Spread the love


by Cynthia Wilson

Why was this candidate for President of the United States not asked for any documentation proving his eligibility?

(Oct. 12, 2010) — This editorial is pragmatic: Barack Hussein Obama has never provided any court-vetted probative contemporaneous birth documents**. If he had, we would know. We do not know factually who BHO’s parents are, what his real name is, where he was born, nor when. Obama once said, “The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.”

Obama also said, “I can’t spend all my time with my birth certificate plastered to my forehead.” This statement is true, since he does not have a court-vetted U.S. birth certificate and it’s also a good distraction from his Article II ineligibility and failed 20th amendment qualifying.”

His birthplace is not the only question regarding his constitutional eligibility to serve.

We know McCain showed documents during the campaign to demonstrate his constitutional eligibility, which had been challenged before. BHO had never been vetted, and because he has failed to demonstrate any evidence of eligibility, the 20th amendment should have precluded him from assuming the presidency.

In many states, proof of eligibility is required for various offices, including the presidency. Since this documentation does not exist for BHO, the various state agencies responsible for balloting presidential candidates where specific proof of constitutional eligibility is required have failed to uphold their respective state laws.  They have also failed the citizens of their states and the nation.

Others have reported that states have no requirement to qualify candidates for the office of President.

Below are several state laws which were not upheld in the case of BHO. In Hawaii, South Carolina and Texas, state laws require the Party to certify constitutional eligibility. In Texas and South Carolina, this was apparently done without any court-vetted documents. In Hawaii, it appears that the state Democratic Party refused to certify constitutional eligibility; therefore, Nancy Pelosi, as representative of the Democrat National Committee, signed a nomination form stating that Obama and Biden were qualified.  However, that document was filed only in Hawaii; the other 49 states received a nomination form which did not contain the “constitutionally-eligible” language.  It appears that Pelosi signed the Hawaii form without any court-vetted documents.

In Alabama, the Secretary of State certified the names of presidential candidates from all parties for the general election, but the form she signed mentioned nothing about eligibility.  However, a 2007 certification form from the Alabama Democrat Party listed all of the Democrat presidential primary contenders, states that the candidates “filed qualifications:”

2007 Alabama Democratic Party Primary Nomination Form

The body of the document reads:

Pursuant to Section 17-13-5, Code of Alabama, 1975, I hereby certify that the persons whose names appear below and on the following schedules filed qualifications with me for the February 5, 2008 Democratic Presidential Preference Primary Election as candidates for the offices indicated.

President of the United States
Joe Biden
Hillary Clinton
Christopher J. Dodd
John Edwards
Barack Obama
Bill Richardson

This certification is subject to such disqualifications or corrective action as hereafter may appropriately be made.

Alabama Statute 17-13-5 is here.

In Arizona, the state statute requires proof of eligibility to be filed along with Nomination Papers, but there is no evidence that it was ever done.

1. Arizona: BHO Signed a Notarized Affidavit But Provided No Proof of Eligibility

Arizona: 16-311. Nomination papers; filing; definitions

All persons desiring to become a candidate shall file with the nomination paper provided for in subsection A an affidavit which shall be printed in a form prescribed by the secretary of state. The affidavit shall include facts sufficient to show that, other than the residency requirement provided in subsection A, the candidate will be qualified at the time of election to hold the office the person seeks.

On November 30, 2007, Obama signed an affidavit (pictured below) of constitutional eligibility, but according to recent research, did not include proof that he met constitutional requirements to serve. State Rep. Judy Burges’s recently-proposed bill to require proof of eligibility is not necessary, as Arizona already has eligibility requirements.  That proposal, which did not pass the Arizona legislature in April 2010, states:

The national political party committee for a candidate for president for a party that is entitled to continued representation on the ballot shall provide to the secretary of state written notice of that political party’s nomination of its candidates for president and vice‑president.  Within ten days after submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate’s citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate’s age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States.

C.  The secretary of state shall review the affidavit and other documents submitted by the national political party committee and, if the secretary of state has reasonable cause to believe that the candidate does not meet the citizenship, age and residency requirements prescribed by law, the secretary of state shall not place that candidate’s name on the ballot.

On September 27, 2010, a researcher contacted the Arizona Secretary of State at (602) 542-4285‎ and asked, “What documents were used to fulfill state statute 16-311 in regard to the presidential election in 2008?”

An eight-minute hold ensued, after which the researcher was told, “There was an affidavit that was filed.”  The researcher asked, “By Barack Obama?” The answer was “Yes.”

The researcher then asked, “Was that all?” and the clerk answered, “Yes. If there was anything else it is across the street.  It’s been two years; I can’t remember.  Are you asking about some birth certificate?  The media person, Matt Benson, will have to call.”

On September 28, 2010, Matt Benson called the researcher and left a message. The researcher returned the call at (602) 350-2834 and left a message. On September 30,  Mr. Benson left a message, saying “I’m confused as to what documents (you’d) be looking for.”  (Note:  The AZ statute requires “facts sufficient to show that…the candidate will be qualified…”; “facts” require evidentiary support, and none was provided.)

On October 7, 2010, the researcher called Mr. Benson as a follow-up and asked, “Can we get specific information about the evidentiary support for ‘facts’ for 16-311? A person can’t attest to something they cannot witness, so they cannot swear an affidavit for place of their own birth as a ‘fact.'” Mr. Benson answered, “No other documents were provided besides Mr. Obama’s affadavit; candidates for office can self-attest to their eligibility by Arizona law.”  The researcher asked where this was written.  He then said, “I’ll have to talk to our attorney, and I will get back to you.”

Later that day the researcher received a letter from Mr. Benson to which was attached Mr. Obama’s sworn affidavit.

Page 1 of notarized, signed statement from BHO attesting that he met the constitutional qualifications to run for president
Page 2 of signed, notarized statement from BHO

Mr. Benson wrote a letter stating that the applicable statute in this instance was:

ARS 16-242 Qualifications for ballot; nomination paper
A. A person seeking nomination as a candidate for the office of president of the United States shall sign and cause to be filed with the secretary of state a nomination paper that contains the following information:
1. The name, residence address and mailing address of the candidate.
2. The name of the recognized political party from which the person seeks nomination.
3. The name and address of the chairman of the candidate’s state committee.
4. The exact manner for printing the candidate’s name on the presidential preference ballot pursuant to section 16-311.
B. The nomination paper shall be filed not less than fifty days nor more than seventy days before the presidential preference election and not later than 5:00 p.m. on the last day for filing.
C. Section 16-351 does not apply to a nomination paper filed pursuant to this section.
D. Within seventy-two hours after the close of filing the secretary of state shall certify to the officer in charge of elections the names of the candidates who are qualified for the presidential preference election ballot.

Mr. Benson wrote:  “As I indicated when we last spoke, Arizona law requires that candidates for local, state and federal office self-attest to their eligibility. I’ve attached the form that Mr. Obama submitted prior to Arizona’s Presidential Preference Election. Following the Democratic National Convention, the party filed additional forms with our office identifying Mr. Obama as the Democratic nominee for president.”

The researcher wrote to Mr. Benson about the omission of 16-311 for facts to be filed along with the nomination paper prescribed by 16-242, and a summary statement:  “For my take-away, you’re (Mr. Benson) stating per ARS 16-311 that Barack Obama never provided to the Arizona Secretary of State any “facts sufficient to show…the candidate will be qualified at the time of election to hold the office the person seeks; he presented only the personal affidavit portion.  Correct me if I’m wrong.  Thank-you.”

The researcher did not receive any correction from the Arizona Secretary of State’s office to this take-away statement.  Apparently the Arizona Secretary of State, by tacet admission, agreed that ARS 16-311 was never upheld.  No 16-311 Subsection A affidavit with sufficient proof of eligibility was ever provided, according to the Secretary of State’s office.

The 205 Arizona Code Revised, Statute 16-351, allows for challenges to eligibility of any candidate to be placed on the state ballot.

