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


by Sharon Rondeau

In June 2008, an image similar to the above was posted at The Daily KOS with unknown origin. Factcheck.org also posted a similar image without the cropping but would not respond to questions about how they obtained it. Hawaii law prevents anyone without a “direct and tangible interest in the record” to be provided any information from a person’s vital record.

(Aug. 27, 2013) — In a video report produced by The Texas Tribune presented at ORYR, the presidential eligibility of both Sen. Ted Cruz and Barack Hussein Obama is discussed, but the report misrepresents the facts about Obama’s birth certificates.

The video focuses on town hall meetings held this month by Cruz, the junior senator from Texas.  Cruz opposes Obamacare and is leading a campaign to defund it in the House of Representatives when budget talks begin in the fall.

Cruz advocates smaller government, constitutional protections and free enterprise.  He graduated from Princeton University and Harvard Law School, going on to clerk for former Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist.  Cruz served as Texas Solicitor General before seeking the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Kay Bailey Hutchison.

Cruz’s father fled Cuba for Texas in 1957, two years before Fidel Castro established a communist regime on the island, nationalizing health care, education, and imposing one-party rule.  Rafael Bienvenido Cruz did not speak English but was hired as a dishwasher, making $.50/hour, with which he paid his way through college.  He became a Christian pastor and naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 2005.

The Texas Tribune reported that Cruz is considered a possible candidate for president for 2016 but that questions about his constitutional eligibility have arisen from his birth in Canada to a U.S.-citizen mother and Cuban father.  In the video, Cruz stated that the concerns about his citizenship are “silly.”  He believes that because he was born to an “American mother,” he is “an American.”

While Cruz possesses both U.S. and Canadian citizenship, he may not be a “natural born Citizen,” as the Constitution requires of the nation’s chief executive.

Canadian legal scholars who were asked about Cruz’s status based on his birthplace stated last week that anyone born in Canada automatically becomes a citizen of that country.  The United States, by misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, awards citizenship to anyone born within its confines with the exception of children of diplomats from foreign countries. The applicable section of the 14th Amendment states:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Dallas Morning News, to which Cruz released his birth certificate prior to its August 18 report, stated that “The Constitution says nothing about would-be presidents born with dual citizenship.”  However, Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution states that only a “natural born Citizen” can be president, and the history behind the inclusion of the phrase indicates that foreign influence or allegiance were of concern to the Framers.

Following the release of the news report, Cruz said he did not know he was considered a Canadian citizen and that he would renounce his Canadian citizenship.  However, no formal announcement has been reported as of this writing.

Various news outlets discussed Cruz’s questionable eligibility, with “The Five” co-anchor Eric Bolling opining that Cruz and Obama had similar situations by virtue of having been born to one citizen parent “inside or outside of the country; we don’t know which.”

Some constitutional attorneys and scholars in the U.S. have stated that a “natural born Citizen” means a person born in the U.S. to two parents who are U.S. citizens at the time of the birth.  Nearly 100 years ago, former ambassador to Italy, Breckinridge Long, questioned the presidential eligibility of Charles Evans Hughes, Woodrow Wilson’s opponent in 1916, because Hughes was born on U.S. soil to parents who were British citizens.

Historical events tell us that the citizenship of the parents was considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in cases such as Minor v. Happersett, Perkins v. Elg, and Steinkauler, as related by Atty. Joseph DeMaio in a series of scholarly essays at The Post & Email.  In Minor, the Supreme Court stated that there “was no doubt” that Virginia Minor was a “natural born Citizen” because she was born in the United States to two U.S.-citizen parents, although the point of the case was a voting rights issue.

In his treatise “The Law of Nations,” Swiss philosopher Emmerich de Vattel wrote that “The natives, or natural born citizens are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens…The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.”  DeMaio stated in his most recent essay that the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor opined that a natural born Citizen was a person “born in a country of parents who were its citizens” and that doubt existed as to the status of persons born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents.  DeMaio further stated:

The significance of the Court’s statement is that it underscores the fact that, at the inception of the republic, the Founders had the choice of selecting and setting an eligibility standard as to which there has “never” been a doubt, or a standard as to which “there have been doubts.”

However, Jack Maskell, writing for the Congressional Research Service (CRS), attempted to obliterate the facts of such cases by omitting the phrases which referenced the parents’ citizenship, thereby giving members of Congress the false impression that anyone born on U.S. soil has historically been considered a “natural born Citizen.”

