Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Putative President Barack Obama’s Unconstitutional Amending of Article II’s “Natural Born Citizen” Clause

Putative President Barack Obama’s Unconstitutional Amending of Article II’s “Natural Born Citizen”

                                                      By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                                            March 6, 2012
                                                     Updated March 7, 2012

St. George Tucker

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.” This eligibility requirement raises the issue of whether putative President is a “natural born Citizen” thereunder so as to make him eligible to be President.

But what is a “natural born Citizen?” There is a wealth of information which informs us on what the exact definition is of a “natural born Citizen.” I have included this information in a brief that I wrote and which Attorney Karen Keifer filed with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania in the case of In Re: Barack Hussein Obama, II et al Objection of : Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. and Dale A. Laudenslager. That brief may be read at  Here I will only highlight a part of the brief which Obama’s supporters do not want the public to read.

In Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), our U.S. Supreme Court defined the Article II “natural-born citizen” class as part of its analysis of whether Virginia Minor was a “citizen” and as such, entitled to vote under the Constitution’s Article IV’s privileges and immunities clause. The Court held:

          The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had  
          elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the
          Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who
          were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born
          citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens
          children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this
          class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not
          necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all
          children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.”

Id., at 167-68 (emphasis supplied). Minor did not cite Vattel, but the Court’s definition of a “citizen” and a “natural-born citizen” are paraphrased directly from Emer de Vattel’s, The Law of Nations, Sec. 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758), where he defined a “natural-born citizen” as “those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”  Finding this source for the Court’s definition is critical because it shows that the entire Minor Supreme Court, like Chief Justice John Marshall dissenting (for other reasons) and concurring in The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) and Justice Daniels in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 476-77 (1857), did not rely upon the English common law to define the clause, but rather Vattel and natural law and the law of nations which was incorporated with the adoption of the Constitution into Article III “Laws of the United States” and thereby became American federal common law. [Endnote 1]

To correctly understand what the Founders, Framers, and Minor meant by birth to citizen parents, we have to understand that at the time that the Framers drafted and adopted the Constitution and when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Minor in 1875, an alien woman automatically became a U.S. citizen by marrying a U.S. citizen. When parents became U.S. citizens, so did their children, no matter where born. Naturalization records for both alien women and children are virtually non-existing because of this derivative naturalization.  What is critical to understand in this connection is that Congress before 1922, to avoid dual allegiance and nationality, had caused American-born women, “of perhaps Mayflower ancestry, whose forebears fought through the Revolution, and whose family names bear honor and conspicuous places in our history, who are thoroughly American at heart, and perhaps who have never left these shores” to forfeit their American citizenship upon marrying an alien husband.  (

          The connection between an immigrant woman's nationality and that of her husband convinced many
          judges that unless the husband of an alien couple became naturalized, the wife could not become a
          citizen. While one will find some courts that naturalized the wives of aliens, until 1922 the courts
          generally held that the alien wife of an alien husband could not herself be naturalized. (citing Act of Feb. 10, 1855 (§ 1994, rev. § 2172); see In re Rionda, 164 F 368 (1908); United States v. Cohen, 179 F 834 (1910)).

Congress did eventually allow widowed and divorced women who had lost their U.S. citizenship by marrying an alien husband to regain their U.S. citizenship through actual naturalization. In 1936, Congress allowed widowed and divorce women who had lost their U.S. citizenship by marriage between 1907 and 1922 to regain their U.S. citizenship by applying (using Form N-415, Application to Take Oath of Allegiance to the United States) and taking the oath of allegiance. Then in 1940, Congress allowed even women who continued to be happily married to alien husbands and who had lost their U.S. citizenship by marriage between 1907 and 1922 to resume their U.S. citizenship by applying and taking the oath of allegiance. Id. With such policy concerning dual allegiance and citizenship having been passed down through generations, early Congress surely would not have allowed children born in the United States to aliens to become citizens. With such strong policy of allegiance to the United States, it is nonsensical to believe that early Congress would have allowed a child to be a U.S. citizen by mere birth in the United States while treating his parents to be aliens.

Derivative citizenship for married women only ended when Congress passed on September 22, 1922 the Cable Act (42 Stat. 1021). This means that when one spoke about “parents” or “father” in relation to our citizenship laws before 1922, one was really referring to father and mother. With the elimination of derivative citizenship, the Cable Act just made it more difficult for a husband and wife to achieve unity of allegiance and citizenship if that is their desire, for after the act each non-citizen spouse has to naturalize under the naturalization laws.

With that backdrop, let us now examine the Minor decision. Those who argue that putative President Barack Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen” insist that when Minor v. Happersett said that “there have been doubts” as to whether a child born in the United States to alien parents was a “citizen,” the Court really said that “there have been doubts” whether that child was a “natural born citizen.” In other words, these persons argue that Minor included those other potential “citizens” into the “natural-born Citizen” class. But these persons not only ignore the clear text of what the Court wrote, but are also putting intentions into the mind and words into the mouth of our U.S. Supreme Court which simply are not there.

First, we know from the text of what Minor wrote that it distinguished between a “citizen” and a “natural-born citizen” and rightfully so. The Founders and Framers based the new constitutional republic on principles of natural law and the law of nations. The commentators on natural law (Samuel von Pufendorf in, The Whole Duty of Man According to the Laws of Nature (William Tooke trans., Ian Hunter & David Saunders, eds., Liberty Fund 2003) Book II, Chapter 6 (1691) and Vattel in, The Law of Nations) distinguished between a “natural born citizen” and a “citizen.” Our nation has since the Founding always distinguished between a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen.” The Constitution clearly distinguished between an Article II “natural born Citizen” and an Article I “Citizen.” Founders/judge/lawyer St. George Tucker [Endnote 2] and Founder/doctor/historian David Ramsay [Endnote 3] also made this critical distinction and both told us that birthright citizenship after July 4, 1776 belonged only to the children of citizens. Tucker even told us that the “civil right” to be elected President belonged only to the children of citizens which informs us that he too defined a “natural born Citizen” as a child born to citizen parents. And so has our early Congress since the Naturalization Acts of 1790 (1 Stat. 103), 1795 (1 Stat. 414), 1802 (2 Stat. 153) (except for the 1790 Act which referred to “natural born citizens,” all referred only to “citizens”), and thereafter. The distinction was also recognized by the framers of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (referred only to “citizens”) and the Fourteenth Amendment (referred only to “citizens”). A full discussion on Pufendorf, Vattel, Tucker, Ramsay, the early Naturalization Acts, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and Fourteenth Amendment may be found in my brief to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. [Endnote 4]

Second, we know that Minor could not have doubted whether a child born in the United States to alien parents was a “natural born Citizen,” for the Court knew very well that such a child could not be a "natural born Citizen." The Court in the very same paragraph told us that a "natural born Citizen" was a child born in the country to citizen parents. A child that was born to alien parents was born subject to a foreign power (in the case of Great Britain, an English “natural born subject”). Clearly, under the Court's definition which it had just confirmed in the same paragraph, without “citizen” parents, that child was not and could not be a "natural born Citizen."