2.    Hawaii Democratic Committee Failed to Certify Constitutional Eligibility; but the DNC did.  What evidence did Nancy Pelosi use to sign the document?

Hawaii statute §11-113, Presidential ballots.

(c)  All candidates for president and vice president of the United States shall be qualified for inclusion on the general election ballot under either of the following procedures:

(1)  In the case of candidates of political parties which have been qualified to place candidates on the primary and general election ballots, the appropriate official of those parties shall file a sworn application with the chief election officer not later than 4:30 p.m. on the sixtieth day prior to the general election, which shall include:
(A)  The name and address of each of the two candidates;
(B)  A statement that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution;
(C) A statement that the candidates are the duly chosen candidates of both the state and the national party, giving the time, place, and manner of the selection.

As opposed to all former Democratic candidates such as Gore and Kerry, the Hawaii Democratic Committee changed its customary wording in 2008 as required by Hawaii law in order to be placed on the ballot.  Instead, they attested to his being chosen by acclamation (popularity).  The attorney for the Hawaii Democratic Party is William H. Gilardy, Jr., who was also the attorney for Stanley Ann Soetoro in her divorce from Lolo Soetoro.  Therefore, Mr. Gilardy might know the exact birth circumstances of BHO (it has been reported that key pages of the Soetoro divorce documents were redacted).

A letter from the Hawaii Elections Office states that Obama was qualified to run for the office of President and shows a state Democrat Party nomination form which alleges that Obama and Biden were “legally qualified to serve under the under the provisions of the national Democratic Parties balloting at the Presidential Preference Poll.”     There is no mention of constitutional eligibility.  However, a letter from an elections official in Hawaii dated December 18, 2008 does mention the U.S. Constitution:

Letter written by Kevin B. Cronin, Chief Elections Officer at the Hawaii Office of Elections

Enlargement from the letter written by Kevin Cronin of the Hawaii Office of Elections stating that Hawaii law defines the process by which a presidential candidate's name is placed on the ballot

It appears that in order to meet Hawaii statutory requirements, Nancy Pelosi signed a notarized nomination certificate affirming that BHO was eligible to serve as president according to the U.S. Constitution, yet she apparently used no court-vetted probative contemporaneous documents to do so.  However, it appears that the Hawaii Secretary of State  placed Obama’s name on the ballot.  Without any probative contemporaneous documents (which this writer believes do not exist) as the basis of Pelosi’s certification of Obama, the nominating form is arguably a forgery.

On September 28, 2010, a researcher contacted the Hawaii Elections Office at (808) 453-8683.

The researcher asked, “Why did the Hawaii Democrat Party refuse to state that Barack Obama was constitutionally eligible?”

The answer was, “You will have to call the Hawaii Democratic Committee. Their number is (808) 596-2980.”

The researcher then called the Hawaii Democratic Committee and asked, “Why did you refuse to qualify Barack Obama as constitutionally eligible?”

The answer was, “I don’t know what you mean.”

The researcher explained, “Well, the language was changed in the HDC candidate form between that of Kerry and Gore whereby constitutional eligibility was noted, to that of Barack Obama whereby only acclamation was noted, and Nancy Pelosi vouched for his constitutional eligibility per Hawaii law requirements.”

The HDC’s response was, “What’s your email?  I’ll have the chair get back to you.”  As of publication, the researcher has not received a response.

On September 28, 2010, the researcher contacted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office at (202) 225-0100 and asked, “What documents were used to certify constitutional eligibility for the Hawaii Democratic Committee?”

The staffer said, “Oh, hold on a minute and I’ll get someone to help you.”  The call was then transferred to House Speaker’s COMMENT LINE, where a message was left, but she received no return call.

3.    The Texas Democratic Party Chair Attested To Obama’s eligibility With No Documentation Ever Shown


A political party is entitled to have the names of its nominees for president and vice-president of the United States placed on the ballot in a presidential general election if:  (1)  the nominees possess the qualifications for those offices prescribed by federal law;

The Democratic Committee chair states they are unable to comment on inquiry about documentation used for 192.031.

4.    South Carolina Democratic Committee Treasurer Certifies Eligibility, No Documents Used

South Carolina:  SECTION 7-11-20. Conduct of party conventions or party primary elections generally; presidential preference primaries.

Political parties must verify the qualifications of candidates prior to certifying to the State Election Commission the names of candidates to be placed on primary ballots. The written certification required by this section must contain a statement that each certified candidate meets, or will meet by the time of the general election, or as otherwise required by law, the qualifications in the United States Constitution, statutory law, and party rules to participate in the presidential preference primary for which he has filed. Political parties must not certify any candidate who does not or will not by the time of the general election meet the qualifications in the United States Constitution, statutory law, and party rules for the presidential preference primary for which the candidate desires to file, and such candidate’s name must not be placed on a primary ballot.

On September 28, 2010, the South Carolina Elections Commission was contacted at (803) 734-9060.

The researcher asked, “Were any vetted birth documents used to support the certification by the SCDC?” and the answer was, “Hold on a minute.”  The call was then put on hold and transferred to a Mr. Gary Baum of the SC Commission.  The researcher left a message with him and awaited a call back or email information.  Chris Webmier of Media Relations called back and said, “Only a letter was presented by SCDC. I can send it to you, but no other documents were used.”  (Since the letter is linked above no request was made after it.)

The South Carolina Democrat Committee Presidential Primary Ballot Request is here.

5.  State of Louisiana Statutes
§1280.22. Candidates; procedure for qualifying

A. Candidates for presidential nominee shall qualify in accordance with procedures established by the party. Prior to qualification as a candidate of a political party for presidential nominee, a person shall pay a qualifying fee of seven hundred fifty dollars and any additional fee as authorized by R.S. 18:464(C) or shall have obtained a nominating petition, bearing the handwritten signatures of no less than one thousand registered voters affiliated with the party from each of the congressional districts into which the state is divided. If the candidate is qualifying by paying a fee, the fee shall be paid in cash, by certified or cashier’s check drawn on a state or national bank or credit union, by United States postal money order, or by a money order issued by a state or national bank or credit union.”

However, paragraph B.2.c. reads:

(c)  The notice of candidacy also shall include a certificate signed by the candidate, certifying that he has read the notice of his candidacy and that all of the statements contained therein are true and correct.  The certificate shall be executed before a notary public.

One writer states that Secretaries of State are not responsible for vetting presidential candidates, but rather, it is, in fact, the political parties who are charged with determining eligibility.

BHO has failed the requirement to be qualified to be “President of the United States” at the Constitutional level (cannot “be” a legal president per the Constitution):

The 20th Amendment to the US Constitution states:

If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

At the federal level, BHO has failed to qualify by vetted birth documents.  BHO failed to qualify to serve as President with any court-vetted probative contemporaneous birth documents by January 20, 2009.  Neither the Oath of Office nor the Joint Session of Congress to count the electoral votes has any language about qualifying the president-elect as constitutionally eligible.  Therefore BHO has never been qualified and cannot be a constitutionally legal president, no matter whose fault it is that he was not required to present sufficient documentation proving that he was a “natural born Citizen.”

The 20th Amendment of the Constitution says that if a President elect “fails to qualify” by January 20th, the Vice President elect is to “act as President” until a President qualifies.  Because the procedure to determine Obama’s birthplace and other qualifying factors has never occurred, we know that Obama could not have “qualified” by January 20th. Anyone who certified his eligibility perjured him/herself since neither his age, name, nor birthplace has been definitively proven.  Certainly no qualification by Congress of BHO is on the record utilizing any vetted documentation to establish the facts.

The president elect becomes president automatically at noon on January 20th, but there are TWO Constitutional requirements which must be met before a sitting president can “act as president” or exercise the presidential powers: he must take the oath of office, and he must “qualify.”  Doing one of the two is not enough and in no way impacts the need to meet the other requirement.  Obama has “failed to qualify” and the only person the 20th Amendment allows to “act as president” is Joe Biden, until a president qualifies.