Obama claims he was born in Hawaii to a U.S.-citizen mother.  A mainstream media blackout on his background, formative years and political affiliations by probable intimidation allowed him to ascend to the White House without proper vetting.  Anyone raising the question of Obama’s allegiance, birthplace, history or political beginnings was ridiculed, marginalized, defamed, harassed, threatened with his or her career or worse, including death threats.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court is “evading the issue” of presidential eligibility.  Numerous challenges to the eligibility of Sen. John McCain, who was born in Panama to two U.S.-citizen parents, and Barack Obama, whose father was a citizen of Great Britain, have been rejected.

At 3:05, the narrator of the Texas Tribune video states that in June 2008, Obama released his birth certificate to address questions about his eligibility but the long-form birth certificate image which was not released until April 27, 2011 is shown.

On or around June 12, 2008, an image appeared at The Daily KOS and later, at the St. Petersburg Times and other sites, of a “Certification of Live Birth” bearing Obama’s name.  However, the image has been declared a forgery and was never confirmed as having come from the Obama campaign.  Hawaii law prohibits the release of vital records unless the requester possesses a “direct and tangible interest in the record,” which raises the question as to how The Daily KOS and other outlets acquired the document, if in fact they did.

The Hawaii Department of Health has refused to corroborate the Certification of Live Birth, with spokeswoman Janice Okubo having stated that she “didn’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents.”

No hospital in Hawaii or anywhere in the U.S. has claimed that Obama was born there, and early reports from 2007 and 2008 stated that he was born in Indonesia.  Several African newspapers declared him born in Kenya, and the Kenyan Parliament affirmed that in its official minutes of March 25, 2010.

Within 24 hours, the long-form birth certificate image posted on the White House website was declared a forgery by experts.  In September 2011, a criminal investigation was launched by the Maricopa County, AZ Cold Case Posse at the request of 250 Maricopa County Tea Party members.

On April 27, 2011, the White House released what it claimed was a certified copy of Barack Obama’s long-form birth certificate from the Hawaii Department of Health. Shortly afterward, many experts’ analyses determined that it was a forgery, and a criminal investigation supported those claims.

On March 1, 2012, lead investigator Michael Zullo and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio announced that there was probable cause to believe the image was a “computer-generated forgery.”  The team also found that Obama’s Selective Service registration form was fraudulent.

The Selective Service Administration was not responsive to the posse’s requests to view a certified copy of Obama’s original Selective Service registration form and claimed that the microfilm had been destroyed.

On July 17, 2012, following a second press conference by the posse during which the birth certificate was deemed “definitely fraudulent,” the Associated Press stated that it contacted the Obama campaign for comment on the report of forgery but that it “declined to comment.” Other news outlets failed to investigate the forgery claims at all.

The Texas Tribune confused the two birth certificate images and failed to report that both have been deemed forgeries.  It did not report that the Cold Case Posse is endeavoring to compel Congress to launch its own investigation to determine the perpetrator(s) and motive.  To date, three congressmen have indicated an interest in investigating, with proposed legislation reportedly being authored by Rep. Steve Stockman of Texas.

The forgery of a government document is a federal felony.

Zullo has stated on various radio shows in recent months that there is no evidence of Obama having been present in Hawaii from birth to the age of five.  When Zullo and a deputy traveled to Hawaii during the course of their investigation, they were prevented from seeking out Registrar Dr. Alvin Onaka with the excuse that he “does not speak with the public.”

The posse’s further investigation and conversation with former Health Department Registrar Verna K. Lee confirmed that there are anomalies on the long-form image which have not been explained.

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. The existence of (U.S.) natural born Citizens became a Constitutional requirement when they were determined to be the prudent choice to be the exclusive persons being eligible for the Office of the POTUS.

    The ONLY instant, under U.S. Law that “defines” a U.S. natural born Citizen is the 1790 Act and therefore any inquiry into the requisite circumstances MUST begin there and NOT with “foreign law, ancient doctrines or philosophical political writings” ……

    Judge Thomas Anderson of USDC for the Western District of Tennessee Western Division in Case 2:12-cv-02143-STA; found in a Ruling on Motions in a Case at Bar;

    “… ANALYSIS .. It is undisputed that the material fact at issue in this case is whether under the circumstances of President Obama’s birth, the President is a “natural born citizen,” a term set out in the United States Constitution and construed under federal law. ” [pg 6/7]

    “…The federal issue presented is obviously contested in this case. Likewise, the Court holds that the federal issue is substantial.

    Please try to understand that WHEN the EFFECT of the words of the 1790 Act requires certain circumstances to be present in order to be “considered as” a (U.S.) natural born Citizen then THAT becomes the “definition” of a U.S. natural born Citizen notwithstanding what the rest of the world has to say on the subject…..!!!!

