" refers to the term "natural born citizen" when it appears in the Constitution or in a Constitution-related document such as a Supreme Court decision. It refers to the meaning of "natural born citizen" in the Constitution, whatever the Supreme Court ultimately decides such meaning to be.

"Statutory natural born citizen" refers to someone who is deemed a "natural born citizen" as a result of a Federal or State law.

Currently, there is no Federal law that explicitly defines "natural born citizen" or explicitly conveys "natural born citizenship" to anyone. However, existing laws are sometimes understood or interpreted as conveying natural born citizenship to certain individuals at birth. At this point, we do not pass judgment on these understandings and interpretations. We merely say that, if someone is deemed to be a "natural born citizen" pursuant to a law or statute, we refer to such person as a "statutory natural born citizen".

A statutory natural born citizen is not necessarily the same thing as a Constitutional natural born citizen. The U.S. State Department warns against confusing the two concepts:

...the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes (Top of page 9, in U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual -- 7 FAM 1130)

If we were to define "natural born citizen" to mean anyone who is a "citizen at birth", our definition of "natural born citizen" would be statutory because it would depend on the statute or law which defines "citizen at birth". Under existing law, all children born in the United States (except the children of foreign diplomats) are "citizens at birth". Therefore, under existing law, almost all children born in the U.S. -- including children of illegal immigrants -- could be regarded as statutory natural born citizens.

However, H.R.1940, also known as the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007, would change the existing law so that it would no longer grant "citizenship at birth" to children of illegal immigrants. If Congress were to pass H.R.1940, it would alter the meaning of "citizen at birth", and therefore would alter our statutory definition of natural born citizen. If H.R.1940 were enacted, the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants could no longer be regarded as statutory natural born citizens.

To summarize:

* "Statutory natural born citizen" is the meaning of "natural born citizen" when such meaning depends on a Federal or State law. As Federal and State laws change, the meaning of "statutory natural born citizen" changes accordingly.

* "Constitutional natural born citizen" is the meaning of "natural born citizen" as used in the Constitution.

If Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, he could be regarded as a statutory natural born citizen. But a statutory natural born citizen is not necessarily a Constitutional natural born citizen.
9. Wouldn't the most recent modern-day statutory meaning of "natural born citizen" take precedence over the original Constitutional meaning?

Not necessarily. The only proper and legitimate means of changing the Constitution is the Constitutional Amendment process. Congress cannot change the Constitution by simply passing a law. Nor can the Constitution be changed by someone's understanding or interpretation of an existing law.

Neither Congress nor society can change the meaning of the Constitution by redefining a word or term that the Constitution uses. As the U.S. State Department has warned (see question 8), we cannot assume that "natural born citizen" by modern-day statute or modern-day word usage is the same thing as "natural born citizen" in the Constitution.
10. If Obama is not a "Constitutional natural born citizen", so what? Why should anyone care?

Understandably, some Americans question the wisdom of "enforcing the law" and "upholding the Constitution" when the specific requirement being upheld or enforced seems to be an antiquated technicality. As long as Barack Obama is doing his job as President, why should his parents' citizenship matter? Obama was elected President, not his parents. His parents passed away many years ago, so how is their citizenship relevant? Is enforcing a parental citizenship requirement really worth the horrific political chaos and unimaginable governmental disruption that might result if Obama were found to be ineligible?

Birthers respond in this way... If the Constitution contains something that is no longer appropriate for modern-day society, the proper remedy is a Constitutional Amendment. If we want to be a nation that is ruled by law and the Constitution, we cannot just ignore a Constitutional requirement, merely because it is inconvenient or we think it doesn't matter. If any one part of the Constitution doesn't matter, why would any other part of the Constitution matter?

Many of our rights -- free speech, freedom of religion, privacy, trial by jury, and so on -- come from the Constitution. If we say it's OK to ignore the Constitution regarding Obama's eligibility, we open the door for someone else to say it's OK to ignore the Constitution regarding issues which may directly affect our rights as citizens.
11. Why has every birther lawsuit been dismissed?

So far, every lawsuit challenging Obama's presidential eligibility has been dismissed on a technicality -- lack of standing, lack of jurisdiction, mootness, etc. So far, neither the Supreme Court nor any other court has considered, in an open hearing, the actual substance or merit of any of these cases. As of this writing, no court has ruled on whether or not Barack Obama is a Constitutional natural born citizen.
12. What is a 14th Amendment natural born citizen?

Some Obama apologists argue that the 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, had implicitly redefined "natural born citizen". They say that, under the new definition, Barack Obama qualifies as a natural born citizen.

The 14th Amendment citizenship clause states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

The 14th Amendment was enacted at a time when citizenship was, to some extent, managed and controlled by individual states. Each state had its own citizenship laws. Anyone who became a citizen of a state immediately and automatically became a citizen of the United States.

The 14th Amendment defined a certain class of people, which we call the "14th Amendment Citizen" (14AC) class. This 14AC class consists of every person who is both (a) born or naturalized in the United States, and (b) subject to U.S. jurisdiction at the time of his or her birth or naturalization.

The 14th Amendment required every state to accept, as a citizen, anyone belonging to the 14AC class. Each state could grant or deny citizenship to non-14AC people. But the 14th Amendment prohibited any state from denying citizenship to 14AC-class members.

Even though the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment only mentions citizens and never mentions natural born citizens, Obama apologists argue that the 14th Amendment implicitly redefined "natural born citizen" to mean anyone who meets two requirements:

* born in the United States, and
* subject to U.S. jurisdiction at the time of his or her birth.

The argument goes as follows: Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, which was, in 1961, a part of the United States. Therefore he met the first requirement. His mother was a U.S. citizen; and his father, though not a U.S. citizen, was nevertheless in the United States legally. Since both of his parents were subject to U.S. law, Barack Obama himself was under U.S. jurisdiction at the time of his birth. Consequently the President meets both requirements of natural born citizenship, as redefined by the 14th Amendment.

This "14th Amendment natural born citizen" argument depends heavily on the meaning of "jurisdiction", which is discussed next.
13. In the 14th Amendment, what does "jurisdiction" mean?

During the debates over the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, both of its primary framers, Sen. Jacob Howard and Sen. Lyman Trumbull, made it clear that the word "jurisdiction", as used in the 14th Amendment, means sole, complete, absolute, exclusive U.S. jurisdiction and the absence of any other jurisdiction or allegiance.

Sen. Lyman Trumbull: The provision is, that "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." That means "subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof." What do we mean by "complete jurisdiction thereof?" Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Sen. Jacob Howard: [I] concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now. (What 'Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof' Really Means)

In 1884, the Supreme Court said:

The persons declared to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized... (Page 112 U. S. 101-102, Elk v. Wilkins, 1884)

Sole U.S. jurisdiction was a core requirement for 14th Amendment citizenship. The 14th Amendment granted citizenship to emancipated slaves and their descendants, because they were, and have always been, under sole U.S. jurisdiction. Native Americans were subject to tribal jurisdiction and thus were not under sole U.S. jurisdiction. That's why the 14th Amendment did not grant citizenship to American Indians, even though virtually all American Indians were born in the United States.

For sake of argument, if the 14th Amendment had redefined "natural born citizen" to mean anyone "born in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (where "jurisdiction" is understood to mean sole U.S. jurisdiction), Obama would still fail to meet the natural born citizen requirement. Here's why...

On his web site, Obama claims that his father was a British subject and that, in 1961, the citizenship status of children of British subjects was "governed" (that's Obama's word) by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Thus Obama's citizenship status, at birth, was "governed" by British law, in addition to U.S. law.

If Obama's citizenship status at birth was "governed" by the laws of a foreign country, how could he, at birth, be subject to sole U.S. jurisdiction, which is an essential requirement for 14th Amendment citizenship?
14. Doesn't the Wong Kim Ark decision make Obama a "natural born citizen"?

Wong Kim Ark was born in the United States sometime between 1868 and 1873. When he was born, his parents were Chinese immigrants and were permanent legal residents of the United States; but they were not U.S. citizens. In the Wong Kim Ark (1898) case, the Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Ark was a U.S. citizen, even though his parents were not.

