If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!


by Sharon Rondeau

Three congressmen have reportedly said they will seek congressional action on the forgery of Obama’s purported long-form birth certificate which has been posted on the White House website for more than two years

(Aug. 6, 2013) — The owner of the website WheresObamasBirthCertificate.com, Mike Volin, recently met with his congressman, Lou Barletta, to show him evidence of the crime of forgery in the creation of the long-form birth certificate image bearing the name “Barack Hussein Obama II” posted on the White House website.  Two other constituents attended the meeting.

During the meeting, Cold Case Posse lead investigator Mike Zullo shared information the posse has amassed over its nearly-two-year probe into the image which concluded that it is not a scan of an original paper document, but rather, a “computer-generated forgery.”

PPSimmons, which has been reporting extensively on the forgery, lists Barletta as one of three congressmen who believe that a congressional investigation into the matter may be warranted.

Rep. Steve Stockman of Texas was the first congressman to indicate to investigators that he wanted to see Congress take action.  The birth certificate image was posted on April 27, 2011 after business mogul Donald Trump and others who were unconvinced of Obama’s life story publicly asked Obama to release it.

The U.S. Constitution requires that the president and commander-in-chief be a “natural born Citizen,” although the meaning of the term has been disputed for years, with news services conflating “natural born” with “native born.”  Almost one hundred years ago, former ambassador to Italy under President Woodrow Wilson, Breckinridge Long,” claimed that Charles Evans Hughes was not a “natural born Citizen” because, even though Hughes had been born in the United States, his parents were British citizens at the time of the birth.  Long cited several examples in which children of foreign-citizen parents were considered to have inherited the citizenship of their parents regardless of their birthplace.

Children of foreign diplomats stationed in or visiting the United States who happen to be born in the U.S. during their parents’ tenure are not considered U.S. citizens, but rather, citizens of their parents’ nation.

In 2008, an Egyptian-born man was disqualified from placing his name on the New Hampshire ballot for President of the United States because of his birthplace.  Obama’s birthplace was reported as Kenya from 1991 to 2007 by his then-literary agent, which later said it made a “fact-checking error.”

Emmerich de Vattel, in his Enlightenment-era treatise “The Law of Nations,” which was heavily used by the Framers of the Constitution, wrote in Chapter 19:

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

§ 213. Inhabitants.

The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers; and, as the state has given to these the right of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity.

Officials at the Hawaii Department of Health have not affirmed that the image on the White House website is the same as the document they allegedly have in their files for Obama.

Major media companies have refused to report on the forgery, and supportive sycophants have stood behind it.

Volin has assembled a “Sheriff’s Kit” which can be used by any citizen seeking to speak with his or her county sheriff, state legislator, congressman or senator about the forgery.

Zullo has urged constituents to send handwritten or typed hard-copy letters to congressional offices to demonstrate their desire for a congressional investigation. Sample letters are here and here:

Dear Congressman Stockman,

I am writing this letter to let you know that We The People are behind you in your efforts to bring the Obama Identity Fraud Scandal to a full congressional investigation. 

Thank you for your courageous and constitutional stand in this matter. We will support you with our outspoken support, our prayers, and our donations to help keep you in office. I am using every outreach method available to me (mail, email, FaceBook, phone calls, etc.) to make certain that many others know of your valiant efforts.

If there is something else that I can do, please let me know.



Two weeks ago, a public employee acknowledged off-the-record to The Post & Email that it is widely-known that the White House birth certificate is a forgery.  She personally shared that she perceived Obama as “taking away our rights,” particularly that of the Second Amendment, and expressed her concern for the direction of the country in general.

The Post & Email will be a guest on Volin’s radio show on Tuesday evening at 8:00 p.m. EDT/5:00 p.m. PDT to discuss developments in the birth certificate investigation.  Volin has previously interviewed Zullo and Carl Gallups of PPSimmons and the “Freedom Friday” radio show.

Update, August 7, 2013:  The podcast of The Post & Email’s interview with WheresObamasBirthCertificate.com is here.

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. Sharon;

    After hearing your interview on wheresobamasbirthcertificate blog-talk show I think I may better explain the “established uniform Rule” proposition by discussing the “effect” of the 14th Amendment and its ACTUAL status today……….

    ……..the ONLY remaining operative effect of the “collective naturalization declaratory born citizen provision” of the 14th Amendment is to provide the benefit of U.S. Citizenship to the CHILDREN of ‘alien foreign nationals’ who happen to be within the territorial limits of the U.S. when the child is born and whether the ‘alien foreign national’ parents are present in the U.S. legally or otherwise. ………… and NO OTHERS ….

    ….just as Justice Waite opined in Minor v Happersette, Viginia Minor was a Citizen under the Constitution and its Laws without the need to regard the effects of the 14th may of had on her Citizenship and the “uniform Rule” that Justice Waite acknowledged by inference remains as originally written as a Statute at Large.

    Call it Jus Sanguinis, call it Citizenship Birth Right of U.S. Citizens, call it the U.S. uniform Rule of U.S. Citizenship or by any other name, the “effect” is the same, once a Citizen then so too are a Citizens children.

    From there it is a simple matter of ‘reconciliations’ to arrive at the nature of circumstances requisite to conform to actually being a (U.S.) natural born Citizen.