Image of John McCain's original long-form birth certificate stating that he was born in Panama. There is conflicting information regarding whether or not he was born on a military base or in a hospital in Colon.


The vetting of John McCain by the Senate via Senate Resolution 511 means Democrats were the original birthers! Is this scrutiny of McCain but not Obama more anti-white discrimination?  McCain was compelled to produce his court-vetted long-form birth certificate in 2008, but Obama, who ironically examined McCain’s qualifications, was never required to produce any documentation himself.

McCain was born in Panama while his father was on active duty in the U.S. Navy.  Vattel defines a “natural born Citizen” as “born in-country of citizen parents,” with the singular exception of birthplace for children born “in the armies of the state,” but still of parents who are citizens.

Vattel, Sec. 217Children born in the armies of the state.

For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.

Whereas McCain’s status as a natural born Citizen was arguable, BHO’s was impossible.  The result of the Senate’s 20th Amendment vetting of McCain’s eligibility, which was sponsored by Sen. Claire McCaskill and cosponsored by Barack Obama, reads:

“Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”

The McCain birth data seems contradictory.  According to his birth certificate John McCain was not born on a military base (even though a newspaper microfiche says he was born on a submarine base hospital, it was not built until 5 years after McCain’s birth and no hospital is listed in a 1936 description of the compound).   His birth certificate states that McCain was born at Colon Hospital which was outside of the Panama Canal Zone in 1936.

The birthplace statement in SR511 is deliberately inaccurate.  First, the Senate cannot deem anyone a natural born Citizen; only status-at-birth makes a person so, as Vattel asserts.  McCain was born in Panama proper, “in the armies of the state.”  It appears that perhaps someone gave McCain inaccurate counsel by omitting Vattel’s other definition: that he might not qualify as a natural born Citizen because of his birthplace when he actually would have qualified as a natural born Citizen, having been born “in the armies of the state.”  This would be the reason for the inaccuracy in McCain’s stated birthplace in SR511.  This seems to be a fake “favor” to unnecessarily describe that birthplace as a military base, since it is illogical to think BHO would positively help McCain’s campaign.  The apparent quid pro quo McCain-silence about Obama’s obvious ineligibility appears to be cover for his own questionable eligibility so as to keep the issue out of the realm of public discourse.  The resolution cosponsored by BHO displays one other potential argument: that BHO knew himself that two US Citizen parents were required for a person to be a natural born Citizen.  Also, the microfiched birth announcement which by all facts cannot be correct, and for which an original newspaper does not exist, seems analogous to BHO’s microfiched birth announcement, which by all facts cannot be correct, and for which an original newspaper does not exist.

Based purely on logic and Article II, BHO cannot be a natural born Citizen.

Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. 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.

The Article II definition of natural born Citizen has been elaborately summarized elsewhere.  For purposes of this article, BHO has no court-vetted probative contemporaneous birth documents, so his name, birthplace, age, and citizenship cannot be ascertained.  Therefore, BHO has not even been determined to be a statutory 14th amendment U.S. Citizen (requiring at least one U.S.-citizen parent or naturalized), let alone an Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 natural born Citizen, which means born of citizen parents in-country.

Here is a brief logic-oriented description of the Natural born Citizen definition which shows why BHO cannot meet the definition:

There are two types of Citizens; Statutory (by law or statute as defined by the 14th Amendment and US Code 1401) and natural born Citizens (by nature, needing no law because there are no other options of citizenship but one for the child since both parents are Citizens and the child is born in-country).  All statutory US Code 1401 citizens have at least one first-generation tie to a foreign nation at birth by parentage or birthplace, whereas no natural born Citizens ever do.

There has been an ardent attempt by some bloggers to conflate categories, grouping types of Citizens incorrectly under “naturalized citizen” and “natural born Citizen.”  This categorization is easily disproven by observing that U.S. Code 1401, which defines all Statutory Citizens, has two subcategories: “nationals” (naturalized) and “citizens at birth,” whereas the term “natural born Citizen” is not found within U.S. Code 1401 but rather appears in the U.S. Constitution in reference to eligibility for the presidency.

The Supreme Court already ruled in 1874 in the holding of Minor v. Happersett that the definition of a natural born Citizen is outside of the Constitution; the 14th amendment was added six years prior to Minor, so it was already “in” the Constitution (1868) at the time of the Minor ruling.*

Since the 14th amendment covers every possible human mathematical permutation of parentage and birthplace for statutory U.S. Citizens, except for one –the only omitted one must be, and is, that of a natural born Citizen (which is a baby born of two U.S. Citizen parents on U.S. soil), in agreement with Minor.  Fourteenth- amendment statutory Citizens At Birth, which Minor v. Happersett holds can never be a natural born Citizen, include the following as described in US Code 1401:

US CODE 1401 Nationals (naturalized)
Citizens At Birth in USA
a) born in-country subject to jurisdiction
b) 1 US native parent, born in-country
c) 2 US citizen parents, born out-of-country
d) 1 US citizen parent plus 1 foreign national parent, born out-of-country
e) 1 US citizen parents, born out-of-country
f)  unknown parentage, found in USA under age 5
g) 1 US citizen parent w/5 year residence or military or government job plus 1 alien parent, born out-of-country
h) 1 US citizen parent prior resident of USA plus 1 alien parent, born prior to 5-24-1934, out-of-country

So even if BHO is who he says he is, he cannot be a legal POTUS, because:

1.  No matter where BHO was born, if his father was an alien, he is ineligible to be POTUS.  Even if BHO were born in Hawaii (or in-country) which he has provided no court-vetted documentation to prove, he would be a US Code 1401 (b) statutory Citizen since he only had one U.S.-citizen parent and thus would be ineligible per Minor to be president, since no statutory citizen can ever be a natural born Citizen.

2. Since Obama’s father was a UKC (United Kingdom Colony) citizen at his birth, he is ineligible as POTUS.  Factcheck.org, a website run by the Annenberg Foundation (for which BHO worked for eight years), makes an admission against interest that BHO was born a British Citizen (this is because per the British Nationality Act of 1948, BHO, Sr. and his grandfather too, were both “British Citizens by Birth,” thus making BHO, Jr. a British Citizen – ‘by birth’ if he was born in a British territory, or ‘by descent’ if not born in a British territory).

The Civil Rights Act, passed on April 9, 1866, states:

That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States.

If BHO is who he says he is, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 calls into question whether he is even a U.S. Citizen at all.  Further, the Oath of Citizenship required for all naturalized US Citizens states:  “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God. In acknowledgement whereof I have hereunto affixed my signature.

BHO has never abjured his self-admitted British Citizenship (which did not expire).

3.  Obama’s electronic COLB does not serve as vetted birth documentation and Hawaii will not verify it even though it is no longer private.  Factcheck.org, and fightthesmears.com, the latter of which states that it is “paid for by Barack Obama,” published, in electronic format only, an image of a Certification of Live Birth (COLB) which was ostensibly filed (but not accepted) by Hawaii, which is not probative court-vetted birth documentation and which forensic experts have challenged as being a forgery.  (The Obama camp has since removed the aforementioned pages.)  The issue of the COLB forgery and Hawaii Vital Records’ malfeasance and fraud has been exhaustively described elsewhere.  The Hawaii Department of Health refuses to even verify the publicly-published COLB by hiding behind bogus privacy reasons.

Since the party of interest (BHO) somehow placed this electronic document in the public domain for public consumption, no expectation of privacy can be justified.  This is because:

a)    In the 2000 decision, Green v. CBS Broadcasting Corp., a Federal District Court rejected any privacy claim because certain salacious data was to be found in the public record divorce documents.  A private-facts plaintiff must show that the “private” information disclosed is not of “legitimate concern” to the public.  Certainly, the Constitutional eligibility issue is a legitimate, high-concern issue for the public and as presented by BHO not at all salacious.
b)    The Restatement of Torts draws the line at “morbid and sensational prying into private lives for its own sake.”  Certainly, the verification of the already-published COLB is not sensational prying into data in the COLB, since it has already been willingly published by the party of interest himself.
c)    If any disclosure by Hawaiian government officials of the contents of a vital document occurs, permission from the party of interest to disclose was already granted.