The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative. (Page 169 U.S. 705, Wong Kim Ark, 1898)

The Wong Kim Ark case does not directly apply to Barack Obama's presidential eligibility, for two reasons:

* The Supreme Court did not rule that Mr. Ark was a natural born citizen. It merely ruled that he was a citizen. Even if Barack Obama's circumstances at birth were identical to those of Mr. Ark, the Wong Kim Ark decision would, at most, only convey citizenship to the President. It would not convey natural born citizenship, which is what the President needs in order to be eligible to hold office (SCOTUS in 'Wong Kim Ark').

* Mr. Ark was granted citizenship because, at the time of Mr. Ark's birth, his parents had "permanent domicile and residence" in the United States and was "carrying on business" in the United States. President Obama's father did not meet these conditions. He was not a permanent resident and he was not doing business in the U.S. He was merely visiting the U.S. temporarily, presumably on a student visa, for the purpose of getting an American education.

Obama apologists argue that the reasoning of the Wong Kim Ark decision, when carried to its logical conclusion, supports the viewpoint that natural born citizenship is determined by birthplace alone:

It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established. (Page 169 U. S. 658, Wong Kim Ark, 1898)

The Wong Kim Ark reasoning was based largely on the assumption that the "rule" of British Common Law "continued to prevail" under the Constitution. In its dissenting opinion, the minority in the Wong Kim Ark case argued that the majority's assumption was factually incorrect. On this one point, the minority and majority disagreed, not over a matter of law, but over a matter of historical fact:

And it is this rule, pure and simple, which it is asserted determined citizenship of the United States during the entire period prior to the passage of the act of April 9, 1866, and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, and governed the meaning of the words "citizen of the United States" and "natural-born citizen" used in the Constitution as originally framed and adopted. I submit that no such rule obtained during the period referred to, and that those words bore no such construction... (Page 169 U. S. 707, Wong Kim Ark, 1898)

According to the Federalist Blog, the minority in the Wong Kim Ark case was correct. As matter of American history, some States retained certain aspects of British Common Law for their own purposes, but overall, British Common Law did not "continue to prevail" at the Federal level (Why U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Can Never Be Considered Settled Birthright Law; see also discussion of Wong Kim Ark in Amicus Curiae Brief in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld).

George Mason, called the "Father of the Bill of Rights" and considered one of the "Founding Fathers" of the United States, is widely quoted as saying:

The common law of England is not the common law of these states. ( Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention, 19 June 1788)

In a recent speech to the Federalist Society, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia confirmed that British Common Law had little, if any, "control" in the USA after the USA gained its independence from Great Britain:

The common law is gone. The federal courts never applied the common law and even in the state courts it's codified now. (Audio/Video: Justice Scalia speech, Nov 22, 2008)

Wong Kim Ark's circumstances, though different from Barack Obama's, were virtually identical to those of President Chester Arthur. Mr. Ark and President Arthur were born in the United States. When each was born, his parents were permanent legal residents of the United States, but were not U.S. citizens; the parents were, in both cases, citizens of a foreign country. Under the laws in effect at the time (prior to the Wong Kim Ark decision), neither Wong Kim Ark nor Chester Arthur was a U.S. citizen at birth.

The Wong Kim Ark decision was written by Justice Horace Gray. Justice Gray was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Chester Arthur. At the time, the general public did not know that, when Chester Arthur was born, his father was a British subject and not a U.S. citizen; therefore Arthur was not a U.S. citizen at birth under then-existing laws.

In Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, the plaintiff (Cort Wrotnowski) argued that the Wong Kim Ark decision was not based on an impartial objective reading of history and the law, but was designed to grant U.S. citizenship retroactively to Chester Arthur, so as to legitimize Chester Arthur's presidency and thereby legitimize Horace Gray's own appointment to the Supreme Court (Wrotnowski supplemental brief regarding Chester Arthur).
15. Doesn't the Julia Lynch case show that Barack Obama is a "natural born citizen"?

Julia Lynch was born in New York in 1819. At the time of her birth, her parents were not U.S. citizens -- they were Irish citizens visiting the United States. Shortly after Julia's birth, the Lynch family returned to Ireland, where Julia remained until adulthood.

In the Lynch v Clarke (1844) case, the First Circuit Court (not the U.S. Supreme Court) ruled that Julia was a U.S. citizen at birth. In the opinion of Vice-Chancellor Lewis Halsey Sandford, the judge who presided over this case, there is "no doubt" that Julia Lynch was also a natural born citizen:

After an exhaustive examination of the law, the Vice-Chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born in within the dominions and allegiances of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen; and added, that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind. (pp 581-582, in Cases on Constitutional Law - Part 2)

An article in the New York Legal Observer elaborated:

The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of the common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen." (Dicta from Lynch v. Clarke (1844), cited by Article in New York Legal Observer).

Later in American history, the Opinion of Lincoln's Attorney General Edward Bates (1862) and the dissenting opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856), echoed the same viewpoint -- that you are a U.S. citizen (and presumably a U.S. natural born citizen as well) if you were born in the United States, regardless of your parents' citizenship.

Birther Response: Birthers do not deny that, throughout American history, various "authorities" (judges, attorney generals, legal experts, etc.) have expressed the opinion that birth within the United States is, by itself, sufficient to convey U.S. citizenship and perhaps natural born citizenship as well.

However, throughout history, other authorities have expressed the opinion that citizenship at birth properly belongs only to children whose parents are U.S. citizens. For example:

* When we apply the term "citizens" to the inhabitants of States, it means those who are members of the political community. The civil law determined the condition of the son by that of the father. A man whose father was not a citizen was allowed to be a perpetual inhabitant, but not a citizen, unless citizenship was conferred on him. (Rep. A. Smyth (VA), House of Representatives, December 1820, as quoted in Defining Natural-Born Citizen)

* As a man is a "citizen" of the country to which his father owes allegiance, it was incumbent on one alleging in an election contest that a voter was not a citizen of the United States to show that such voter's father was not a citizen thereof during his son's minority. (Savage v. Umphries (TX) 118 S. W. 893, 909, as quoted in Defining Natural-Born Citizen)

Thus we have an ongoing debate between (a) "authorities" who believe that natural born citizenship is determined by birthplace alone, and (b) "authorities" who believe that parental citizenship is a requirement for natural born citizenship. So far, the Supreme Court has not decided the issue, one way or the other. However, in 1874, the Supreme Court said there were "doubts" regarding the citizenship status of U.S.-born children of non-citizen parents:

...it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts." (Minor v. Happersett, 1874)

The Supreme Court has yet to resolve these doubts.

British Common Law: Prior to the Declaration of Independence in 1776, the thirteen colonies were under British rule and were governed by British Common Law. Under British Common Law, if you were born on British territory, you were automatically, at birth, a British natural-born Subject, even if your parents were aliens. This principle -- that one's citizenship is derived from one's place of birth -- is called jus soli ("the right of soil"):

The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien. (Blackstone, Commentaries, 1765).

When the thirteen colonies gained their independence and became States, they were no longer bound by the jus soli principle of British Common Law. Each State was free to enact its own birthright citizenship laws. When a state enacted its own laws, such laws replaced the citizenship provisions of British Common Law in that particular state.

For example, Virginia enacted this law, written by Thomas Jefferson in 1779:

Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that

* all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and

* all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother,

shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens. (Thomas Jefferson, 1779, A Bill Declaring Who Shall Be Deemed Citizens of This Commonwealth, formatting and line spacing added for readability and clarity).

The Virginia law made citizenship available to all white people who were born in Virginia. If you were born in Virginia and you were not already a citizen, you could, in adulthood, become a citizen by taking an oath. But the Virginia law did not grant immediate and automatic citizenship, at birth, to every white baby born in Virginia. Under Virginia law, automatic citizenship at birth was controlled by the principle of jus sanguinis ("the right of blood"), whereby the citizenship of a child, at the moment of its birth, is the citizenship of its parents. (What 'Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof' Really Means)

New York State law: New York State made a choice to retain the jus soli principle of British Common Law. Anyone born in New York was, at birth, automatically a citizen of New York, regardless of parental citizenship.