Third, Minor's "doubts" were about whether a child born in the country to alien parents belonged to potentially a new class of “citizen,” one created by the newly passed Fourteenth Amendment, the question being was such a child born to alien parents “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States” and therefore a “citizen” under that new amendment. Minor had good reason to state that “there have been doubts” whether a child born in the United States to alien parents was even a “citizen.” All prior Acts of Congress had treated children born in the United States to alien parents to be themselves aliens. Congress still had statutes in effect that treated children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens and allowed those children to become “citizens” (not “natural born Citizens”) upon the naturalization of their parents if done during their minority or on their own naturalization petition if done thereafter (the Naturalization Acts of 1802 [2 Stat. 153] and 1855 [10 Stat. 604]). Since 1790, Congress had always required that children born abroad needed to be born to “citizen” parents in order to be themselves “citizens” and it did not expect anything less for children born in the United States to also be considered “citizens.” Minor would have been as was Congress well aware that Great Britain treated its children born in the United States to British subjects to be themselves English “natural born subject” just as Congress treated its children born abroad to citizen parents to be U.S. “citizens.” Also, the United States only 23 years following the Minor decision in Wong Kim Ark argued that a child born in the United States to alien parents was not a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment, but rather an alien. The United State’s position was correct given the then-existing U.S. Supreme Court decisions (like Minor) and Acts of Congress which still treated children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens. Even today, there are plenty of scholars who maintain that because born with foreign alienage and thereby not born completely “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, such a child is not a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen.” So, while Minor never had any doubts whether a child born in the United States to citizen parents was a "natural born Citizen," it did correctly state that “there have been doubts” whether a child born in the United States to alien parents was even a “citizen.”

Minor told us that for one to be a “natural-born citizen,” one could not be a first generation “citizen” vis-à-vis any one parent. Rather, one had to be at least a second generation “citizen” by birth to two “citizen” parents (keeping in mind unity of citizenship of the husband and wife) to be a “natural-born citizen.” As far as the doubts regarding whether that child born to alien parents was even a “citizen,” as we have seen, Minor was correct that such doubts existed.

The doubts identified by Minor in 1875 were finally resolved by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898), which held that a child born in the United States to domiciled alien parents was a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States.” Wong Kim Ark distinguished between a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen of the United States” and cited and quoted Vattel’s and Minor’s definition of “natural born Citizen,” but relied on the English common law to resolve the doubts identified in Minor and to determine whether a child born in the United States to alien parents was born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore a born “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. Wong Kim Ark did not alter or amend the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” other than to increase the class of people who can be “citizens” and who then can go on to procreate “natural born Citizens.”

To not conflate and confound the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” with that of a “citizen,” it is critical to understand that never has the debate, including that in Wong Kim Ark, been about whether a child born in the United States to alien parents is an Article II “natural born Citizen” until Mr. Obama entered the political/legal stage. Prior to that, it has always been whether that child was a “citizen.” And in this current debate, we have not only seen Obama’s supporters but also some courts (e.g. Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct.App. 2009), transfer denied, 929 N.E.2d 789 (2010), and Tisdale) that have reached the merits of the issue of what is a “natural born Citizen,” conflate and confound all that is “citizen” into “natural born Citizen.” We have even seen them go as far as to take Wong Kim Ark’s clear holding which speaks only of a “citizen of the United States” and substitute in the place of those clearly written words “natural born Citizen.” In other words, what they have done is, without due process and the rule of law, transform a “citizen” into a “natural born Citizen.” By doing so, they have violated the Founders’ and Framers’ intent that a “natural born Citizen,” who was to assume the great and singular civil and military powers of the Office of President and Commander in Chief, be born free of any foreign influence and allegiance.

These Obama supporters do not have one decision from the U.S. Supreme Court, including Wong Kim Ark, or even one Congressional Act which says that any child born in the United States to one or two alien parents is a "natural born Citizen." On the other hand, I have cited and discussed in my Kerchner Pennsylvania Obama ballot challenge brief and at this blog the several U.S. Supreme Court cases that define a "natural born Citizen" as a child born in the country to citizen parents, along with Congressional Acts and other historical sources that support that conclusion.

Assuming that Obama was born in the United States, a fact that he has not yet conclusively proven, he is not an Article II “natural born Citizen.”  While he may have been born to a U.S. citizen mother, he was not also born to a U.S. citizen father.  At the time of birth, he acquired a foreign allegiance and citizenship from his British alien father.  Being also born a British citizen, he was not born within the full and complete allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States and therefore is not and cannot be a “natural born Citizen.”  

The Constitution at Article V prescribes the means by which the people can amend its provisions. But what we see happening today is Obama, with the aid of the Ankeny [Endnote 5] and Tisdale [Endnote 6] courts, a reticent Congress, power-hungry political parties, and a complicit media, amending Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause without an Article V constitutional amendment. The question is will our constitutional republic allow him to get away with it?


1. In his 1793 charge to a grand jury, John Jay, our first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, stated that the “laws of the United States” fell under “three heads or descriptions”: “1st. All treaties made under the authority of the United States. 2d. The laws of nations. 3d The constitution and statutes of the United States.” Patrick J. Charles, Decoding the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause: Unlawful Immigration, Allegiance, Personal Subjection, and the Law, 51 Washburn L.J., Issue 2 (forthcoming Spring 2012) (citing The City Gazette and Daily Advertiser (Charleston, S.C.), August 14, 1793, at 2, col. 1).