    In 1790 the required circumstance was for a U.S. Citizen father to be married, which ‘made’ the political character of a woman/wife/mother a U.S. Citizen also; and from March of 1790 to Jan 1795 a’their’ child was born a (U.S.) natural born Citizen NO MATTER WHERE in the world the child was born.

    The “effect” of the 1795 “repeal & replace” Act was to LIMIT the location of WHERE a (U.S.) natural born Citizen could be born.

    The later effects of ‘reconciliations’ for race and the independent political character of women have not annulled the requirement of TWO Citizen parents, and could not except by the Amendment process, given that (U.S.) natural born Citizen resides in a provision of the Executive Articles outside the Jurisdiction of the Congress except for by processes provided for.

  2. Sharon;

    The Founders were ALL Children of the Age of Enlightenment so saying that they had read Vattel is like saying they watched the evening news on TV.

    The POINT is the Constitution is STATUTORY IN ITS CONSTRUCTION, (Marbury vs Madison), and as such it, and the Laws that spring from it, must be construed under the Rules of Statutory Interpretation.

    A2S1C5, in statutory terms, can be said to be an ” exclusionary prerequisite imperative requirement provision …”

    The “requirement”, in part, is that (U.S.) natural born Citizens MUST “exist” within the citizenry population in order for the Office of the POTUS be Constitutionally occupied.

    You ask, ” … But do naturalization statutes define the Article II term “natural born Citizen” …? ”

    As a NEW NATION made Republic by the Founders considerations and the State Citizens consent MUST then say how “new” citizens are made and the 1790 Act

    ” … And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: …. ”

    In statutory interpretation it is necessary to not only consider what the words say as to immediate effect but also what general effects those words maintain on the subject as whole,………and ESPECIALLY SO when the Act is entitled, an Act to ESTABLISH an uniform RULE of naturalization (/how citizens are made under the laws and Rules of a country).

    It should seem obvious that when the children of a newly naturalized alien becomes immediately citizens within a district courthouse then so too are not the children of existing U.S. Citizens at birth, no matter where they are born, and the two together constitute a “uniform Rule of naturalization”.

    Breaking down the Acts in like manner, their words and what those words then require, it becomes a simple matter of applying various reconciliations as to gender & race that have been made in Acts and Amendments which reveals that the “uniform Rule” established in those Acts of 1790 / ’95 remains as Statutes at Large.

    But I confess I thus far i have failed to articulate my “proposition of law” in a clear, concise & convincing manner.

  3. P.S.

    “BLACK LETTER LAW” of the 1st & 3rd Congress, duly enacted under the Supreme authority of the Adopted Constitution, surely trumps the musings of “some Swiss philosopher” and the “foreign Law” of the then-recently vanquished British Empire.

    That there may be “coincidental” similarities MUST be considered in light of the NEEDS of a New Nation and that New Nation’s “right” under the Law of Nations to say for itself who is or is not a member of their society and how they might be distinguished, be it through birthright, naturalization or WHATEVER other Rule the Congress might determine to be useful.

    The point is, any debate over Vattel or the Queen Anne Statutes lost THEIR relevance once the 1790 Act was passed.

  4. Sharon,

    I notice that even you STILL resort to Vattel for a definition of a United States of America NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, which, with a modicum of intellectual honesty, common sense and a rudimentary understanding of Vattel, Aristotle, or the Political establishment of any NEW STATE/NATION, the determination of who is or is not its Citizens and those Citizens status under the formation of the State/Nation is the Political determination of the Founders, and no others.

    To RESORT to Vattel opens the door to RESORT elsewhere as well, such as the Queen Anne Statutes of British Nationality as interpreted by Lord Coke and Sir Blackstone within the Jurisprudence practices of the English Common Law, when in fact the definition of circumstances that constitutes actually being a U.S.NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, a form of Citizenship that is REQUIRED by the Constitution in order for the Office of POTUS to be LEGALLY occupied, is found within the 1790 ACT passed in March of that year under the Constitutional MANDATE of ENUMERATED POWERS to “establish an uniform Rule of naturalization…throughout the United States…”(Art.1 Sec.8. Cl. 4)

    Given that the Adoption of the COTUS was viewed as a “collective naturalization” of the Citizens of the several States which “made” them also U.S. Citizens, it remained for the Congress to establish a means of adding New Citizens.(see Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution at Chap.1483)

    No one needs to RESORT further than the 1790 and 1795 Acts to understand the nature of U.S. Citizenship or to correctly “construe” the requisite circumstances that constitutes being a U.S. natural born Citizen in conformity with the requirement and intent of its Article II usage as expressed within the statutory construction of the duly enacted U.S. Federal Law by the 1st and 3rd Congresses replete with members of the Founding Generation who were “naturalized” by the COTUS.


    (Vattel, as had Aristotle, wrote of “new States” and how they might be formed, in hypothetical context, expressing their own brands of virtues that might allow for ideal civil societies….. but unlike the insipid pipe-dream utopia of Marx, neither Aristotle or Vattel lost sight of the Laws of Nature and Natures God and their affects on men and nations)
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: The reference to Vattel is there only to point out that the Founders read his works, and George Washington checked out a copy of “The Law of Nations” from his local library, never to return it: http://theweek.com/article/index/203282/george-washingtons-221-year-overdue-library-book-a-timeline

    In writing the U.S. Constitution, the Framers had to rely on something before a new Congress could be elected to pass laws about citizenship and any other matters, which is what it did. But do naturalization statutes define the Article II term “natural born Citizen?”