The Lynch v. Clarke (1844) case, and other cases such as Munro vs. Merchant (1858), were decided in accordance with British Common Law, not because British Common Law was the national law of the United States, but because it was the applicable State law in New York State. Under New York State law, Julia Lynch was a citizen at birth and therefore she was deemed to be a statutory natural born citizen.

Her natural born citizenship was "statutory" because it depended on the State law that was in effect in the State in which she was born. Had she been born in Virginia instead of New York State, she would not have been a U.S. citizen at birth, and she would not have been a statutory natural born citizen.

The fact that Julia Lynch was deemed to be a statutory natural born citizen in New York State does not necessarily mean that she was a Constitutional natural born citizen (see Question 8), especially since the Supreme Court has, so far, not decided whether Constitutional natural born citizenship extends to children of non-citizen parents.
16. Could "natural born citizen" be based on the British Common Law principle of jus soli?

Not likely, for two reasons:

First, if the British Common Law principle of jus soli (citizenship by birthplace alone) had been adopted at the national level, what would have been the point of granting each state the right to enact its own birthright citizenship laws?

After the Constitution was adopted, every State had the right to enact laws that deny citizenship at birth to some children born in that State, such as children of African or Native-American descent, and children whose parents were not U.S. citizens. How could the States have acquired or exercised such a right if the nation, as a whole, had embraced the doctrine that "everyone born in the U.S. is a U.S. citizen"? (Defining Natural Born Citizen).

Second, all States were unanimous in granting citizenship at birth to children who met both the jus soli criterion (they were born in the United States) and the jus sanguinis criterion (their parents were U.S. citizens). Some states routinely denied citizenship at birth to children who met only one of these criteria but not both.

A more inclusive definition of "natural born citizen" -- which required either jus soli or jus sanguinis but not necessarily both -- is unlikely because it would have included people whom some states were denying citizenship to. It is improbable that the Founding Fathers would have permitted states to deny citizenship to natural born citizens. More likely, "natural born citizen" referred to a class of people that all states were already recognizing as undeniable U.S. citizens.

U.S. citizenship is undeniable only in individuals who, at birth, meet both the jus soli and the jus sanguinis criteria. Consequently, the only plausible definition of an undeniable U.S. citizen is the birthers' definition of "natural born citizen" -- a U.S.-born individual whose parents are both U.S. citizens.
17. What's the "beef" with President Obama's birth certificate?

President Obama has published, on the internet, a digital photograph of a computer-generated short-form Certification of Life Birth. The President has not published a copy of his original 1961 typewritten long-form birth certificate containing the names and signatures of people who actually witnessed his birth.

In Hawaii, the contents of an original long-form birth certificate are private and confidential information, protected by State law. The Aloha State will not release a copy of an original birth certificate without permission. So far, President Obama has not given his permission for the release of his original long-form birth certificate.

If you were born in Hawaii and you ask for a copy of your Hawaiian birth certificate for a routine everyday purpose such as applying for a drivers license or passport, the State of Hawaii will not send you a copy of your original long-form birth certificate.

Instead, the State will send you a computer generated short-form Certification of Live Birth, which shows only minimal information -- your name, date of birth, place of birth, name and race of each of your parents, and so forth. A Certification of Live Birth can be used, instead of an original long-form birth certificate, for most everyday purposes.

A Certification of Live Birth shows an individual's birth information but does not show the source of that information. In Hawaii, the identity of the source of one's birth information -- whether it be a hospital, a doctor, or a parent's or relative's affidavit -- is deemed to be private and confidential. Thus the name of a source is found only on an original long-form birth certificate, and is not found on a Certification of Live Birth.

Barack Obama's Certification of Live Birth confirms two facts:

* The State of Hawaii has, in its files, the President's original 1961 typewritten long-form birth certificate; and

* The President's original 1961 birth certificate says he was born in Hawaii.

Birthers do not dispute either of these two facts. Birthers merely want to know the extent, if any, to which the information on Barack Obama's original 1961 long-form birth certificate came from or was verified by someone other than an immediate family member.
18. Didn't the State of Hawaii recently verify that President Obama was born in Hawaii?
On October 31, 2008, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, released this public statememnt regarding (then Senator) Barack Obama's birth certificate:

There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama's official birth certificate. State law (Hawai'i Revised Statutes 338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.

Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai'i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai'i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai'i. (Statement by Dr. Chiyome Fukino).

Dr. Fukino confirmed that Barack Obama's original 1961 long-form Hawaiian birth certificate exists, and the Hawaii State Department of Health has possession of it. But she did not confirm or verify any information contained in the birth certificate itself.

Under Hawaii State law, the contents of a birth certificate are private and confidential. Consequently, Dr. Fukino could not legally disclose or confirm any information contained in Barack Obama's birth certificate.

Nonetheless, there is little doubt that President Obama's original Hawaiian birth certificate says he was born in Hawaii. Under the laws that were in effect in Hawaii when Barack Obama was born, the State of Hawaii would not have knowingly issued a Hawaiian birth certificate to anyone born outside of Hawaii.

Act 96 of Laws of the Territory of Hawaii was adopted in 1911. Under this Act, Hawaiian birth certificates were issued only to individuals who were believed to be born in Hawaii:

The Secretary of Hawaii may, whenever satisfied that any person was born within the Hawaiian Islands, cause to be issued to such person a certificate showing such fact. (pp 127-128, Laws of the Territory of Hawaii)

A subsequent law, enacted in 1955, reaffirmed the fact that Hawaiian birth certificates were given only to individuals who were believed to be Hawaii-born.

Under the 1955 law, the State of Hawaii could issue Hawaiian birth certificates in cases in which the birth was not independently confirmed by an attending physician or midwife. In such cases, a judicial or administrative body or official must determine the birth certificate's probative value:

In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or mid wife, then, up to the first birthday of the child, an adult could, upon testimony, file a "Delayed Certificate", which required endorsement on the Delayed Certificate of a summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for delayed filing, which evidence must be kept in a special permanent file. The statute provided that the probative value of the Delayed Certificate must be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence. (See Section 57-18, 19 & 20 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961). (Hawaii Birth Records Law)

Hawaiian Statute 338-17.8, Certificates for children born out of State, allowed Hawaiian birth certificates to be issued to foreign-born children of Hawaii-resident parents. But Statute 338-17.8 was not enacted until 1982, well after Barack Obama was born.

In 1961, the State of Hawaii would not have issued a birth certificate to Barack Obama unless the State believed he was born in Hawaii. Barack Obama's original 1961 typewritten birth certificate undoubtedly says he was born in Hawaii.

But questions still remain. When Barack Obama was born, was his birth attended by a doctor or midwife? If not, who testified regarding his birth? His mother? His grandmother? Were any of these people interviewed? Was there a judicial or administrative hearing to determine the birth certificate's probative value? Who recorded the date and time of Barack Obama's birth? Could his actual date of birth have been a week or two earlier?

Barack Obama's birth in Hawaii cannot be regarded as "verified" until these questions are answered.
19. Doesn't the mere existence of Barack Obama's original Hawaiian birth certificate prove that he was born in Hawaii?

Barack Obama's original Hawaiian birth certificate, by its mere existence, shows that the State of Hawaii believed he was born in Hawaii. His birth certificate would prove that he was born in Hawaii only if his birth in Hawaii was witnessed and confirmed by someone other than an immediate family member. For example:

* If Barack Obama was born in a hospital in Hawaii, his birth certificate would indicate that a hospital had confirmed his birth in that hospital. Such confirmation would show, beyond reasonable doubt, that President Obama was born in Hawaii.

* If Barack Obama was born at home, his birth certificate would show the name of the professional (presumably, a doctor, midwife or paramedic) who assisted with the delivery. The professional's name and signature would confirm, and thus remove any reasonable doubt, that Obama's birth took place in Hawaii.