2. St. George Tucker was born in Bermuda on July 10, 1752, and died on November 10, 1827 in Virginia. He studied law at the College of William and Mary in 1771 under George Wythe, who also taught law to Thomas Jefferson and John Marshall, and served as chief justice of Virginia. He was fluent in French. He also fought in the Revolutionary War. He became a lawyer in 1775, a law professor at the College of William and Mary, and a judge of Virginia's highest court. As we shall see below, being a law professor at the College of William and Mary is also an important factor in understanding what Tucker’s view would have been on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” St. George Tucker wrote in 1803: “The spirit of monarchy is war, and the enlargement of dominion; peace and moderation is the spirit of a republic.”  Upon President James Madison’s nomination, in 1813 he became a federal district judge for Virginia. He denounced slavery as a contradiction to the American ideal of freedom and an immorality. In 1796, he wrote and published the pamphlet "A Dissertation on Slavery: With A Proposal for the Gradual Abolition of It in the State of Virginia.” Tucker “was arguably the most important American legal scholar of the first half of the nineteenth century.” Paul Carrington, The Revolutionary Idea of University Legal Education, 31 Wm. & Mary L.Rev. 527, 540 (1990). Davison M. Douglas, Foreword: The Legacy of St. George Tucker, 47 Wm. & Mary L.Rev. 1111 (2006) (same),  "Tucker established a virtual dynasty of legal and constitutional talent that carried on Jeffersonian principles through successive generations." Clyde N. Wilson, ed., Views of the Constitution of the United States x (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund 1999) (foreword) p. viii (1803). An article which shows what influence St. George Tucker had regarding interpreting and understanding the Constitution is one written by Kurt T. Lash, "Tucker's Rule": St. George Tucker and the Limited Construction of Federal Power, 47 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1343 (2006), ; (explores Tucker’s view of federalism, called Tucker’s Rule, which was that the state’s maintained their sovereignty and reserved powers despite having become part of the union under the Constitution). Further information on St. George Tucker may be read at:;

3. Founder historian, David Ramsay, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789) told us that after July 4, 1776, birthright citizenship was preserved only for a child born to U.S. citizen parents. Ramsay provides direct evidence from the Founding period that the Founders and Framers used natural law to define a “natural born Citizen” and that they did not simply take the English common law “natural born subject” and substitute in its place a “natural born Citizen.”

David Ramsay, a highly respected doctor and historian from the Founding period, wrote an essay on citizenship during the Founding entitled, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789). David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. Ramsay “was a major intellectual figure in the early republic, known and respected in America and abroad for his medical and historical writings, especially for The History of the American Revolution (1789)…” Arthur H. Shaffer, Between Two Worlds: David Ramsay and the Politics of Slavery, J.S.Hist., Vol. L, No. 2 (May 1984). In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained that there is an “immense” difference between a British “subject” and a United States “citizen,” with the former being “under the power of another” and the latter being “a unit of mass of free people, who, collectively, posses sovereignty.” He informed that “Republics, both ancient and modern, have been jealous of the rights of citizenship.” He then explained that the “original citizens” of the United States were those who were parties to the Declaration of Independence and thereby adhered to the revolutionary cause. But the importance of his work does not stop there, for he also described the future citizens to come after the original citizens, whom he defined as the children born to citizen parents. He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id. at 6. He added that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” Id. at 7. He continued that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6. Here, Ramsay referred to “natural right,” which ties into the Framers’ use of the clause “natural born Citizen.” By focusing on citizenship that occurs by “natural right,” Ramsay distinguished citizenship that occurs naturally versus citizenship that occurs by operation of law. It is evident from his writing that in defining the original citizens and the future citizens who were to follow them, Ramsay did not look to English common law but rather to natural law. As we can see, Ramsay required the future citizens to be children of citizens. As we can see, Ramsay put forth a definition of a “natural born Citizen” that only depended upon the child being born to U.S. citizen parents with no mention of place of birth. While he did not call these future citizens “natural-born citizens,” Ramsay’s standard was the same standard Pufendorf provided when he defined the “Indigenes, or Natives,” who he defined as the “Descendants” of the “Original[]” “Citizens.” Ramsay would have been in a position to know how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen.” For further information on David Ramsay, see my essay entitled, Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789 , accessed at

4.  We argued in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania that not only did Obama fail to conclusively prove that he is a “natural born Citizen” and therefore eligible under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 to be elected President, but that he has also failed to provide any competent and sufficient evidence to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as to his true identity, a matter which showed that his nominating petition was defective and that he therefore failed to show under 25 P.S. Sec. 2937 that he is a “person[] entitled to file the same” [the nominating petition]. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, not reaching the merits of the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” or whether Obama meets that definition, and also not addressing the issue regarding Obama failing to yet prove his identity which presented a petition defect apart from any issue of Article II eligibility, on March 1, 2012 dismissed the Kerchner/Laudenslager petition to set aside the Obama nomination petition for lack of jurisdiction. The Court based its decision strictly on whether it had jurisdiction over the question of Article II eligibility. It did not address Kerchner’s and Laudenslager’s argument regarding Obama having failed to prove his identity, which is a petition defect and which disqualifies Obama from showing that he is a “person[] entitled to file the same” [his petition]. 25 P.S. Sec. 2937.

The Court ruled that if Obama had filed an affidavit saying he is constitutionally eligible to be President, the Court would have had jurisdiction over an objection to his eligibility. But since he did not file in Pennsylvania any such affidavit, then the Court did not have jurisdiction over the objectors’ petition. Apart from the Court failing to address the objectors’ Obama identity argument, such a rule seems to imply that what Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 says and whether Obama satisfies what it says changes based on whether Obama filed an affidavit in which he tells the world what he personally thinks about his eligibility. In other words, we have allowed a candidate’s subjective belief (whether held in good or bad faith) regarding his eligibility for the Office of President to trump the objective constitutional meaning of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 (the “natural born Citizen clause) and established facts. Also, the same Pennsylvania Court denied twice without both times stating any reason Karen Kiefer’s motion to have me admitted pro hac vice. It should be noted that Attorney Van Irion was also denied pro hac vice admission in Georgia.