Hawaii law §338-18, Disclosure of Records, prevents disclosure of private vital document data.  However, the COLB published by BHO himself no longer affords privacy protections to him.  Per Hawaii law §338-14.3, The Department of Health shall furnish on request and payment of fee, a verification of the existence of a certificate and that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.  However, the Hawaii Department of Health refuses to even verify the existence of an official printed version of the COLB from Factcheck.org and Fightthesmears.com as reflecting any vital event, let alone that it is accurate.


Based on all current available evidence or lack thereof, and failing evidence-based qualification from the party to the state to the federal (constitutional) levels, BHO cannot be a legal president or CIC per the 20th amendment and Article II.  Again, the Oath and Electoral vote count do not serve to qualify eligibility.  As Edwin Vieira pointed out in 2008, the United States is in a state of Constitutional crisis with an ongoing coup and usurpation.  The Constitution is merely a contract binding the nation states, and since the office of the President is held by a contractually unqualified person, the entire constitutional contract is null and void.  Any document, treaty, bill or debt is likewise null and void.  The implications are too vast to describe here.

*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 Minor v. Happersett, 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)

Also of key interest:  US v Wong Kim Ark
Democratic Party Refuses to Certify BHO’s Constitutional Eligibility (1)
Democratic Party Refuses to Certify BHO’s Constitutional Eligibility (2)
Senior Elections Clerk Honolulu:  BHO Not Born In Hawaii

**If BHO has provided a court-vetted contemporaneous long form U.S. birth certificate anywhere, please notify The Post & Email and this article will be updated.

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. Thank you Cynthia Wilson for writing this extraordinarily clear & concise, detail oriented, and very well researched scholarly article that adds excellent and wonderful insight into the legal and unconstitutional ineligibility of the Daily Serial Criminal, Foreign Terrorist Usurper Barry Soetoro Soebarkah alias Barack Obama. Usurper Obama is waging a Foreign Coup D’Etat War against our FREE and exceptional America in his daily serial criminal attacks of High Crimes, High Treasons, & a Coup D’Etat War aimed to overthrow the USA government, and to kill and destroy 310 + million USA FREE USA American people’s freedoms, civil rights, liberties, and lives.

    We The People must immediately arrest the extremely disturbed, psychotic, unfit, unstable, delusional sociopath, psychopath, and insane Barry Soetoro alias Barack Obama and hold him and his co-horts accountable and responsible for committing monstrous High Crimes & High Treasons against ALL 310 + Million USA American people.

    We The American People must stop allowing people to cover-up for and aid and abet the High Crimes and Treasons of the psychotic insane conman madman Radical Islamic Muslim Indonesian citizen Usurper, who is a foreign born domestic Marxist/Communist/Fascist enemy who is truthfully and factually acting as a terrorist combatant of war against ALL Americans.

    Usurper Barack Obama is the Highest Level National Security Disaster in the USA and he is illegally and unconstitutionally waging a Foreign Terrorist Totalitarian Dictatorship Coup D’Etat War against the exceptional & FREE United States of America and ALL 310 + Million USA American citizens and he will destroy and kill billions of people and animals if the psychotic sociopath, Barack Obama, the daily serial criminal psychopath is not arrested and stopped by the America people!!

  2. Vic Hern,

    Don’t get your hopes too high – these people never resign, they are beyond it! Just remember that Clinton was also impeached. And of course, unlike Nixon, they don’t think that the American people have the right to know if their president is a crook. If they did, he would never be a president.

    However, an impeachment may be coming in this case, too:

    Black Panther Investigation Broadens, Could Ensnare Obama


    Unfortunately, as noticed, the resignation in this case may be counter-productive.

  3. Zero has admitted, in one of his own books, that his father was NOT a US citizen. Zero is not qualified to be prez; he wouldn’t be even if he was born in the Lincoln bedroom. Guess what? That makes EVERYTHING, including Biden, illegitimate!

    1. He obviously knows the Chester Arthur history, and the fact that the public was unaware of CA’s father’s non US Citizenship (until CA was 13 it is now known). The whole charade about a father he barely knew being sooooo important to him was all about getting that fact before the public so as to ensure the precedent of his Usurpation was complete. The Globalists have been trying to ammend A2S1 for years, and this is their chance. He must be taken out of office.

  4. I suspect that Barry what’s his name would flee the country in the dark of
    night to escape prosecution. Pakistan, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, are my top
    choices for his destination. Arrest warrant and charges need to be handled
    quickly to prevent unlawful flight from justice.

    1. My guess is that, sometime in the near future, Obama is going to make up some excuse to resign and try to hand the Presidency over the Joe Biden. We cannot allow this to happen. A fraud has been committed and Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and Hillary Clinton are accomplices to that fraud.

      If Obama resigns, the pressure to get resolution on his legitimacy will be greatly reduced. It will still be as important as ever to get the issue resolved. Removing the usurper is not the only thing that must be done. Everything that Obama has done while pretending to be the President is illegitimate and needs to be recognized and dealt with as such..

    1. Why are you asking me? There are no letters after my name. If you want a correct answer to that question, you should read the Kerchner filing at Apuzzo’s blog. If the answer to your question isn’t in the filing, then ask Apuzzo by posting your question in a comment to the blog post at his blog.
      Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed with the U.S. Supreme Court for Kerchner et al vs. Obama/Congress/Pelosi et al Lawsuit

      1. Tim, I thought you were trying to rattle my cage, which is why I was so short with you. I apologize for that.

        From the Table of Contents of A Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed with the U.S. Supreme Court for Kerchner v Obama & Congress, which has been uploaded to Mario Apuzzo’s scribd account:

        VI. Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Elena Kagan should recuse themselves from having any involvement in this case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36


        And on page 36, he explains that “…[t]he validity of their appointments can be questioned should Mr. Obama be found not eligible to be President which could cause them to lose their appointment in which they have a financial interest. “

  5. It’s going to be funny as hell when the opposition candidate finally brings this up during the 2012 campaign, and gives President Obama the opening he needs to completely shut it down. Why would Obama even acknowledge this stuff before then? If an actual candidate brings it up, he can totally humiliate that candidate right then and there. He won’t play such a trump card *for you*, because it’s simply too valuable. The whole birther thing is a stupid gamble that would sink a campaign. Nobody with any real prospects of running for President believes that Obama was born anywhere except Hawaii, nor believes that having one foreign-born parent would make him anything but a natural born citizen still.

    My money is on this: The “potentially embarrassing” detail that would be found in the complete birth record is that Dunham had another child before Barack. There’s a place for that info on my birth certificate, and I would want to keep it private too.

    1. That scenario will not happen. If Obama is not removed from office before 2012 and if he decides to run again, his placement on the ballot will be challenged in many states that have laws on books allowing such challenge in a prescribed time window. There will be no escape using the standing issue.

      Obama knows this – he will not run again.

    2. With all respect James…a rather silly post. “The whole birther thing is stupid.” Excuse me? And you said, “Nobody with any real prospects of running believes Obama was born anywhere but Hawaii” Really? How do you know that James M? Are you a mind reader? Obama won’t be able to run in 2012 (assuming he is still in the White House, which I doubt) because he WILL HAVE to PROVE that he is constitutionally eligible. He can’t. And as for your definition of “natural born”, you obviously have not done your homework.
      Mrs. Rondeau replies: I believe some Obots have posted comments under the guise of joining the discussion, and when they’re spotted, their comments are zapped.

    3. I seriously doubt the DNC will run Oilbama in 2012. In fact, I won’t at all be shocked if he resigns before the end of 2011.