But consider this hypothetical scenario: Suppose Stanley Ann Obama (President Obama's mother) had been a resident of Hawaii since June 1960. Suppose that, in November or December 1960, upon learning of her pregnancy, she received prenatal care from a local doctor in Hawaii. Suppose that, on Monday August 7, 1961, she walked into her doctor's office, carrying a recently-born baby in her arms. Suppose she told her doctor that the birth took place, suddenly and unexpectedly, on Friday evening, August 4, 1961. Suppose she said that, when she gave birth, no one else was present, except Madelyn Dunham, the baby's maternal grandmother, who assisted with the delivery. Suppose the doctor examined this baby and found nothing that conclusively disproved Stanley Ann's story.

Given the mother's testimony, her history of prenatal care in Hawaii, her Hawaii residency, and the absence of contravening evidence from her doctor, the State of Hawaii would have probably issued a birth certificate for her baby, even though NO ONE outside of the baby's immediate family had actually witnessed the baby's birth in Hawaii.

The birth certificate would show no independent corroboration of the baby's birth in Hawaii. The Hawaii State Department of Health officials would have believed that the baby was born in Hawaii because the mother had said so and they had no compelling reason to believe otherwise. But the birthplace indicated on the birth certificate would be based solely on the mother's unsubstantiated testimony.

What if Stanley Ann and her recently-born baby had arrived, on an overseas flight, at Honolulu International Airport, on Sunday, August 6, 1961? In the absence of an original birth certificate, such theoretical possibilities, however implausible and far fetched, cannot be entirely ruled out.

Until President Obama releases an original birth certificate showing independent corroboration of his birth in Hawaii, no one can say for sure whether the President meets the first requirement of natural born citizenship -- birth within the United States.
20. Do birthers actually believe that President Obama was born in a foreign country?

Birthers are divided over this issue. Some believe President Obama was born overseas. Others believe that, when the President's birth certificate is released, it will show conclusively that he was born in Hawaii. Until the President's original 1961 typewritten long-form birth certificate is published, no one can say for sure, one way or the other, where he was born.

Among the various attorneys and plaintiffs who have filed lawsuits challenging the President's eligibility and/or seeking the release of his original long-form birth certificate, there is no consensus of opinion regarding the President's actual place of birth.

* Attorney Phil Berg believes the President was born in Kenya.

* Attorney Leo Donofrio and Attorney Mario Apuzzo believe Barack Obama was probably born in Hawaii, but it doesn't really matter. Regardless of where he was born, the President is ineligible because of his father's foreign citizenship.

* One-time adjunct law professor Andy Martin believes the President was almost certainly born in Hawaii. Neverlessless, Dr. Martin argues that the President's birth certificate is an historical document and, for that reason, joins with birthers in seeking its release.

Despite widely differing opinions on the birthplace question, birthers are unanimous in advocating (a) the release of the President's original 1961 long-form Hawaiian birth certificate, and (b) an open public judicial hearing regarding the President's Constitutional eligibility.
21. If President Obama's birth certificate shows conclusively that he was born in Hawaii, would it end the eligibility controversy?

Definitely not! President Obama has stated publicly that his father was not a U.S. citizen. According to the birthers' understanding of history and law, if his father was not a U.S. citizen, President Obama cannot be a Constitutional natural born citizen, regardless of where he might have been born. If President Obama was born in Hawaii, he could be regarded as a statutory natural born citizen, but he would not necessarily be a Constitutional natural born citizen.

Regardless of what his birth certificate says, Obama's presidential eligibility will never be settled or resolved, until the Supreme Court decides whether the U.S.-born children of non-U.S.-citizen parents are Constitutional natural born citizens.
22. Where do we go from here?

2008 was the first time in history that the United States knowingly elected a post-1787-born President whose parents were not both U.S. citizens at the time of his birth. In Minor v. Happersett, 1874, the Supreme Court stated that there is a legitimate unanswered question, or "doubt", as to whether a U.S.-born child of a non-citizen parent is a Constitutional natural born citizen. Until the Supreme Court answers this question, it is by no means "settled" that Barack Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States.

The DC District Court has the authority to investigate the eligibility of a sitting President. The DC District Court received this authority from Congress when Congress passed the Federal Quo Warranto Statute in 1901 and revised it, in 1963, to its present form.

The Federal Quo Warranto Statute is thoroughly explained in this three-part series:

Quo Warranto -- Part 1

Quo Warranto -- Part 2

Quo Warranto -- Part 3

A Quo Warranto inquiry is not a prosecution. It does not accuse Barack Obama of breaking any law. The inquiry is a civil proceeding, not a criminal one. In a Quo Warranto inquiry, the DC District Court would say to Barack Obama something to this effect (loosely paraphrased):

Mr. President, you are being asked to show, beyond reasonable doubt, that you are eligible to hold the office that you are currently holding. Please be advised: 1) You bear the burden of proof. It is up to you to show that you are eligible to serve as President. 2) Constitutional questions will be heard and settled by the U.S. Supreme Court. 3) This Quo Warranto proceeding has teeth. It operates under Congressional authority. If you cannot or will not show the Court, beyond reasonable doubt, that you are eligible to be President, this Court has the power and the authority to remove you from office.

The DC District Court would determine (by jury, if necessary) the relevant facts of the case -- Obama's birthplace, his parents' citizenship, etc. The Supreme Court would then decide the Constitutional legal issues, such as what a Constitutional natural born citizen is and whether Barack Obama is such a citizen.

If you believe there is enough doubt about Obama's eligibility to warrant a public inquiry, please consider writing, in your own words, a letter to the proper authorities, politely and respectfully asking them to bring (or permit a third party to bring) the matter before the DC District Court. Attorney Leo Donofrio suggests writing to U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, since the U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia Jeffrey Taylor has resigned.

By writing, you would show that (a) you care about the Constitution, (b) you believe there are reasonable doubts about the President's Constitutional eligibility, and (c) faithfulness to the Constitution requires a proper and timely investigation and resolution of these doubts.

AKA obama background

Friday, May 29, 2009
Why Can't Obama Give a Simple and Truthful Answer to the Birth Certificate Question?
Below you will find a link to NPR. Listen to the audio "Listen Now." This is a January 21, 2009 All Things Considered interview by NPR Michael Siegel of NPR's Scott Horsley, who is a White House correspondent for NPR News. Horsley was at the White House as he spoke. Horsley recounts how Obama retook the oath of office. Siegel then mentions "that lawsuit" that was brought against Obama which alleged he was not born in Hawaii but rather in Indonesia (just shows how informed the mainstream media is). Horsley laughs as Seigel was referring to the law suit. Siegel then continues that it was a good idea for Obama to redo the oath to avoid "that kind of lawsuit" from being litigated. Go to 2:33 in the segment and then you will hear Horsely say the following:

"It it it [sic] reminded Press Secretary Robert Gibbs of that very thing too. He was joking about this this [sic] morning and said 'You know we have we [sic] have the birth certificate if you if you [sic] (Siegel laughs) want to see it . . . .'" Horsely then continues how Chief Justice Roberts re-administered the oath:
http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=99681708&m=99681694

On May 27, 2009, at a White House press briefing that was viewed on C-Span, World Net Daily’s White House correspondent, Les Kinsolving, reminded Obama’s White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, about Obama’s statement regarding transparency. The exchange went as follows (43:34 to 45:35):

Kinsolving: “Thank you, thank you, very much. Just one question concerning what the president said in his speech on Thursday, and I quote, ‘I ran for president promising transparency, and I meant what I said. This is why, whenever possible, we will make information available to the American people so they can make informed judgments and hold us accountable.’ Do you remember that statement?”
Gibbs: “I can confirm that he said that.”

Kinsolving: “Good. In consideration of this very good promise of transparency, why can’t the president respond to the petition to requests of 400,000 American citizens by releasing a certified copy of his long-form birth certificate listing hospital – (laughter) – 400,000. …”

Gibbs: “Are you looking for the President’s birth certificate?”

Kinsolving: “Yes.”

Gibbs: “It’s on the Internet, Lester.”