5. For my comments on the Ankeny decision, see All That Is Wrong with Georgia State Judge Michael M. Malihi’s Decision that Putative President Obama Is a “Natural Born Citizen” , accessed at

6. For my comments on the Tisdale decisions, see Tisdale v. Obama and the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause , accessed at

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 6, 2012
Updated March 7, 2012

Copyright © 2012
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

Monday, March 5, 2012

A Catalog of Evidence - Concerned Americans Have Good Reason to Doubt that Putative President Barack Obama Was Born in Hawaii

                                       A Catalog of Evidence - Concerned Americans
                                                   Have Good Reason to Doubt
                               that Putative President Barack Obama Was Born in Hawaii

                                                     by: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                             Originally Posted: April 25, 2010
                                               Last Update: March 4, 2012
                                        [New Poll Added. Dead Links Fixed]
                                Get a copy of this Catalog of Evidence at SCRIBD

The New York Times on April 21, 2010, did a story entitled, Obama and the ‘Birthers’ in the Latest Poll, by Dalia Sussman and Marina Stefan. The article reported that "[i]n a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, 58 percent said Mr. Obama was born in the United States. That leaves a significant minority who said they thought he was born in another country (20 percent) or said they did not know (23 percent)." Question No. 50 in the poll was: "According to the Constitution, American Presidents must be 'natural born citizens.' Some people say Barack Obama was NOT born in the United States, but was born in another country. Do YOU think Barack Obama was born in the United States, or was he born in another country?" The result was: Born in US 58%, Another country 20%, Don't Know 23%. Hence, these numbers show that 43 percent do not believe that Obama was born in the United States. What a serious national security situation we are living in when the de facto President and Commander of our vast military power has not convincingly proven with certainty to almost half the people of this nation that he was truly born in the United States. The New York Times article, as usual from this pro-Obama paper, is written in such a way as to give the reader the impression that Obama has convincingly proven that he was born in Hawaii and that those who do not believe that Obama was born there are misinformed and poorly educated. What the authors of the article fail to realize or refuse to report is that concerned Americans have very good reasons to doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii.

May 2010 Updates on Polls: Additional subsequent polls results. A newer poll reported on May 31, 2010 reports 55% of Americans want Obama to release all his hidden and sealed early life records. Another poll released in early August by CNN and as reported by shows 6 of 10 have complete doubt or some doubts and don't totally believe Obama's U.S. birth story. Details from CNN story: 11% definitely not born in USA, 16% probably not born in USA, 29% probably but not sure born in the USA, 42% definitely was born in USA. This does not add up to be 100%. Reason for the missing 2% is not provided by CNN. Possibly it was due to truncating off decimals in the category percentages or rounding errors. WND combined the 11%, 16%, and 29% which totals to 57% and then rounds up to get the 6 out of 10 statistic. CNN talking heads combine the 42% with the 29% and report that as 71% believe Obama's born in the USA birth story ... but fail to clearly point out that 29% of that 71% do not 100% believe Obama's born in the USA story but only probably believe it. Stack up the stats anyway you want there is a very significant percentage of the American public which doubts the Obama nativity story. But still the main stream media refuses to demand that Obama release certified true and correct copies of the original records he is refusing to release such as his original long form Hawaiian birth registration records and any amendments to same and his application, financial aide applications for when he attended Occidental College in CA after graduating from high school, his travel and passport records, and possible legal adoption records when his mother remarried and when Obama moved to and lived with his step-father in Indonesia for 4-5 years. Those and many other of his requested documents Obama refuses to release. And yet the main stream media refuses to ask Obama for those documents to be released and sides with Obama against those who ask for them to be released.

Update 20 Mar 2011: Shocking new poll shows that now less than 10% of the American people believe that Obama has conclusively proven he was born in the United States and is therefore qualified to be President.

Some key points before we proceed to the evidence of Obama's place of birth. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides: “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 current debate is whether Putative President Obama is a “natural born Citizen” under this Presidential eligibility article in our Constitution.

While many do not understand this, being born in the USA is only one part of the issue. Being born in the USA is a necessary part, but not sufficient part, of being a "natural born Citizen." I will explain.

There has been much confusion regarding the role that Obama's place of birth (represented by his birth certificate) or parentage (represented by his alien father) plays in his being a "natural born Citizen." A “natural born Citizen” must be born in the United States or what is deemed its equivalent. This is called the jus soli requirement. We know that while Obama maintains that he was born in Hawaii, there exists a considerable amount of evidence that he was born in Kenya. Some argue that Obama has to date not yet conclusively shown that he was born in Hawaii and that on the contrary, he was born in Kenya. They argue that since Obama was born in Kenya, he is not and cannot be a “natural born Citizen.” Hence, some focus on Obama's place of birth as the only factor that needs to be considered in the question of whether he is a "natural born Citizen."

On the other hand, the original and only American common law definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen" is that one must be born in the country or its jurisdictional equivalent to U.S. citizen parents (father and mother). Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns (1758), Section 212 (“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. . . .”). This definition was last confirmed by our U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). As we can see, this definition contains two elements, place of birth and citizen parents or what is known as the jus soli and jus sanguinis factors united at the time of birth. While Obama's mother was born in the United States and was a "natural born Citizen," Obama has admitted that under the British Nationality Act 1948, when Obama was born in 1961, his father, who was born in the then-British colony of Kenya, was a British subject/citizen and that Obama himself by descent from his father was also born a British subject/citizen. Hence, since his father was not a United States citizen when Obama was born and he himself was a British subject/citizen by descent from his father, Obama is not and cannot be a “natural born Citizen.” Given Obama’s admission, some therefore focus only on Obama’s parentage (alien father) factor and maintain that it is not necessary to know his place of birth wherever that may be because Obama is not and cannot be a "natural born Citizen" because his father was not a United States citizen when Obama was born. Under this argument, Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” because he is missing the parentage factor, a necessary condition found in the original and only definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

The Fourteenth Amendment citizenship clause also causes further confusion in the Obama eligibility question, for some incorrectly ascribe a controlling effect to it. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that one be born in the United States and be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in order to be a born “citizen of the United States” thereunder. The way that the Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause is currently interpreted, it does not contain any U.S. citizen parent requirement. But a simple reading of the Amendment’s text shows that it only deals with a “citizen of the United States” and not a “natural born Citizen.” Hence, showing that Obama is a Fourteenth Amendment born “citizen of the United States” (the Fourteenth Amendment born “citizen of the United States” standard) without more is not sufficient to demonstrate that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen” (the Article II “natural born Citizen” standard). Nevertheless, Obama must at least prove that he is a born “citizen of the United States” (born in the United States) before he can prove that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen."