      As for 2012, I predict the Demonrats will run HR Clinton against the GOP’s ineligible Bobby Jindal.
      Mrs. Rondeau replies: It is our responsibility to make sure that NO ineligible candidates run by challenging all candidates’ constitutional eligibility during the period in which our state laws allow us to do so. Every single one of us must become educated as to the where, when, and how to file a challenge to make sure that the best protectors of the U.S. Constitution, and our state constitutions, are the ones who are elected to public office. We can’t have illegal aliens serving; we can’t have dual citizens serving, and we certainly can’t have anyone with foreign allegiances occupying the Senate, House or White House.

      1. Mrs. Rondeau, we’ll do our best. You might be surprised, however, by the number of Republican conservatives and self-proclaimed American patriots who insist that native citizenship is the same as natural born citizenship, especially when the idea of a Jindal run for the presidency is brought up. Hypocrisy isn’t a stranger to either of the two major political parties. Both parties are guilty of nominating ineligibles for the candidacy for president and of running ineligibles. This is why I keep saying that the issue needs to be put before the SCOTUS so that “natural born citizen” can be officially defined for once and for all, and it needs to be done before the 2012 election cycle begins. I’m hopeful that Kerchner and Apuzzo will prompt this action by the SCOTUS.
        Mrs. Rondeau replies: Absolutely; we all hope that the Kerchner v. Obama & Congress successfully opens up the eligibility question to a fair and impartial Supreme Court who will correctly issue a definition of “natural born Citizen.” My point was that each one of us can educate our friends, neighbors and relatives (if you so dare!) about the eligibility clause, our need for grand juries, and our dire need for representatives who will protect the rights of the people.

      2. Sharon, along these lines, do you know if Marco Rubio’s parents became naturalized US citizens before Rubio’s birth in Florida? His name is coming up now as a possible future President/VP candidate. Rubio’s parents were Cuban immigrants who fled Cuba in the late 1950s, but I have not been able to find out when they became US citizens.

    4. to james m.— i remind you that there is no birth place for obama in hawaii. dont you believe any hospital or clinic would come forward and proudly confirm that he was born there. there would be a big sign outside and one near the delivery room. also not one person from the state of hawaii comes forward admitting to any knowledge of him being born in hawaii. we will not fall for any bluff like that. his kenyan grandmother says he was born in kenya and she was at the hospital when he was born. but he is ineligible anyway because his father was kenyan from africa and was never an american citizen. incidently his grandmother never stated who his real mother was. you dont seem very well informed on this constitutional issue at all.

    5. James M. said; “The potentially embarrassing detail that would be found in the complete birth record is that Dunham had another child before Barack.”

      Prior pregnancy and delivery that no one knows about? Give me a break. You’re grasping at straws. Even if it were true; how would that be embarrassing to Obama II? Let’s say it is true. Why would the death or adoption of a sibling, born prior to Obama II, be embarrassing to him?

      If we’re going to look for something embarrassing as the reason to keep his original from the public, maybe we should look to the more likely possibility that his grandmother fraudulently reported his birth. Not only would that raise a few eyebrows and completely destroy Obama’s claim of being born in one of the hospitals, it would also make reasonable people wonder if he was in any way involved in her untimely demise.

      (What? Chicago politicians aren’t known for getting rid of those who stand in their way? Maybe you should read this article from the Illinois Police and Sheriff’s News http://www.ipsn.org/chiviol.html)

      As David Axelrod says, “The only people who want to keep things secret are folks who have something to hide.”

  6. Can anyone please explain why Republican Gov. Lingle said all of Obama’s documents are intact, and he was born in Hawaii when she campaigned for McCain and had every reason to bring out the truth, embarrass Obama and get McCain as President? It makes no sense people.

    1. Colin Powell claimed that there were readily deployable WMDs in Iraq – he was given incorrect information by CIA director. Similarly Gov. Lingle relied on Dr. Fukino’s word.

    2. Nobody in Hawaii ever said Obama was born there. They simply said they have on file a legitimate birth certificate. They never said where from!!!!

      Nobody – has ever seen Obama’s long form birth certificate except probably his mother and father.

      1. “Nobody – has ever seen Obama’s long form birth certificate except probably his mother and father.”

        And Mr. William H. Gilardy Jr. He was Stanley Soetoro’s lawyer in 1980 in her divorce from Lolo Soetoro. It would seem certain he is familar with Barry’s real long-form birth certificate. Just coincidentally, Mr. Gilardy is, and has been for a long time, a lawyer for the Democrat Party of Hawaii. The Democrat Party of Hawaii refused on their 2008 state certification letter to say that Obama/Biden were eligible per the Constitution, something they did do in 2000 and 2004.

      2. to chance— the paper on file is believed by many including mario apuzzo and cdr. kerchner to be a form that his grandmother filled out and sent in to give obama full citizenship rights. the form was falsified. tim adams was chief elections clerk and stated on internet and u-tubes that there is no long form birth certificate in hawaii on obama. it does not exist. during the campaign all the hospitals were called and the answer was the same. they had no birth records on obama. he was not born in hawaii.

    3. As governor, Lingle isn’t in a position to either confirm or deny Oilbama’s eligibility nor does she have access to the pertinent vital records. Furthermore, to assume that all Republicans are Constitutionalists and that none of them share the Marxist goals of Oilbama, Pelousy, Dingy Harry Reid, and the rest of the Progressives in DC is naive at best.

    4. The term RINO comes to mind. You seem to be implying that just because Lingle is a republican, that she would be on the Right side of this issue. There are a lot of republicans refusing to deal with this issue. I’m posting this reply because of the last sentence in your post above which reads, “It makes no sense people.”. That statement is just so frustrating, because it means that you are obviously reading the editorials, letters and postings on this particular site and you’re still not getting it. What’s it going to take…?

  7. Alexander Smyth, lawyer, born in Ireland, in 1765; died in Washington, D.C., 1830. He came to this country in 1775, settled in Virginia, received an education, studied law, and was admitted to the bar in 1789. He was a member of the U.S. Congress for multiple terms and served in the U.S. Army where he did translation work–French–>English
    . Alexander Smyth (VA) House of Representatives, December 1820:
    “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.”

    1. An excellent find, which further supports Vattel’s definition of natural born citizen. Smyth refers only to the father and not the mother. But he did not have to: in those days women automatically got the citizenship of their husbands.

  8. Excellent investigative work.

    What remains a possibility is that Obama is not the natural child of Stanley Ann Dunham/ Obama at all.

    That raises a big question concerning Obama since his book Dreams from my father requires the reader know the father in order to put everything into context. One can only wonder how everything Obama changes in that book if a parent were actually a person like Malcolm X or Frank Marshal Davis or even one of BO seniors wives in Kenya.

    Embarrasment is not a legal route around our constitutional laws, yet. It will be when LTC Lakin is convicted and jailed for actually attempting to do so according to the prosecution, which is Obama himself, and judge Lind who serves the military at the pleasure of the accused.

    1. It does not make any difference as to the real parentage of Obama, because Obama Senior claimed him as a product of the marriage. In the time of our Founding Fathers, all that was necessary was for the father of record to claim he was the father in actuality, which Obama Senior did in the divorce papers. In the time of our Founding Fathers there was no way to test (such as with DNA) for paternity. If a man claimed to be the father of a son, then that was good enough for all legal purposes of identity, passing on of inheritance, land grants, and especially citizenship.

      1. If a man claimed to be the father of a son, then that was good enough for all legal purposes of identity, passing on of inheritance, land grants, and especially citizenship.

        That hasn’t changed; it’s still as true today as it was 200+ years ago. If Barack Sr. is named as father of Oilbama on his birth certifate, assuming one exists and he wasn’t hatched or conjured up instead of born, he inherited British citizenship at birth. If it was determined a few years later or last week that Barack Sr wasn’t Jr’s biological father, changing Jr’s birth certificate and citizenship to reflect the bio babydaddy would require legal wrangling and the fees that always accompany them.