Kinsolving: “No, no, no — the long form listing his hospital and physician.” (Laughter.)

Gibbs: “Lester, this question in many ways continues to astound me. The state of Hawaii provided a copy with the seal of the President’s birth. I know there are apparently at least 400,000 people – (laughter) – that continue to doubt the existence of and the certification by the state of Hawaii of the president’s birth there, but it’s on the Internet because we put it on the Internet for each of those 400,000 to download. I certainly hope by the fourth year of our administration that we’ll have dealt with this burgeoning birth controversy.”

And with that, Gibbs ended the briefing.

Video and report on the briefing found here at WND.com:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99342

Video and blog comments about the briefing found here at TheFoxNation.com:
http://www.thefoxnation.com/politics/2009/05/27/gibbs-finally-fields-birth-certificate-question

Now, Gibbs did not say that “we have the birth certificate” and do you want to see it? Gibbs’ shallow, sarcastic, and factually false, different response adds absolutely nothing to resolving the controversy surrounding Obama’s place of birth. Let us examine the available evidence.

What Obama or some other unkown person posted on the internet is not a birth certificate (BC). Rather, he/she posted a questionable short, summary form "certification of live birth" (COLB) which at best is only prima facie evidence of the place of his birth. The prima facie value of this document fails in light of numerous existing factual circumstances which contradict the COLB's validity and which have not been adequately explained by Obama.

According to Obama and Gibbs, this digital document image alone is supposed to allow Obama to qualify and be eligible under Article II of our Constitution to be President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Military. According to them, this electronic image alone is sufficient to prove that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S. and therefore qualified to have the full power of the executive vested in him. It is unbelievable that Obama would expect the American people to grant him such license over their lives based simply upon an electronic image on a computer screen. It is even more unbelievable that the Electoral College, our Congress, political institutions, security forces, and media would allow him to get away with it. This document, which in its paper form is undoubtedly a legal document, has no probative value given that it was posted by some unknown person on the internet as a digital image without following any prescribed electronic media security protocols. We know that digital images can be easily manipulated through computer technology. See http://technology.findlaw.com/articles/01102/010555.html for an explanation of the need to follow defined federal and state standards when it comes to electronic/digital information transmittal of legal documents. If Obama expects this digital image of a Certification of Live Birth, aka COLB, to have such unprecedented value which allows him to be President of the United States, then he should at least show that the electronic image he posted meets electronic/digital security standards.

While not officially confirmed, the authenticity of the digital computer image of the proffered Obama COLB on the internet, and the underlying paper document used to make the images, has been questioned by at least two digital image experts who have concluded that the COLB digital image has been altered and changed and that the COLB document itself shown in that digital image is a forgery. Here is a link to the scientific analysis and report by one expert, Dr. Ron Polarik: http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/

Obama says he was born in a hospital. A birth certificate provides the name of the hospital where the birth occurred and the name of the doctor delivering the baby. The COLB does not have this vital corroborating information.

When Obama was born in 1961, Hawaii had in effect the Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program which it established in 1911 and which it terminated in 1972. Someone could under Act 96 get a certificate claiming a Hawaiian birth even if he was physically born in Kenya by an adult or parent falsely claiming to the director of health that he was born in Hawaii when in fact he was born in Kenya. Hence, because of the contradictory evidence that exists regarding where he was born, plaintiffs are entitled to pierce the alleged COLB and examine the file that is in the possession of the Hawaiian Secretary of State which may contain a sworn application/petition in which some party set forth circumstantially all the facts upon which the application rested and supporting sworn affidavits of witnesses. The file could also contain the results of the Secretary or his designee examinations under oath of the applicant or other person who may have been cognizant of the alleged facts regarding the application/petition along with other documentary evidence that they may have obtained as a result of issuing subpoenas for books and other papers.

The DoD 5220.22-M, "National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual," 2/28/2006(NISPOM) provides baseline standards for the protection of classified information released or disclosed to industry in connection with classified contracts under the “National Industrial Security Program (NISP). It prescribes the requirements, restrictions, and other safeguards to prevent unauthorized disclosure of classified information. It also states at 2-209 that only U.S. citizens are eligible to receive a security clearance. The Manual requires a contractor to show proof of U.S. citizenship. It states at 2-208: “For individuals born in the United States, a birth certificate is the primary and preferred means of citizenship verification.” http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/522022mchaps.pdf. Surely, we should require such documentation of someone seeking to occupy the Office of President of the United States.

Not even the Hawaii Department of Home Lands accepts a short, summary form, certification of live birth (COLB) as conclusive evidence of being a native of Hawaii for its Homeland program. From its web site: "In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL."

Despite the numerous and more-to-come law suits that have been and will be filed against Obama, he continues to refuse to release his original birth certificate and has opted rather to spend large sums of money using lawyers to defend himself and to cause the courts and litigants to expend large amounts of time and resources pursuing litigation against him and other third parties. He relies on procedural and other threshold arguments such as jurisdiction, justiciability, standing, political question, separation of powers, mootness, and ripeness rather than simply produce his original birth certificate and make a motion for summary judgment with prejudice as to the merits so that no other future cases can be brought against him and others which would then put an end not only to the ongoing drain of money, time, and other resources but also to the great public outrage that continues to brew regarding his constitutional eligibility in regards to his place of birth.

For some unknown reason and relying on federal and state privacy laws, Obama has refused to publicly release his original Certificate of Live Birth (BC) even though in his book, Dreams from My Father, he stated that he has it.

Obama and his half-sister have each stated that he was born in different hospitals in Hawaii. In November 2004, in an interview with the Rainbow Newsletter, Maya told reporters her half-brother Sen. Barack Obama, was born on Aug. 4, 1961, at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu. But Obama has said he was born at Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children. Changing her story, in February 2008 Maya then told reporters for the Honolulu Star-Bulletin that Obama was born at the Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children.

On February 5, 2008, Madelyn Dunham was still alive, but the Obama campaign did not make her available for interviews with the media. Obama's maternal grandmother surely would have known where her grandson was born but Obama refused the media access to her. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004164387_brodeur05m.html.

Neither of the two or any other hospital in Hawaii or anywhere in the world has been willing to come forward and claim its place in history as being the hospital where the first African-American U.S. President was born. There is no Hawaiian hospital that has confirmed that Obama and/or his mother were present in any such hospital at the time of Obama's alleged birth in Honolulu. Not a single person has come forward, not a doctor, nurse, hospital administrator, nor any one else to confirm Obama's birth in Hawaii. "We don't have plans to do anything," said Kapiolani Medical Center spokeswoman, Claire Tong, when asked how the center plans to commemorate the soon-to-be 44th U.S. president, who, according to Obama's family and other sources, was born at that hospital on Aug. 4, 1961. "We can't confirm or deny it — even though all the information out there says he was born at Kapiolani Hospital. And that's because of the HIPA law." Tong acknowledged that the center has received daily inquiries from news agencies far and wide asking for confirmation of Obama's birthplace. Despite her wanting to do so, Tong said it is not possible. "Our hands are tied," she said:
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081109/NEWS01/811090361/-1/specialobama08
I wonder why Tong said that “even though all the information out there says he was born at Kapiolani Hospital.” He surely did not even slightly hint that any information in the hospital supported such a claim. One would think that Obama would do a simple thing and give the hospital permission to release the information to the news-thirsty public. After all, what harm to his privacy would he suffer from authorizing the hospital to simply confirm that the President of the United States was born there?

Nor has the American public heard from any other person who could confirm Obama's birth in Hawaii.

Attorney Philip Berg has served subpoenas on the hospitals mentioned by Obama and his half sister as the place where Obama was born to obtain the medical records which would show the fact of Obama being born in either one of them but Obama has refused to sign the consent that the hospitals need to release the documents.

“Birthplaces and boyhood homes of U.S. presidents have been duly noted and honored for nearly as long as America has been a nation. In the case of such towering figures as Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, those early locations have been deemed national treasures and historic sites, visited annually by the multitudes.”
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081109/NEWS01/811090361/-1/specialobama08
But we have not seen any movement by any public charity or foundation, non-profit organization, or government agency to commemorate Obama's place of birth in Hawaii.