What this means is that proving that Obama was born in the United States is a necessary condition for proving that he is a "natural born Citizen," but is not a sufficient condition. Hence, that Obama may have been born in the United States does not necessarily make him a "natural born Citizen." Rather, with his being born in the United States being a necessary condition, his not being born here would disqualify him from being both a Fourteenth Amendment born “citizen of the United States” and also an Article II "natural born Citizen." In such a case, he would be disqualified from being President. But since we might in the end learn that Obama was born in Hawaii, it is not wise to rely solely on the place of birth factor when questioning whether Obama is a “natural born Citizen” and to completely disregard the parentage factor contained in the original definition of a "natural born Citizen." Likewise, since the United States Supreme Court has yet to rule on the definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen" within the context of a case raising the question of whether a person is eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military, it is not wise to rely only on the parentage factor when questioning whether Obama is a “natural born Citizen” and to totally discount the place of birth factor.

Please note that the Kerchner et al. v. Obama/Congress et al. case which was filed on January 20, 2009, after Congress confirmed Obama but before Chief Justice Roberts swore him in, and which the courts dismissed for lack of standing argued both the place of birth and U.S. citizen parents factors.

That Obama had a non-U.S. citizen father when he was born is not in dispute. Hence, just on that alone he is not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Still, we need to know where Obama was born because that is the other constituent element of being an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

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

Obama supporters provide the following evidence as proof that Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii and that he is therefore a born “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment, ignoring that 14th Amendment Citizenship is not enough to be an Article II "natural born Citizen." But let's look at the 'evidence' they most frequently cite. The comments in parenthesis are my response to the proffered evidence:

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

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

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

(4) The media would have discovered his not being born in Honolulu (although most of the media are supporters of Obama and have refused to seriously investigate the charges and others are afraid to properly vet Obama because of not wanting to be labeled racist);

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

(6) The Electoral College elected him President (although electors under most state statutes must vote in accordance with the popular vote and/or are beholden to their political party and vote as they are required to by their party);

(7) A majority of Americans elected him President (although many of them may not have known of the constitutional issue of or even cared about where he was born and a popular election result cannot negate the constitutional eligibility clause);

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

(9) Obama is currently the sitting President (although that de facto status is not proof of where he was born or his constitutional eligibility);

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

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

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

(13) There exists a birth announcement in two local Honolulu newspapers printed in August 1961 (but these announcements alone do not prove that Obama was born in Honolulu).

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

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

(2) The Kenyan newspaper, Daily Nation, reported that at an event in May 2010, honoring Obama's step-grandmother, who is known there as "Momma Sarah," she commented that, "Even the US President passed through my hands."

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

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

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

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

(7) During a December 2007 speech in Tampa, Florida, Michelle Obama stated at about 2 minutes into this video of the event, "What it reminded me of was our trip to Africa, two years ago, and the level of excitement that we felt in that country, the hope that people saw just in the sheer presence of somebody like Barack Obama, a Kenyan, a black man, a man of great statesmanship who they believe could change the fate of the world." As can be seen, Michelle Obama said that her husband is "a Kenyan." Would she say that if he was a "natural born Citizen" of the United States? What is also strange that she would make such a statement in light of the fact that Obama was running for political office in the United States. The statement raises more suspicion and is just more fuel for the debate of where Obama was born. Additionally, even if Obama was born in Hawaii, the statement shows where his political loyalties are;

(8) NPR public radio archived story says Obama is Kenyan born;

(9) No hospital in Honolulu has yet to confirm that he was born there. At first, Obama, his sister, Maya, and his campaign claimed that he was born in Queens Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii. See Paragraph 10 below. On November 4, 2008, even UPI reported that he was born in Queens Medical Center. See  The story later changed that Obama was not born in Queens Medical Center but rather in Kapi'olani Medical Center, also located in Honolulu. But neither Kapi'olani Medical Center nor any other hospital in Honolulu have any record of either Obama or his mother being patients there. See the excellent article, Hospitals in Hawaii to Obama: You Were Not Born Here! at for a full discussion of the exhaustive overt and covert (even bribing hospital workers for information and working with family members working in hospitals) search that was undertaken from November 20 to December 2, 2008 to confirm an Obama birth in any hospital in Hawaii which search shows that neither Obama nor his mother were ever patients in any hospital in Hawaii. For further discussion, see also, at  One would think that given that Obama is the first African-American President elected in the U.S., that his birth in any hospital would be an historic event. One would also expect the birth hospital to be boasting about the birth there and naming the wing of the hospital where Obama was allegedly born after him. Why would any such hospital not make its claim to Obama and even publicize the event to increase its exposure and marketing appeal? It is only reasonable to ask oneself why all the secrecy and mystery?;

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

(11) Obama has refused to give consent to Kapi’olani Medical Center for it to release minimal documents confirming he was born there as he claims. Without his consent, the hospital refuses to either admit or deny whether Obama was born there. When asked whether they would allow someone to falsely claim he or she was born there, the hospital refused to answer the question. See,, at  which provides information on the steps WND took to confirm whether Obama was born in that hospital.

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

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

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

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

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

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

What makes matter even more confusing and hence worse is the fact that Hawaii starting in October 2008 changed the name of its Certification of Live Birth. Now they call it a Certificate of Live Birth. See what a Certificate of Live Birth vs. a Certification of Live Birth looked like in Hawaii prior to Oct 2008. They decided to do this only after the question of Obama's alleged "birth certificate" image was placed online in June 2008 by the Daily Kos and the Obama campaign had been boiling among the American public. There simply is no other reason not tied to Obama which would support Hawaii's decision to make such a change. It is beyond being reasonable that Hawaii for no apparent reason other than helping Obama would call two different types of documents that contain different information and have a different probative value the same name.