        The short of the long of it is that only the parents as named on Oilbama’s bc matter in regards to his citizenship at birth. Even if his bio parents were Dale and Roy Rogers, if Stanly Ann Dunham and Barack Sr are the named parents on his bc, he was born a British national citizen. That his stepfather Soetoro supposedly adopted him and his Indonesian kindergarten registration states he was a citizen of Indonesia may mean he is a citizen of Indonesia to this day, but first thing’s first and that is a long form birth certificate to determine what his name is, where he was born, when he was born, and to whom he was born.

      2. I am not so sure that it matters whose name (for father or mother) is on the birth certificate. I understand the legal standpoint for citizenship, but natural born citizenship is also very much about allegiance at birth. Obama’s actual allegiance at birth, and in the years that followed, were towards Obama Senior, a foreigner with some very foreign ideas and values.

        As far as his Indonesian citizenship as a child, I used to think that it did not matter since that came after his birth, and that he could not be held accountable for decisions made by an adult. However, I heard a convincing argument that our Founding Fathers wanted the President to have been a citizen since birth (natural born citizen). The logic here comes from the requirements for Senators and Congressmen who have to have been citizens for 9 or 7 years. So, the question is: how long must the President have been a citizen? The answer: since birth — even if the foreign citizenship was attained involuntarily as a child. And the logic here is that the Founding Fathers did not want Presidents with foreign influence, however they may have attained it.

  9. Republicans have also run ineligibles for POTUS. From a list of nominees for candidate for POTUS from both parties that I read months ago, the only two that I can remember are George Romney (Mitt’s father), born in Mexico to ex-patriot parents, was nominated to run for the 1968 GOP candidacy; and Barry Goldwater, who was born in the territory of AZ before it was state, won the GOP candidacy and ran against Johnson in 1964. If Goldwater had won in 1964, he would have been the second ineligible Republican to live in the White House (after Chester Arthur, Garfield’s VP; Arthur lied about his father’s birth place and his own birth date to run with Garfield; took office after Garfield was assassinated in 1881).

    Republican Orrin Hatch proposed amending the Constitution to allow foreign born, naturalized citizens to serve as POTUS.

    October 5, 2004
    Statement of Senator Orrin G. Hatch
    Before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary Hearing on “Maximizing Voter Choice:
    Opening the Presidency to Naturalized Americans”

      1. In concert with the above – Piyush Amrit “Bobby” Jindal, who is a heck of a nice guy, a truly fine gentleman, honest and hard working, was born in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to Amar and Raj Jindal, who came to the USA as immigrants from Punjab, India; and as such he is therefore not natural born, nor eligible to be POTUS.

      2. Bob1939, from this end of the strings section, may I add that Jindal’s parents became naturalized US citizens after Jindal’s birth. Had they already become citizens by the time of his birth, Jindal, who I agree is a nice guy and add that he’s proving himself to be fine leader as governor, too, would be a natural born citizen.

      3. AuntieMadder, do you know if Marco Rubio’s parents became naturalized US citizens before Rubio was born in Florida? I have started hearing talk about Rubio running for President in the future. If his parents naturalized after his birth, then Rubio is not a natural born citizen, which is the same case as Jindal.

    1. I agree with you on George Romney but not on Barry Goldwater. While Arizona was not a state, it was a territory of the US in which the US was the sole sovereign. A natural born citizen is a person born by the laws of nature with citizenship and allegiance to just one sovereign power, which was the case with Goldwater. Mexico used to be the sovereign of the land that is now Arizona, but they lost that sovereignty to the US in 1848 at the conclusion of the Mexican-American War. Mexico would not have had any legitimate claim to Goldwater’s citizenship or allegiance at birth.

      1. Texamo, honestly, I’m not certain that Goldwater was eligible or that he was ineligible. His was one of the two names on the list of ineligible nominees/candidates for POTUS that I read months ago and can remember now. The others I can’t recall, most likely because they didn’t make it onto the ballots and so aren’t that memorable to me. I came across the list online and have been trying to locate it again because there were a lot of much more recent nominees who were ineligible, but to no avail. Maybe it was scrubbed, being as damning as it is to each of the two major political parties. I don’t know. But I haven’t given up the search and I’ll keep an eye open for Rubio’s name, as well.

      2. Thanks AuntieMadder. If you can find out about Rubios parents, that would be great. By the way, the screen name is Texoma (not Texamo, although I do know some Texans with alot of ammo!). Texoma is an area of Texas along the border of Oklahoma.

      3. Sorry about the typo, especially so if I’ve typed it that way more than once. Having lived all my life in Dallas, Texas, I’m familiar with Lake Texoma, even though I misspelled it and almost typed “Texamo” again just then. Lake Texoma is where I discovered, on the one and only camping trip in all of my 46 years, that I hate camping. (Hhmmm…maybe that’s why my fingers want to disobey my brain when typing the name.)

      4. No apology needed. I mistype it from time to time as well. Lake Texoma is a neat place to visit, although probably not so much if you are staying in a tent, even if on the Texas side of the lake.

  10. I, like most thinking Americans am totally frustrated with the spineless, greedy Beck, O’Reilly, et al, for not coming forward to speak the truth about bho’s ineligibility, however we are so close to the election now that we might as well see it thru. Even in spite of the fact that Iraq has a much more honest election than we do; (everyone voting should have to show picture ID and be taken off the list as they are handed their ballot), it seem that there is a strong trend in the right direction to purge many of the worthless, incumbent thugs from the system. After which we had better get very serious about restoring God, the Constitution, Balanced-Budget and be making thousands of arrests. Obama cannot be impeached because he is not a real President. He should be arrested and placed in Gitmo, with his pals. Heck, we seem to be having trouble even getting ballots to our Troops overseas, so their vote can be counted. Chile can bring miners up through 2500′ of rock, but Congress is unable to send a special cargo jet to deliver ballots to our Troops, wait while they vote, collect the ballots, and bring them all back in time. Logistically, we are looking at a 72 hour operation here, so who are we kidding. Just one more layer of voter fraud and government corruption. Our Troops have obviously had to do a little thinking about life and death, right from wrong, good vs evil, our Constitution vs lawlessness, and as a result most would be voting Republican now, so if the Democrats can prevent the Military overseas vote from being counted, then they don’t have to muster-up so many prisoner votes, illegal alien votes, dead people votes or mickey mouse votes. Isn’t it high time to start getting serious about fixing all systems, once and for all??????? GOOD PEOPLE SHOULD VOTE.

    1. I hear you, Bob1939, especially about the spineless and greedy talking heads and about getting the ballots to our troops. Even if every one of our troops overseas were to vote for maintaining the status quo, they’ve earned the right to vote more than any of us who’ve never served our country and it’s a disgrace that their rights are being disregarded instead of protected.

    2. Let’s not over-do it. Defense of the Constitution requires only that we remove Obama (legally and peacefully) from office. Once he is a private citizen, other charges can be leveled against him.

      Also, by focusing on defending the Constitution, as opposed to “getting Obama”, we will get more support from the American people. Defending the Constitution is patriotic and noble, whereas “getting Obama” will be viewed by many Americans as partisan and political — motives which will not get the needed support.

  11. I recently attended a local townhall meeting in the DFW area held on August 19, 2010 where Congressman Joe Barton spoke to our local district. Joe spoke for about an hour, primarily

    about Obamacare. He took a few a questions from the crowd afterwards. Blank note cards addressed to Congressman Joe Barton were available to write him questions and turn in to his

    staff afterwards. I wrote my questions on one of these cards. I asked Congressman Barton what was being done to secure Texas’ borders and shouldn’t we follow in the same footsteps as

    the state of Arizona AND why has he not questioned and demanded Barack Obama release his bona fides and prove to the American people that he is elligible to hold the office as POTUS.