We have not seen any media events or news conferences at the hospital where Obama was born which I am sure is a place the location of which is highly news worthy not only to the American people but to the whole world.

Hence, we do not even know in which hospital Obama was born.

Other than the COLB and the two newspaper announcements whose basis for information is the same single source, there does not exist one known corroborating medical or other document of any kind which shows that Obama was born in Hawaii. The Honolulu Advertiser, on Sunday, August 13, 1961 contained the following short announcement: "Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Highway, son, Aug. 4." The Honolulu Star-Bulletin, an unaffiliated, competing publication, carried the exact same notice the following day. The numerous birth announcements above and below the Obama listing also were identical in both papers. Advertiser columnist and former Star-Bulletin managing editor, Dave Shapiro, was not at either paper in 1961, but he remembers how the birth notices process worked years later when both papers were jointly operated by the Hawaii Newspaper Agency, which no longer exists. He states: "Those were listings that came over from the state Department of Health . . . . They would send the same thing to both papers.":
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081109/NEWS01/811090361/-1/specialobama08
Hence, we can see that the information for those birth notices comes straight from the state Health Department’s Vital Records Division. Hence, the birth announcements, not having their source of information in some other place, do not add any corroboration to the COLB. Other secondary evidence may include baptismal or circumcision certificates, hospital birth records, or affidavits of persons having personal knowledge about the facts of birth. Other documentary evidence can be early census, school, or family bible records, newspaper files, or insurance papers. No such documents have been produced for the American public. Furthermore, no one has been able to confirm that Obama’s mother and father in fact ever lived at 6085 Kalaniana’ole Highway, Honolulu.

No public official in Hawaii has publicly confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii. Director of Hawaiian Department of Heath, Fukino, said she has “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures," but she failed to say that the certificate shows that Obama was born in Hawaii. Given that so many people (some intentionally to mislead and some unintentionally due to misspeaking or lack of knowledge) call the Certification of Live Birth a birth certificate, we do not know whether she was referring to the same document posted on the internet (the COLB) or an actual original certificate of live birth (BC). Just from her statement alone, we also do not know what evidence exists in the Department of Health file to corroborate what is stated in the “original birth certificate.” It is also telling that after the probative value of her statement was publicly attacked by those in the public demanding that Obama produce his original birth certificate, neither Fukino nor any one else in her office has come forward with any other clarifying information.

We have not heard from one international, federal, state, or local police or security agency that Obama's birth place has been officially confirmed.

An Investigator working for Philip Berg, Esq. learned the following which is contained in the investigator's affidavit dated October 30, 2008, that was filed with a Federal District Court in the case of Berg v. Obama, O8-cv-04083: 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 witnessed 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 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 change her statement to say that Obama was born in Hawaii does not change the fact that she at first stated twice that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya. I cannot imagine a grandmother not knowing whether she was present or not at the birth of her American Senator and U.S. Presidential candidate grandson.

The investigator then personally went to the hospital in Mombassa, Kenya. He spoke with the Provincial Civil Registrar and he learned that there were records of Ann Dunham giving birth to "Barack Hussein Obama, III" in Mombassa, Kenya on August 4, 1961. The investigator then "spoke directly with an Official, the Principal Registrar, who openly confirmed the birthing records of Senator Barack H. Obama, Jr. and his mother were present, however, the file on Barack H. Obama, Jr. was classified and profiled. The Official explained Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. [sic] birth in Kenya is top secret. [H]e was further instructed to go to the Attorney General's Office and to the Minister in Charge of Immigration if [he] wanted further information."

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.

The radio interview went as follows:
Clark: “We want to congratulate you on Barack Obama, our new president, and you must be very proud.”
Ogego: “We are. We are. We are also proud of the U.S. for having made history as well.”
Fellhauer: “One more quick question, President-elect Obama’s birthplace over in Kenya, is that going to be a national spot to go visit, where he was born?”
Ogego: “It’s already an attraction. His paternal grandmother is still alive.”
Fellhauer: “His birthplace, they’ll put up a marker there?”
Ogego: “It would depend on the government. It’s already well known.”
http://my.wrif.com/mim/index.php?s=Ogego

Later on, Ogego’s assistant, denying that Obama was born in Kenya, insisted Ogego was speaking about Barack Obama Sr., and not President-elect Obama. She said she could not say why Ogego responded the way he did. Listening to the radio interview in its entirety, it is very obvious the interviewers were all talking about President-elect Barack Obama and not his father. We would also expect that Ogego would have said that Obama was not born in Kenya, but there is an attraction there to honor his father. If it were true that Ogego was referring to Obama’s Sr. and not Obama Jr., we should have heard about and received credible evidence as to what preparatory steps had already been taken in Kenya to honor the birth place of Obama Sr. In evaluating Ogego’s statement, we have to also remember that Obama’s grandmother also said that Obama Jr. was born in Kenya. Hence, Ogego’s assistant’s claim that Ogego thought they were talking about Obama’s father does not appear credible.

It is alleged that the Kenyan government authorities have refused to cooperate and have thwarted all efforts by anyone to obtain any documents concerning Obama.

Obama has refused all effort to have him release the following documents, relying on sealing of records and/or privacy laws: Punahou High School records, Occidental College records, Columbia College records, Columbia Thesis paper, Harvard College records, Selective Service Registration, medical records, Illinois State Senate records, Illinois State Senate schedule, Law practice client list, Certified Copy of original Birth Certificate, Harvard Law Review articles that were published, University of Chicago scholarly articles, exit and entry immigration records covering all of Obama's travels out of the United States; passports; and record of baptism, if any.

Fightthesmears.com and Factcheck.org have since maintained silence on the birth place issue after the questionable COLB was posted on the internet.

Obama has personally remained silent and has not declared publicly anything about his birth records after his COLB and place of birth were questioned that he was born in Hawaii.

No member of the media, any political party, the Executive Branch of Government, Congress, any political institution, the Judiciary, or any law enforcement entity, has publicly stated that he or she has independently confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii. Nor has House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, the Chair of the Democratic National Convention, publicly announced that she confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii.

This Himalayan Mountain of contradictory evidence is sufficient to cause the prima facie presumption of the COLB to fall. Obama therefore now has the burden to come forward with competent evidence to conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii. To date, he has failed to come forward with such evidence. Hence, under these circumstances, how can the American people in good faith conclude that Obama was born in Hawaii? How did Obama in good conscious twice take the oath to be President on January 20th when so many Americans have put forward all this contradictory evidence regarding where he was born and he refuses to come forward with any other convincing evidence (like a certified copy of his long-form original birth certificate) showing that he was born in Hawaii?

We cannot place any trust in what Mr. Gibbs said. He and Mr. Obama have to do a much better job than Mr. Gibbs’ feeble and floundering effort at answering Mr. Kinsolving’s simple question. Obama should just do the right and simple thing for everyone's sake and produce the real evidence of where he was born rather than have his political cronies dodge the question for him.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####
Posted by Puzo1 at 5:42 PM
Labels: Apuzzo, birth certificate, certification of live birth, constitutional eligibility president, Kerchner, natural born citizen, Obama, prima facie proof
23 comments:

Joe said...

This is a disgrace.

Mario please post something on your website semi-perm so people can be directed to the fox news ques. as to whether the BC is a news story. We need to get replys on there.

http://www.thefoxnation.com/politics/2009/05/27/gibbs-finally-fields-birth-certificate-question

What idiots.
May 29, 2009 8:24 PM
Puzo1 said...

Hi Joe,

Here is your suggested link as a hyperlink:

http://www.thefoxnation.com/politics/2009/05/27/gibbs-finally-fields-birth-certificate-questionMario
May 29, 2009 8:59 PM
mtngoat61 said...

Hello Atty Apuzzo:

Excellent post on the eligibility issue and the recent question by the WorldNetDaily reporter to the White House Press Secretary Gibbs. Gibbs' use of Saul Alinsky's tactic Rule #5, ridicule, did not work as well this time and kill the issue. That tactic is starting to wear thin, imo.