(18) Various experts on documents and digital images state the digital image of the alleged 2007 computer generated Certification of Live Birth (COLB) first posted on the political web site, DailyKos, on July 12, 2008, which was later published on Obama's own "Fight-the-Smears" web site, and then later on, and the alleged underlying document later pictured on these internet sites is a forgery. Fake documents is a massive problem.;

(19) Obama refuses to produce a contemporaneous birth certificate created in 1961. This is the most important piece of evidence which would conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii because it would tell us exactly where in Hawaii Obama was born (e.g. in which hospital) and who was present at the moment of his birth in that exact location (e.g. the delivering doctor or a midwife). This document, unlike the COLB with he posted on the internet (see No. 16 above), would contain Obama's parents' names, the exact place in Hawaii that he was born, and would identify what source provided the birth event details serving as the foundation for the veracity of the original birth certificate itself. It is this long-form, vault birth certificate which would contain contemporaneous evidence such as the name of the hospital where Obama was born and the name of the doctor or midwife that delivered him. This is highly corroborating evidence which goes to adequately prove that he was in fact born in Hawaii. What is highly disturbing and suspect is that Obama has not only refused to release to the public this crucial piece of evidence, but he has taken extraordinary and highly unprecedented steps to block anyone from seeing or having any access to the 1961 contemporaneous birth certificate, hiring teams of lawyers who are presumably instructed by him to take all necessary steps to block anyone from seeing or having any access to that document and spending his, third parties', and the public's large amounts of money, time, and others resources in doing so. Obama's lack of transparency and integrity is further evidenced by the fact that, in addition to refusing to release to the public his 1961 birth certificate, he has refused to release to the public his travel, education, and employment documents, all while demanding that the people accept him as the legitimately elected President. It is rather clear and commonplace knowledge that Obama needs to release to the public his long-form, vault copy, of his 1961 contemporaneous birth certificate in order to meet his burden of proving that he was born in Hawaii, but still he without any reasonable explanation simply refuses to do so;

(20) Hawaii Health Department has publicly released incomplete and inconclusive information which Obama supporters claim shows that Obama was born in Honolulu. During the 2008 election, Hawaii's Director of Health, Chiyome Fukino, said:

"There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama's official birth certificate. State law (Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai'i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures. No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii."

Months later, in July 2009, she added:

"I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago."

Anyone who is only relying on the fact that Hawaii officials do not say that Obama was born in any place other than Hawaii is missing the point which is what sufficient and credible proof exists that Obama was born in Hawaii. Fukino's statements and even an authenticated COLB are legally insufficient for proving that Obama was born in Hawaii, for they merely represent that Obama's alleged birth record is on file in the state of Hawaii. They fall short of providing the information necessary to determine whether Obama was in fact born in Hawaii. Neither Fukino's statements nor the COLB offer any information regarding who supplied the information that is the basis of any alleged birth certificate nor do they confirm the authenticity of the information provided by that unknown person. Again, Fukino's statements and the COLB merely indicate that birth information is “on file," but we do not know who provided the information or whether that information is authentic. In short, we do not know what evidence Hawaii is relying on to simply say that he was born in Hawaii. If the underlying root "evidence" is fraudulent, then anything Hawaii says is of no value and surely not evidence that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii. In other words, in such a case, Hawaii would be picking fruit from a poisonous tree.

Additionally, Fukino, as the Director of a state's health department, has no legal authority or competence to be declaring Obama an Article II "natural born Citizen." Given that Congress refused to address this question despite its constitutional duty to qualify the President under the Twentieth Amendment, this is now a constitutional question which only a court of competent jurisdiction and eventually the United States Supreme Court can answer.

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

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

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

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

Moreover, no Hawaii official has yet to confirm that the online image and picture of Obama's COLB is a true and accurate image of the paper COLB that they allegedly issued to Obama in 2007. They also have yet to confirm that they ever even issued the COLB to Obama. When citizen journalists (Miss Tickly and the Post & Email, etc.) asked Hawaii officials for their opinion of the COLB image and pictures, they did not answer their inquiries. In response to a question from WorldNetDaily, the Hawaii Department of Health refused to authenticate either of the two versions of President Obama's short-form Certificate of Live Birth, or COLB, posted online, the image produced by the Obama campaign and the images released by Janice Okubu, the public information officer for the Hawaii Department of Health, also had no explanation for why Dr. Fukino's initial press release last October and subsequent press release also avoided declaring the posted images to be of authentic documents.

(21) In 1961 it was not very difficult for a family member to defraud the State of Hawaii by registering and claiming a child was born there when he or she was not and obtain a Hawaiian birth certificate. Birth registration fraud was easy in Hawaii and other areas as this recent article attests.;

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

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

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

(25) No government, political (including the Federal Election Commission), security, or police agency or media entity has confirmed for the American people that Obama was born in Honolulu. These official agencies simply assumed that everyone else did their due diligence on the question of where Obama was born. The simple truth is that none of these agencies did any due diligence and now want to simply sweep this constitutional crisis under the rug to save political face. Rather than helping conduct an honest investigation of Obama's place of birth, these individuals and entities, including the mainstream media, which failed to properly vet Obama are now engaged in a campaign of cover up, manipulation, deceit, and ridicule of those who are earnestly pursuing this investigation (who they pejoratively call "birthers");

(26) Nancy Pelosi, in her capacity as the Chair of the Democratic National Convention, signed an affidavit to 50 states certifying that Obama was nominated for the Office of President. In many of the 50 states, Pelosi did not address the issue of Obama's Article II “natural born citizenship” qualifications. This unusual action and fact about the DNC's and Pelosi's activities in the 2008 election was explained on page 19 of the the Kerchner et al v Obama, Congress, & Pelosi, et al lawsuit filed on 20 Jan 2009. Nowhere in the nominating documents that Pelosi provided to many States does it say he is qualified to serve as President per the Article II Constitutional requirements, if he is elected. What Pelosi filed in these states simply says that Obama has been nominated as the Democratic candidate for the Office of President. In many other states, Pelosi certified: “THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado, on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively.” The only exception that has been found to date is for the state of Hawaii, which nominating certificate does say that the candidate is constitutionally qualified to be President. The certifying language that Pelosi used in this sole certifications is: “THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado, on August 25 through 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.” A copy of Pelosi's signed document for Hawaii and the 2nd and different version sent to many other states may be found at:  A question that we should all ask ourselves is why would Pelosi use the constitutional qualification language in only the Hawaii certificate and not also use it in all the certifications of the other states she sent the 2nd version to? Additionally, neither Pelosi nor the DNC adequately vetted Obama, for neither she nor anyone else in her party saw his original vault, long-form, Certificate of Live Birth (Birth Certificate), (not to be confused with the internet image of a Certification of Live Birth (COLB) that Obama’s campaign posted on the internet in June 2008 and which has been attacked by at least two document examiners as a forgery), or any other sufficient and credible document that would lead her to come to such a conclusion;