    Queen Anne Statutes on British Nationality defined it in its way, the Romans defined it in their way, Aristotle defined it in his way, Vattel defined it in his way and so on and so on and so on…….

    ….the U.S. Congress “defined” it in their way, in words that said so and in words that required it…………….as is necessary under the Rule of Law under the Republican form of Guv’mnt…….

    When the 1790 Act was “repealed” the only EFFECT of the “repeal” upon a the circumstances required to be a U.S. natural born Citizen was to limit the ‘circumstance” of location and nothing more.

    Therefore, under the ACTUAL U.S. Law regarding U.S. natural born Citizens the “definition” is a person born to U.S. Citizen parentS (both), within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.;

    (reconciled with all Acts, Statutes & Statutes at Large affecting U.S. Citizenship & naturalization)

    1. I am certainly not a Constitutional expert nor am I even a lawyer; however, it does not make sense to me that the “1790 Act”, or ANY act short of an Article V Amendment, can change the meaning of any word or phrase in the Constitution. Please consider this reasoning:

      The Constitution is a Contract between the States/their Citizens and the Federal Government. Among the reasons for the existence of the Constitution, is the limitation of Federal Power. The States were very concerned about this. Article V is the ONLY process whereby the Constitution can be changed from it’s original meaning.

      The words “Natural Born Citizen” meant something to the States’ delegates in Convention in 1787. In my understanding, “Natural Born Citizen” continues to mean today, what it meant in September of 1787 when the Constitutional Convention presented it’s product to the States for ratification. (It had to have a meaning at that time because the States obviously had to know what they were being asked to ratify). The Federal Government does not have the authority to amend, or alter the Constitution because it can only be altered or changed through the means provided in Article V. The Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government to 18 “Enumerated Powers”- Article 1, Section 8 (Changing or amending the Constitution isn’t one of them).

      If there is a phrase in the Constitution that gives the Federal Government this authority, please point it out to me and the rest of the readers here at Post& Email.

      Although I agree with your interpretation of what “Natural Born Citizen” means; it isn’t because the Act of 1790 made it so (although the act does give us an idea of how that term was viewed
      in the opening years under Constitutional Government)but because that was how the term was defined in the minds of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787.


      1. Well, a couple of points. We are either a Constitutional Republic or not. We operate under the Rule of Law or not.

        Of course the term of words of “natural born Citizen” had a meaning that was understood and used as a distinguishing characteristic for the eligibility of a POTUS.

        But what I am trying to explain is that it IS the identification of the circumstances that exist at birth that DEFINES a “natural born Citizen” and THAT is exactly what WAS done in the 1790 Act.

        Certainly there has been philosophical inquiries into the political character of a “natural born Citizen” but no such discussion was attached to the Constitution, other than John Jays Letter.

        But the members of the 1st Congress of 1790 were at or closely watching the Constitutional Convention and the man to whom John Jay addressed his letter signed the 1790 Act into LAW.

        Therefore, between March of 1790 and January 1795 a U.S. natural born Citizen was a child born to a married U.S. Citizen father no matter where in the world the child was born.

        The “repeal” of the 1790 Act in 1795 did NOT anul the existence of U.S. natural born Citizens but rather only LIMITED the location where they could be born.

        Foreign law, debates on ancient doctrines and philosophical political writings will NOT win this argument, but correctly construing the Constitutional status and actual U.S Law will., IMO.

    2. Interesting to note that ILYA SHAPIRO, writing for the CATO INSTITUTE, says, in The Daily Caller, 26 August 2013, that DUAL citizens CAN BE president, even if BOTH PARENTS are foreign.

      CDR KERCHNER has thankfully written a reply, but this type of MIS and DIS information does what it is supposed to do: confuse the electorate.

      Thank goodness for CDR Kerchner and other scholars who are not sitting idly by while others (Shapiro admits to being Canadian) attempt to reshape our Constitution from underneath our American feet!

  2. Even mistakes can be didactic. Now informed readers can respond and request, albeit demand rectification. It is a beginning.

    “BIRTHERISM,” which involves so much more than fraud of B/C, but also Natural Born Constitutional requirements, Dual and multiple citizenship being prohibited from Executive Branch, identity validity, etc., has been the BIGGEST underground story since 2008.

    It is only because of bold voices such as The Post Email, Orly, ORYR, etc, that there is now so much understanding. It is only because of orchestrated resistance including Newscorp it seems, that it is not common daily fare in the news.

    That is the SECOND BIGGEST STORY which will come to light after history resolves the crisis. WHERE WAS THE PRESS during the entire time?

    There is going to be much soul searching, just as the Germans had to do when they were made to see what was happening under their very noses.