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99342http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99549M Publius Goat
http://www.obamacitizenshipfacts.org
May 29, 2009 9:15 PM
Mick said...

Gibbs' "Alinsky's Rules" response was textbook. The response of the traitorous Congress, in full knowledge of their grievous disregard of the Constitution is contained in HR 985.

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/webreturn/?url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.985:
May 29, 2009 9:25 PM
Mick said...

Of course, Obama may have his original BC, and is trying to narrow the scope of the NBC argument. Then by producing the document he can say "see I am a NBC, was all along". It must be reiterated and made understood that it would not matter if BO was born in JFK's lap while he was sitting at the desk in the Oval Office. BO's father was not a citizen, so BO can NEVER be a NBC. A large percentage of the population do not understand that while it may matter, the BC ultimately doesn't matter.
May 29, 2009 9:36 PM
Jackie Smith said...

Mr. Apuzzo...this is a great article and it certainly outlines the frustration of the American people and their denied rights to know the background of their President! Please don't give up your effort and know that there are thousands and thousands of us out here who are behind you. I am personally sending this post you wrote out to hundreds of news agency and law officials. Thank you for all of your hard work....it will eventually pay off...the Lord is in control and something is going to shake the truth out!


“Fear God… For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.” Ecc. 12:13,14
May 30, 2009 12:50 AM
James said...

You make an excellent point Mario. If Gibbs expects that posted on-line COLB is in fact Obama's birth certificate, Gibbs and Obama has not been forthcoming on the statutes that govern the posting and transmitting of electronic documents. Without a full expanation, the Posted COLB simply can not be accepted.
May 30, 2009 6:08 AM
Mairi said...

Mick, You are absolutely correct. All we learn from the actual B/C is whether or not BO was a "dual citizen" at birth, or whether he is an ILLEGAL alien, just like his aunt. Birth in Hawaii to an alien father only means that before his adoption in Indonesia, and his use of a foreign passport as an adult, (which is recognized as an acceptance of that citizenship in the eyes of the law) means he had American citizenship at birth. Since neither Kenya or Indonesia allow dual citizenships, if he was born in Kenya, he never WAS a citizen at all. This whole thing is an outrage! I am actually thinking about placing one of the WND billboard signs on my rooftop! I own the tallest house on my block!
Mario, GOD Bless you for the work you do. Many of us have been at this since early last year, but had no way to do what you are doing. I for one thank GOD everyday for all the patriots who REFUSE to allow this to continue unchallenged!
May 30, 2009 7:41 AM
Igor said...

How you tell when pollitician lie?

Comrade Pelosi blink

Dumb Donkey Gibbs laugh...Hehaw..he..haw..he..haw!

I Igor produce Barrack Milhaus Hussein Obama Birth Certificate at www.igormaro.org
May 30, 2009 7:46 AM
roderick said...

It really is not important where this man was born. As long as this imposter wants to dodge the question that is fine with me. I believe that he is going to be brought up on impeachment long before the judges ever want to hear any of these cases. I do believe that Mr. Kerchner's angle is the best one to date. Attacking the core of the problem and making the senate responsible for complicity in his heinous criminal activities against the citizens of the United States of America all under the auspices of slavery reparations. I personally never owned any slaves so any of this so called guilt trip that the imposter is trying to heap on me isn't going to fly. This fraud in the white house really thinks that we owe it to him even though he has no proven track record and all he does is blabber out of both sides of his mouth.
May 30, 2009 5:42 PM
Mick said...

Jeffrey Taylor has resigned, probably under the pressure of his ability to bring QW. I hope you are correct in your analysis, Mr. Appuzo, that QW does not have to be instituted by him or Holder exclusively. Can you explain this point?
May 31, 2009 4:44 AM
Puzo1 said...

To smrstrauss:

PART I

"What Obama posted on the web and was confirmed by Factcheck.org and Polifact.com and its contents confirmed by two officials in Hawaii, is the ONLY birth document that Hawaii sends out to people who ask for their birth certificate."

Response: Obama can simply authorize the State of Hawaii to release any document they have in their possession. Hawaii officials said they have the "birth certificate" there. Hence, Obama can simply authorize the release.

"It is not the original birth certificate, but it IS a birth certificate--which merely means an official document listing relevant facts regarding birth."

Response: It is not a birth certificate, short and simple. The birth certificate contains the name of the hospital and doctor who delivered the baby. This is what the American people want. Stop playing your silly games.

"It is the short form, to be sure, but Hawaii no longer sends out copies of the long form. The short-form summary is the legal birth certificate that Hawaii sends out. If you go to the Web site of the Department of Health of Hawaii and request a copy of your birth certificate, you will get the Certification, the short-form summary, NOT a copy of the long-form original document. And there is no way on that page or otherwise to get a copy of the long form. I asked.

Response: Who are you kidding?

"This means two things: (1) The Certification is a legal document, accepted by ALL the departments in Hawaii (Yes, including DHHL, I asked), and (2) Unless Obama has a copy of his original birth certificate, saved from the time of his birth and not lost, all that he can show is what Hawaii sent him, which is the Certification."

Response: The COLB is a legal document. But it has limited probative value when legitimately questioned. It is only prima facie evidence of what it states. First, the actual paper COLB has not been produced to any public authority. Second, what has been produced is a digital computer image of the alleged COLB. Even assuming that we are to accept the digital image in lieu of the paper document (which we do not), the prima facie value of this computer image has been overcome by the Himalayan Mountain of contradictory evidence. Hence, it is time for Obama to do a little better than to rely on an unconfirmed and questionable computer digital image which he expects to propel him to the pinnacle of world power. How can you not see the simple absurdity in this? Oh, yes, I forgot, the emperor has nice clothes.

"This fellow, a right-wing blogger based in Hawaii, puts it better than I can."

Response: Too bad for you. Also, your example is pathetic. Am I supposed to give more acceptability to what the "right-winger" says because he is as you fallaciously state a "right-winger?"

"A fairly impressive internet industry has sprung up claiming that Obama was born in either Kenya or Indonesia."

Response: The people's right to know who their President is is not some "internet industry." It is a fundamental constitutional right of the people as clearly stated in Article II and the 20th Amendment. If Obama wants to play, he has got to play by the rules. Too bad that "party spirit" has blinded our political parties from doing what is right for our Constitutional Republic and from respecting the rule of law which is what has made our nation great. George Washington was right about warning us "in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party." See his Farewell Address, paragraphs 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 43.

"Obama’s birth certificate posted online is exactly the same birth certificate everybody in Hawai`i gets from the State Department of Health."

Response: Not everyone else in Hawaii is the President of the United States. Not everyone else in Hawaii has so many doubts raised about where they were born like Obama has.

Continued on Part II

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
May 31, 2009 9:05 AM
Puzo1 said...

To smrstrauss:

Part II

"It is not forged. There is nothing unusual about the design or the texture."

Response: This is not what some expert concluded. See the "Dr. Polarik" analysis. This information alone raises a significant doubt about the digital image and entitles the plaintiffs to demand better evidence under the rules of evidence. The people are indeed entitled to have an expert examine the actual COLB and should not have to rely on the honesty and integrity of unknown persons whose fingers we see in those nice pictures on the Obama web sight. And you expect our great nation to allow a person to be President based on some fingers showing a piece of paper on a computer screen. Did I wake up in the same country that I once knew? We must be the laughing stock of the whole world but we just do not know it.

"In addition to the birth certificate, the August 13, 1961 Honolulu Advertiser also carries an announcement of Obama’s birth. The Honolulu Star-Bulletin also carries the same announcement. Both papers require submission of a copy of the birth certificate to print a birth announcement. (Correction: Both papers printed an identical list of birth announcements supplied to them by the Hawaii State Department of Health.)"

Response: These newspaper birth announcements add nothing of probative value to the inquiry of where Obama was born. As you concede, the announcements came directly from the Hawaii State Department of Health. What is missing is what underlying evidence did the State Department have to issue the alleged birth certificate?