    Six weeks later, Mr. Barton answered my letter. He has been a strong supporter of securing our borders and enforcing our current
    immigration laws. It is his comment regarding the eligibility issue that I’d like to share with the P & E staff & readers:
    ” Dated September 30, 2010

    Congressman Joe Barton
    Sixth District, Texas
    2109 Rayburn House Office Bldg.
    Washington, DC 20515-4306
    (202) 225-2002
    Fax (202) 225-3052

    …In regards to President Barack Obama’s citizenship status, there are two requirements to become president of the United States: You must be 35 and a natural born U.S.citizen. Many

    people have argued, based on immigration law relating to the transfer of citizenship from either parent when born off of U.S. soil, that President Obama is inelligible to serve as our nation’s

    leader. However, Barack Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961.

    Those born in U.S. territories are automatically considered citizens, Hawaii became a state in 1959. The arguments against Mr. Obama’s citizenship based on his parent’s status are moot,

    since being born on American soil automatically makes President Obama a U.S.citizen.

    Again, thank you for contacting me. I wish you the best of luck in your studies. Please let me know how I may be of further assistance to you.


    Joe Barton
    Member of Congress”


    I plan on responding to Joe so your comments and opinions would be appreciated. Thx.

    1. Hi Army Brat,

      Here’s my comment.

      I just called Joe Barton’s office and talked to “Sarah”, a very nice young lady. I directed her here and she read the letter from Joe to you about Obama’s eligibility. She then looked through her file and verified the letter was sent from Joe’s office.

      I discussed Obama’s eligibility with her for a few minutes and then asked her to define the Congressman’s statement on Obama’s eligibility once more.

      She said their position is “Obama was born in Hawaii and therefore meets the citizenship requirement to be president. I don’t believe she ever used the words, “natural born citizen” in our conversation.

      I am also sending Joe’s office an email.

      Call and ask to talk to Sarah.

      Office Phone number 202-225-2002

    2. A big “hello” to you, Army Brat, from my home in the DFW area.

      You asked for comments about Barton’s letter and here’s mine.

      Those born in U.S. territories are automatically considered citizens, Hawaii became a state in 1959.

      That jumped out at me. Aside from the poor use of punctuation between the two statements (evidently, Barton is as unfamiliar with the period and semi-colon as he is with the definition of “natural born citizen”), I don’t understand why Barton included this in his letter. Assuming he was born in HI in 1959 as he and Barton claim, what does citizenship of those born in territories have to do with Oilbama? This could be Barton playing dumb, making it appear that he doesn’t know what the questions are that need to be answered. Or maybe he’s trying to further confuse the issue by throwing another question into the mix regarding the year that Oilbama was born. I suppose that only Barton knows why it’s in his letter. Still, it’s an odd inclusion because it adds nothing relevant to his defense/explanation.

    3. Barton is deliberately confusing the concept of being born a citizen and being born a natural born citizen. There are three ways to be born a citizen, two are by human law, and one is by the laws of nature:

      1. Born in the US – a citizen at birth per the 14th amendment.
      2. Born abroad to one or two US citizens – a citizen at birth by federal statute.
      3. Born in the US to two US citizens – a citizen at birth by the laws of nature.

      Only the citizen at birth by the laws of nature is a natural born citizen.

      Barton is also incorrect when he says there are only two requirements to be President. The 3rd requirement is having been a resident of the US for the last 14 years. Our Founding Fathers understood that foreign influence came not only from birthplace and parents, but also from having lived recently in a foreign country. Hence, the 14-year residency requirement was like a cleansing period — to cleanse a future president from foreign ideas, culture, values, etc.

    4. please inform joe barton that we have seen no proof of obama being born in hawaii. we have not seen a real birth certificate with any doctors name and signature no name of any hospital no description of the baby or any witnesses. no name of any clinic. nobody with any knowledge of him being born in hawaii. but possibly even more important his father was never an american citizen. he was kenyan from africa. that gives obama a dual citizenship which is not allowed by the u. s. constitution.

  12. Many articles, blog threads, accounts of Barry’s “losing” mental acumen and focus. Barry Soetoro KNOWS that he is INELIGIBLE and has tried, via a New World brand of Taqiyyah, to pretend he is BONA FIDE! He must be VERY NERVOUS knowing that his Mardi Gras Costume has been been ascertained and that he soon will be brought to Justice! I believe the article by Galganov, from Canada Free Press I believe, is correct: OBAMA leaves BEFORE his term is over! Perhaps Voluntarily or put on a plane headed to MOMBASA.

  13. This is damning evidence! It just shows the extent to which Obama and his conspirators have defrauded the American people and sold our freedom, our liberty and our country’s founding principles for their personal gain, power, and promotion of their despicable anti-American, anti-Christian agenda. Truly all those who promoted this should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I urge everyone to write to their representatives in Congress and demand answers. Mail this wonderfully researched article with your letter! We must keep the pressure on and demand the truth. Shame on all in the media who will not report this – the greatest crime ever perpetrated against the American people. Shame on Barry Soetoro, his wife, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Joe Biden and Howard Dean. Traitors all of them! Unfortunately just the tip of the iceberg. We must uncover them all and take back our country!

  14. Meet Poppa Birther, Professor Jonathan Turley. He and far left newspapers like the New York Times and other Progressive operatives and news orgs and blogs were after McCain. When McCain sought out the help of the Senate to make this all go away and got his Senate Resolution SR511 in return for McCain’s silence about Obama’s major natural born Citizenship flaws, Jonathan Turley magically shut up about McCain’s citizenship issues. The Dems were the very first “birthers”. And upholding the Constitution and Article II was OK to them when their target was not in their party. But now that a Progressive non-natural born Citizen Obama is being continually challenged, well then people are racists and wacko types. Given their standard then … meet the original birther or wacko … as folks like thrill up his leg Chris Matthews speak on TV about constitutionalists today. The classic double standard. Meet Poppa Birther.


    CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)

  15. I have always believed that the reason the McCain’s team did not use the Vattel legal treatise Section 217 as part of his argument and defense of his “natural born Citizen” status is that the Progressives/Marxists in this nation and especially in the Progressive Caucus could not allow McCain to use the Vattel exceptions without the core, natural law definition of “natural born Citizen” in Section 212 being revealed in the process. Revealing Vattel’s The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law and in particular Section 212 would have brought the Citizenship of the parents being very important to the founders and since Obama’s father was never a U.S. Citizen and not even an immigrant to the USA, the Vattel writings would have eliminated Obama during the public debate of this in the primary season. So McCain and Obama and the RNC and the DNC made a deal. You don’t use Vattel and promise not to mention Obama’s citizenship issues during the campaign and we the Dem and Progressive powers to be in control of the Senate Judiciary Committee will give you this resolution declaring you McCain a “natural born Citizen” with that little lie in there about you being born at a base hospital inside the Canal Zone that did not exist in 1936. They both probably winked at each other and thought no one would be the wiser and they’d both get away with it. And with the RNC and DNC both on board with the usurpation and/or ignoring of Article II of the Constitution, their powerful friends in the main stream media went along with it. Not only did McCain stay quiet on Obama’s citizenship issues, he would not even allow people to mention Obama’s middle name. The gentleman’s club Senate Rules and back room deal were in effect for the campaign after they both secured their respective nominations. And thus their cabal created the worst constitutional crisis since the Civil War. Once Obama is removed from his usurpation of the Oval Office, many heads need to roll in criminal trials for election fraud and misprision of a felony. Read my essays on it hear:



    CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)

  16. An excellently done article and I, for one, could care less about McCain since he didn’t make it to the Oval Office … Barry whats-his-name did. If either McCain or any of his backers believe he is a “natural born Citizen” as specified in mandatory language of the Constitution then let them take it to the United States Supreme Court as have Cdr. Kerchner and the other Plaintiffs and attorney Mario Apuzzo have done with SCOTUS Docket #10-446 whose reply is due Nov. 3, 2010.

    When (if) they do take such a confirming action legally they should be advised that it costs money and lots of it as I’m sure the Kerchner et al folks could attest to. Yammering about it on these threads accomplishes nothing.