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

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

Ross Dolan of The Daily Republic on Friday, May 15, 2010, interviewed Eleanor Nordyke. The interview may be read at  More on the article here. Mrs. Nordyke makes some outlandish statements, accusing “birthers” of being motivated by racism and money in pursuing the Obama eligibility issue. On the birth certificate numbers, she said: “‘My daughters’ birth certificates were 10637 and 10638, and Obama’s was 10641, so his mother must have come in after I did,’ Nordyke said, though she never met Obama’s mother.” Not so Mrs. Nordyke. You must have forgotten that Obama was allegedly born August 4, 1961 and your twins were born a day later on August 5, 1961. And in those days women stayed in the hospital after giving birth for a week or more. How you two new moms could not have met in that small hospital maternity ward during your many days stay there is not so easy to explain away, especially a young 18 year old teenager in Hawaii having just given birth to a black baby (this was the 60s and that would have been unusual for those times and would have been whispered about back then in the maternity ward) unless of course Obama's mom and baby Obama were never there. Mrs. Nordyke's statement clearly shows her bias for Obama. It makes no sense to believe that birth certificates would have been issued before a baby was born and that the numbers were even issued at the hospital. Nevertheless, Mrs. Nordyke did make some important concessions. She admitted that she would have been in the same maternity ward as Obama’s mother if Obama's mother was there at Kapi’olani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital (now called Kapi’olani Medical Center) on Friday, August 4, 1961; while one would not reasonably expect her to remember everyone who was with her in the maternity ward, she did say that she never saw Obama’s mother in the maternity ward while she was there and yet Obama's mother allegedly gave birth the day before Mrs. Nordyke did; and that even though there were only five obstetricians at the time of Obama’s birth and that her late husband, Dr. Robert Nordyke, was an internal medicine specialist at Honolulu’s Straub Clinic, she does not know the name of the doctor who allegedly delivered Obama in that hospital at that time. One would think that the doctor who delivered the President of the United States would be very famous and would be well-known within the families of doctors in Honolulu. I cannot think of any reason why the name of a doctor who delivered a President of the United States should be a secret and not even known by the medical community. Yet, Mrs. Nordyke states she does not know who the doctor is. What is also telling about this interview is that our nation’s so-called journalists have to resort to relying on the memory of a clearly biased and probably coached elderly person to try to prove that Obama was born in Kapi’olani Medical Center rather than demanding Obama provide a simple copy of the typed original contemporaneous birth certificate from 1961;

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

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

(31) In his book, “Dreams From My Father, ” at page 126, Obama, in referring to himself and his mother and father, quotes his mother as saying: “Then you were born, and we agreed that the three of us would return to Kenya after he finished his studies.” According to the timeline provided by Obama's supporters, neither Obama himself nor his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, would have yet been in Kenya when Stanley Ann and Obama Sr. made this agreement. But now, we have Stanley Ann saying that the three of them were going to return to Kenya after Obama Sr. completed his studies. Normally, one does not say that he or she is going to return to a place unless he or she had already been there. That includes speaking of oneself and of a third person. Hence, did Obama’s mother say that she and her son Obama had already been to Kenya? Why would she say that she and her son were going to return to Kenya, with Obama Sr., if they had never been there before? This statement is also important because it shows that Obama Sr. always intended to return to Kenya after completing his studies in the U.S. and thus never became domiciled in Hawaii or any other U.S. state. We thank an anonymous researcher for his find of the page 126 quote. Images of page 125 and 126;

(32) Did Obama Attend Columbia University As He Claims He Did? Something which goes to Obama’s credibility regarding his claim that he was born in Hawaii is his representation that he attended and graduated from Columbia University in 1983. But was he really there? If Obama is not telling the truth about Columbia then he may very well not be telling the truth about so many other aspects of this life including his place of birth. Let us look at some of the available evidence:

• Stephanopoulos of ABC news said during the 2008 campaign that he too was a classmate of Obama at Columbia class of 1984. He said he never had one class with him.

• The Wall Street Journal on Sept 11, 2008, reported that Obama was never at Columbia University.

• Looking for evidence of Obama's past, Fox News contacted 400 Columbia University students from the period when Obama claims to have been there. But no one remembered him.

• Wayne Allyn Root was, like Obama, a political science major at Columbia who also graduated as Valedictorian from his high school, Thornton-Donovan School, then graduated from Columbia University in 1983 as a Political Science major in the same class as Barack Hussein Obama was supposed to have been in. In 2008, Root says of Obama, "I don't know a single person at Columbia that knew him, and they all know me. I don't have a classmate who ever knew Barack Obama at Columbia. Ever! Nobody recalls him. I'm not exaggerating, I'm not kidding." Root adds that he was also, like Obama, "Class of '83 political science, pre-law" and says, "You don't get more exact or closer than that. Never met him in my life, don't know anyone who ever met him. At the class reunion, our 20th reunion five years ago, who was asked to be the speaker of the class? Me. No one ever heard of Barack! And five years ago, nobody even knew who he was. The guy who writes the class notes, who's kind of the, as we say in New York, the macha who knows everybody, has yet to find a person, a human who ever met him.” A bio on Root may be found at

• Two investigators researched the Columbia University yearbooks (1981-1985), and found the following: there are no pictures or mention of the names Obama, Soetoro, or Dunham in the yearbooks; Obama’s alleged Political Science class of 1983 had 43 students only 2 of whom were black and those two looked nothing like Barack Obama (pictures in detail and in color).

• The above evidence was confirmed at the C.I.A. Columbia CIA Columbia Obama Sedition and Treason Trial which was held by Rev. James David Manning in New York City, May 14-19, 2010, as reported in This report provided by Neil B. Turner, Citizens for the Constitution, NBTurner @ Dr. Manning’s trial which resulted in a guilty verdict against Obama and Columbia University former President confirms that Obama never attended Columbia University as he claims he did. Dr. Manning's entire hour-long Press Conference can be seen at:

CIA Columbia Obama Trial - Guilty Verdict Press Conference  For more on the Guilty Verdict Press Conference see:

• Rev. Manning, who was in studies at the Union Theological Seminary, an across-the-street sister-institution to Columbia, and a member of the Columbia University Student Union in 1981, 82, and 83, “never heard of or saw a fellow black student named Obama or Soetoro or Dunham.” He also did extensive investigation within the Harlem community where he has his church and where he has spent so many years of his life and could find no evidence of Obama ever attending Columbia University.