"How to get a copy of the original? Not from Obama. He does not have it. We can get it from Hawaii by changing the law in Hawaii to make the birth files of a president public documents. This should be fairly easy to do because the governor of Hawaii is a Republican, and because--I am convinced--Democrats and Independents would not oppose changing the law. Why should they? The original in the files must show that Obama was born in Hawaii."

Response: Again, a pathetic point. We do not need any change in law. We only need Obama to tell Hawaii to release the document. Also, I see that you are in love with the party labels. See my previous point on "party spirit."

"Why? Because in 1961, when Obama was born, it was not legal to create a birth file for someone who was born outside of Hawaii. Yes, there was a law--the certificate of Hawaiian birth act--that required registration of Hawaiian children. But that also required a delay of one year before they could be registered, and there was no delay in this case, as proven by the Certification and by the notices in the newspapers."

Response: You miss the simple point. Given the contradictory evidence showing to the contrary, we want the underlying evidence that supports the COLB's statement that Obama was born in Hawaii.

"I suggest you get back to the idea that you can prove to a court that the Constitution requires both birth in the USA and two parents who were citizens at the time of birth. (I don't agree with this, but it is probably easier than proving that Obama was born somewhere else or lost his citizenship.)"

Response: Yes, indeed, in order to be President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Military, one must be an Article II "natural born Citizen." That means that the would-be President must be born in the U.S. to a mother and father who are themselves U.S. citizens. A simple understanding of the concept of membership in a society which we call citizenship as it has developed from the most primitive tribal societies (the American Indians and African tribes as just two examples), to the Greeks and the Romans, and down to modern society, and as expressed in natural law, ancient codes, the law of nations, continental civil law, English and American common law, and English and American statutes gives the simple explanation for this. "It's the allegiance, stupid." See my many post on this blog for further details on this.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
May 31, 2009 9:19 AM
Mick said...

Mario,
I don't know why you give smrstrauss the pleasure of your response. He is certainly a party hack or shill. The truth does not matter to him. The bottom line is that the BC really does not matter (although it may). The simple fact is that reliance on an unsworn website is hearsay, and not acceptable evidence in a court of law. It is simply laughable that the proposition is even put forth.
What do you think about Jeffrey Taylor's resignation?
May 31, 2009 12:24 PM
James said...

"It is the short form, to be sure, but Hawaii no longer sends out copies of the long form. The short-form summary is the legal birth certificate that Hawaii sends out. If you go to the Web site of the Department of Health of Hawaii and request a copy of your birth certificate, you will get the Certification, the short-form summary, NOT a copy of the long-form original document. And there is no way on that page or otherwise to get a copy of the long form. I asked."

Response: If this in fact true, why was it necessary for Obama to ask for a COLB in 2007. Remember the COLB is from 2007 and didn't exist before 2007.

Just What was Obama using BEFORE 2007 to verify his hawiann Birth?...

1. His Vault Copy
2. Another COLB BEFORE 2007

I would like to see both.
May 31, 2009 7:01 PM
roderick said...

Not everybody born on American soil is constitutionally eligible to be president. Correct me if I'm wrong. The birth certificate is being hidden because it will confirm that the imposter's father was kenyan. The imposter has already confirmed this and has not denied it. The imposter does not have divided loyalties, the imposter is only loyal to his race and kenya his homeland. I believe the imposter will be brought up on impeachment for high crimes and felonies against the people of the Unites States of America. Treason, bribes, forging documents, etc. I believe that the imposter caught everybody off guard including the Senate and the Senate didn't think the American people would question it. Remember Mr. Kerchner has the senate under civil suit to show why they allowed this man to receive the electoral college votes and did not ask the imposter for proof of being constitutionallly eligible. The man is not constitutionally eligible according to the fact finding mission that I have been able to gather over the past several months. It will never come down to a birth certificate in the sense of showing where he was born but will come down to a birth certificate showing that his father was a British citizen at the time of his birth, a kenyan if you will. That in and of itself is enough to upon further examination of the requirements to be a president to disqualify him. In other words it will come down to this. Thank you for your interest Mr. Obama in inquiring to run for the President of the United States of America but as you well know in order to run for that office or vice-president both of your parents have to be citizens and in your case your father is a British citizen. That in and of itself disqualifies you Mr. Obama but you are welcome to run for Senate.
May 31, 2009 7:06 PM
James said...

Well said Roderick. The fact that Obama's father was Kenyan and never a US citizen or even permanent resident seems to be presdient setting. I am aware of no other US President whose parent was never a US citizen. There is talk about Chester Arthur's father being Canadian. But I think father who is Kenyan is more foreign than a father who Kenyan. After all Canada borders the USA.

Nevertheless, it might be fruitful to research all past presidental candidates and determine if there are any of their parents who weren't US Citizens.

Perhaps this issue has been dealt with before in courts in past but ultimately dismissed which is why there would no real court decision on this issue.

I know that George Romney was questioned about his elgibility in the 1960s since he was born in Mexico to 2 US citizens. Apparently, there was a lot legal background investgation in this matter but the matter never made it to courts for resolution.

It might be fruitful to research the legal analysis of that issue to determine if someone from timeframe pushed foward the definition of "Natural Born" citizen to courts as being born on US soil to 2 US citizens.
May 31, 2009 9:03 PM
mtngoat61 said...

Hi all,

An online article titled, "Obama Presidential Eligibilty - An Introductory Primer", by Stephen Tonchen.
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm
M Publius Goat
http://www.obamacitizenshipfacts.org
June 1, 2009 3:50 PM
roderick said...

can anybody from hawaii provide me or the general public with a computer generated birth certificate similar to what 'bama has up on the internet. We need somebody from hawaii to provide this so that we can see what we know is a real one so that we can put it up against what I know is a fake one and I really don't care if it is fake because he may have been born in hawaii but he is not constitutionally eligible.
June 1, 2009 6:33 PM
roderick said...

you see if I was in that position and somebody asked me for my birth certificate I would respond "When do you want to see it?" and they would respond "no I want the long form from Baton Rouge" and I would respond once again "ok go get it it may take a month or two for them to release it but you are welcome to see it." The reason for this being is that the voters are taxpayers and I want to make sure that they are happy taxpayers that is if I were running for President. One thing you got to remember in all of this is that the senate was totally caught off guard totally taken by surprise.
June 1, 2009 6:44 PM
KitKat said...

Mr. Apuzzo,

I believe that the simple answer to your question is that Obama has something to hide. It would be a simple matter for Obama to write Hawaii and authorize making his long form birth certificate and other vital records (adoption records, name changes if any, etc.) public. The privacy argument just doesn't hold water anymore, IMO.

KitKat
"Trust, but verify."
June 3, 2009 6:43 AM
Aristotle The Hun said...

Thanks so much! This really needed to be done.

Aristotle the Hun (Sam Sewell) here from The Steady Drip. Most accurate and cogent article on the issue yet published.

Even better than mine. :-)

Can we post this on our blogs? With proper attribution of course.
June 4, 2009 6:20 PM
Tim said...

@ Mick. At which point did you run with that argument without looking up the facts? Legal precedent was set in 1898 that says anyone born in the US, foreign parents or not, are granted citizenship automatically. There are a few exceptions, none of which apply to Obama. I'm sorry, but that's the law and you're wrong.

jus soli

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_Clause

In Wong Kim Ark the Supreme Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a man born within the United States to foreigners (in that case, Chinese citizens) who were lawfully residing in the United States and who were not employed in a diplomatic or other official capacity by a foreign power, was a citizen of the United States.

Under these two rulings, the following persons born in the United States are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, and thus do not qualify for automatic citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment:

* Children born to foreign diplomats

* Children born to enemy forces in hostile occupation of the United States

* Children born to Native Americans who are members of tribes not taxed (These were later given full citizenship by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.)

The following persons born in the United States are explicitly citizens:

* Children born to U.S. citizens

* Children born to aliens who are lawfully inside the United States (resident or visitor), with the intention of amicably interacting with its people and obeying its laws
July 24, 2009 12:26 PM