  17. This article is one of the most well written that I have ever read on the subject of Obama’s ineligibility. The level of research, analysis, and fact reporting by the Post & Email, as demonstrated by this article in particular, is excellent. The P & E puts the mainstream media outlets to shame.

    It should now be quite apparent to all rational thinking people that the Presidential election of 2008 was invalid by both deliberate fraud and criminal negligence. It is also quite apparent that those responsible are running and hiding in a effort to save themselves from any adverse consequences. These people need to be pinned down and held accountable.

  18. Magnificent article by Cynthia Wilson. Clearly the 2008 presidential election was thoroughly corrupt and fraudulent, just what you’d expect in some socialist Third World country, which is just about the status the U.S. now richly deserves and which the Democrats are laboring mightily to give us.

    As Wilson shows, on top of all the other corruption, Congress failed to qualify the President-elect per Amendment 20. But when Congress returns on Nov. 15 hearings should begin ASAP into Obama’s eligibility. This is a critcal constitutional and national security issue. No more playing ostrich permitted.

    Since Obama is manifestly not eligible and was never qualified for office, his status even now is that of only a president-elect and usurper. Therefore, Joe Biden does not properly hold office either. They were together on the same fraudulent ticket, so Biden cannot claim any more legitimacy than Obama. Indeed, Biden’s bogus tenure as VP depends entirely on Obama’s pseudo-presidency. Neither holds office legitimately.

    The one person in the 2008 presidential election who is indisputably constitutionally eligible for the office is Sarah Palin. When an Olympic gold medal is taken away from someone for violating the rules, it goes to the second-place finisher. When a football game is forfeited by one team, the other team is given a win. So if and when Congress ever gets around to “declaring who shall then act as President” per Amendment 20, the acting president rightly, justly, and fairly should be Sarah Palin, NOT Joe Biden.

  19. I think there are issues with McCain’s BC. Take a look at the 3’s and 6’s within the document. The document number has a different type of 3 than the 3 in the date of birth, same with the 6 in the time of birth and the date of birth.

    Additionally, according to this document, McCain was not born in the Canal Zone. It states he was born in the civilian hospital in Colon, Panama which is very close to but was never included in the Panama Canal Zone. Therefore, this document would seem to state that McCain was not born on US Soil, nor soil under US sovereignty.

    I’m not arguing one way or the other regarding McCain’s status, just that I’m not sure I would include this document in my post, since it clearly has legitimacy issues.

    1. again…
      “Either the Birth Certificate is correct and the microfiche is incorrect, or the microfiche is correct and the birth certificate is incorrect…can’t be both.”

    2. There are many who say that McCain’s Colon birth certificate is a forgery.

      But even if he was born in the Canal Zone (Coco Solo Naval Base), he would still not be a natural born citizen because he was not born on US sovereign territory. Panama is and always was the sovereign of the Canal Zone. This is evidenced by us having paid them rent each year. Also, Panamanians born in the Canal Zone were not US citizens at birth. And the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual states that overseas military bases are not part of the US.

      McCain was a citizen at birth by federal statute (Code 1401c to be specific). A natural born citizen is a citizen at birth by the laws of nature and not by any human law.

  20. The motivation to install a democrat, any democrat, even as Rush Limbaugh says (Barack Obama IS a foreign contribution) a foreigner, was so great, that state officials tripped all over themselves to use their petty holds on power to sign off on the usurper and obfuscate whatever protective laws were in place.

    SAY! Doesn’t the Arizona Attorney General have a legal obligation to enforce the laws of Arizona that were not enforced here? Does BHO’s being on the ballot without qualifying in Arizona mean his electoral votes are null and void?

    He’s “not president” per the 20th amendment—how do we handle the obvious usurpation? Obama’s own administration is derelict on paying their own taxes, with over $800,000 owing, and the Dept. of Homeland Security employees owe over $33,000,000! They obviously don’t take BHO seriously either, so why should we?

    1. imho, William,

      I believe “they” are all letting this slide so to set precedent as America’s population changes. Thing is that the knuckleheads don’t get, is, it has always been changing.

      Bobby Jindal is ineligible. He was two years ago. He always will be.

      I remember thinking back during the early debates that Bill Richardson was out of place. I remember asking, is he a natural born citizen?

      1. Talk about gaming the system…

        from wiki

        Bill Richardson was born in Pasadena, California.[6][7] His father, William Blaine Richardson Jr. (died in 1972) of New England Yankee and Mexican descent, was an American Citibank executive[6][7] who grew up in Boston, Massachusetts[6] and lived and worked in Mexico City.[7] His mother, María Luisa López-Collada Márquez[7] is the Mexican daughter of a Spanish father from Villaviciosa, Asturias, Spain and a Mexican mother[6][8][9][10] and was his father’s secretary.[7][9] Richardson’s father was born in Nicaragua.[7] Just before Richardson was born, his father sent his mother to California to give birth because, as Richardson explained, “My father had a complex about not having been born in the United States.”[7] Richardson, a U.S. citizen by birthright, was raised during his childhood in Mexico City.[7][9] He was raised Roman Catholic.[11] At age 13, Richardson’s parents sent him to Massachusetts to attend a preparatory school, Middlesex School in Concord, Massachusetts, where he played baseball as a pitcher.[7] He entered Tufts University[6][12] in 1966 where he continued to play baseball

        “they” know what they are doing.

        poor, pitiful, disenfranchised

  21. Something we all need to be aware of is that requiring the individual states to have absolute proof that a candidate is eligible according to the constitution may be the best way to prevent usurper’s in the future.
    I live in Louisiana where the great Bobby Jindal is governor. I have requested, via email to his governor’s address, that he have a law passed in Louisiana prior to the next election that makes proof a requirement. I have made the same request 3 separate times. While his web site states that he will answer all requests, so far, I have received no acknowledgment of my 3 requests. Why would this be? I suspect Jindal is planning to run for president. He’s not eligible. He was born in Baton Rouge, but neither of his parents were citizens. I’m planning to request this one more time.

    1. State of Louisiana Statutes
      §1280.22. Candidates; procedure for qualifying

      A. Candidates for presidential nominee shall qualify in accordance with procedures established by the party. Prior to qualification as a candidate of a political party for presidential nominee, a person shall pay a qualifying fee of seven hundred fifty dollars and any additional fee as authorized by R.S. 18:464(C) or shall have obtained a nominating petition, bearing the handwritten signatures of no less than one thousand registered voters affiliated with the party from each of the congressional districts into which the state is divided. If the candidate is qualifying by paying a fee, the fee shall be paid in cash, by certified or cashier’s check drawn on a state or national bank or credit union, by United States postal money order, or by a money order issued by a state or national bank or credit union.”

      So after searching the state statutes database for presidential candidate eligibility, qualification, qualifying, constitutional, etc….you’d have to search the Democratic Party qualifying process as it stands now, which I would not doubt has been whittled down to ” has a beating heart and breathes”.

  22. to harry h.— i hope you will read this entire article thoroughly. you were off base and incorrect on what the correct definition of a natural born citizen is. i also hope you have contacted mario apuzzo and cdr. kerchner to get corrected on who qualifies as a natural born citizen thank you.

    1. Johnny, you seem impervious to reason, so let me just repeat the quote from Vattel that is provided in Cynthia Wilson’s excellent article:

      “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).”

      1. to harry h. — i have suggested that you contact mario apuzzo and or cdr. kerchner to clear this point up. this article even states that both parents have to be american citizens and the baby must be born on american soil. you seem to want to rule from the bench with your own words and not the law. please e-mail or call mario and or cdr. kerchner and get properly informed. i have listened to them many times on the natural born citizen subject. thank you.

      2. to harry h.– this is the link to get educated on natural born citizen. dr. kate sent this to me. http puzo 1. blogspot.com / 2009 / 09 / natural- born- citizen- clause- requires. html

  23. You have one of your facts wrong about McCain. There was a hospital on the submarine base PRIOR to the hospital built later. Other people have claimed to be born there.