• Obama consistently declines requests to talk about his years at Columbia, provide school records, or provide the name of any former classmates or friends while at Columbia.

• No one at Columbia remembers Obama at Columbia. Why does not anyone in Obama's college class remember him? Maybe he never attended class? Maybe he never attended Columbia? He won't allow Colombia to release his records either. All this is very suspicious.

(33) A college instructor who worked as a Senior Elections Clerk for the City and County of Honolulu in 2008 has stated in May 2010 that Obama was not born in Hawaii, and that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate does not exist in that State. Tim Adams now teaches English at Western Kentucky University, in Bowling Green, Ky. "There is no birth certificate," said Tim Adams. "It's like an open secret. There isn't one. Everyone in the government there knows this." Adams, who says he is a Hillary Clinton supporter who then voted for John McCain when Clinton lost the Democratic nomination to Obama, told WND, "I managed the absentee-ballot office. It was my job to verify the voters' identity." He says during the 2008 campaign, the issue of Obama's constitutional eligibility was raised. His elections office was inundated with requests to verify his birthplace. He adds: "I had direct access to the Social Security database, the national crime computer, state driver's license information, international passport information, basically just about anything you can imagine to get someone's identity," Adams explained. "I could look up what bank your home mortgage was in. I was informed by my boss that we did not have a birth record [for Obama]." At the time, there were conflicting reports that Obama had been born at the Queen's Medical Center in Honolulu or the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women and Children across town. So Adams says his office investigated at and contacted both facilities. He adds: "They told us, 'We don't have a birth certificate for him.'" "They told my supervisor, either by phone or by e-mail, neither one has a document that a doctor signed off on saying they were present at this man's birth." To date, no hospital has been willing to confirm that Obama was born there. "His title was senior elections clerk in 2008," said Glen Takahashi, elections administrator for the City and County of Honolulu. Takahashi also confirmed Adams' time frame at the office from spring until the month of August. "We hire temporary workers, because we're seasonal," he said. However, when WND asked Takahashi if the elections office could check on birth records, he said, "We don't have access to that kind of records. [There's] no access to birth records." Adams responded, "They may say, 'We don't have access to that.' The regular workers don't, the ones processing ballots; but the people in administration do. I was the one overseeing the work of the people doing the balloting." Adams stressed, "In my professional opinion, [Obama] definitely was not born in Hawaii. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that he was not born in Hawaii because there is no legal record of him being born there. If someone called and asked about it, I could not tell them that person was born in the state." A June 5, 2010 radio interview of Mr. Adams conducted by James Edwards, host of a weekly radio show on WLRM Radio in Memphis, Tennessee, can be heard at  This new revelation is also reported at and  A very good YouTube summary of this new news can be heard at: reporters did personally speak to Mr. Adams and he confirmed the truth of what he is reported to have said on the radio program.

Mr. Adams has reaffirmed his claims to a network television affiliate. Mr. Adams was interviewed by Gene Birk of ABC affiliate WBKO-TV in Bowling Green, Ky. Video of the 9-minute interview has been posted on YouTube and is viewable at this link. He confirmed his previous statement when he said: "As of the time I was in Hawaii working in the elections office," said Adams, "we had many people who were asking about the eligibility of Senator Obama to be president. I was told at the time there is no long-form birth record, which would have been the case if President Obama was born in [a] hospital in Honolulu. There is no such form in Hawaii."

(34) That the question of whether Obama was born in Hawaii is a legitimate question is evidenced by the fact that there are national and state political leaders who are now asking questions which show that Obama has not yet provided sufficient and credible evidence conclusively proving that he was born there. From the web site,  we learn the following:

• Hawaii state Sen. Will Espero, a Democrat, has suggested that legislation could be adopted to allow for the release of Obama's birth records so that those who question where he was born may be satisfied. While Espero said he believes Obama was born in Hawaii, he added, "My decision to file the legislation was primarily a result of the fuss over President Obama's birth records and the lingering questions."

• Oklahoma state Rep. Mike Ritze, sponsored a proposal demanding that candidates for political office including those running for President produce eligibility documentation. Ritze says he regularly gets questions from his constituents about Obama's eligibility. He adds that an "ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" on the issues of candidate qualifications and eligibility.

• In March 2009, Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., introduced H.R. 1503, the Presidential Eligibility Act. It is still pending in a House committee and has nearly a dozen co-sponsors, including Reps. Dan Burton, R-Ind.; Ted Poe, R-Texas; Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn.; John Campbell, R-Calif.; John R. Carter, R-Texas; John Culberson, R-Texas; Bob Goodlatte, R-Va.; Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas; Trent Franks, R-Ariz.; Louie Gohmert, R-Texas; and Kenny Marchant, R-Texas. The proposed law seeks to "amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate … to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution."

• Arizona state Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, said the controversy over Obama and his birth certificate has raised questions. "It just makes sense and will stop any controversy in the future to just show you are a natural born citizen," she told the Arizona Capitol Times.

• Arizona state Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley, told WND that she has been getting questions from other states about H. 2442, a proposal she sponsored to require future presidential candidates to show they are a "natural born citizen" and therefore eligible under the Constitution to be President. Some three dozen lawmakers have co-sponsored the bill and they want state officials to independently verify the accuracy of documentation.

• U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Ga., sent a December 10, 2009 letter to the White House formally requesting that Obama address questions about his place of birth. Deal, who is running for governor, said several months ago he would ask Obama to prove his eligibility. "I have looked at the documentation that is publicly available, and it leaves many things to be desired," Deal said in November.

• Sarah Palin, former vice-presidential candidate, affirmed that questions about Barack Obama's eligibility for office are legitimate. "I think it's a fair question, just like I think past association and past voting records – all of that is fair game," Palin said. "The McCain-Palin campaign didn't do a good enough job in that area."

• Former House majority leader Tom DeLay, in October 2009, provided his views on Obama's place of birth issue, saying, "Why wouldn't the president of the United States show the American people his birth certificate? You have to show a birth certificate to play Little League baseball. It's a question that should be answered. It's in the Constitution that you have to be a natural born citizen of the United States to be president."

• When U.S. Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., was asked whether he believes Obama is eligible to be president, he said: "What I don't know is why the president cannot produce a birth certificate. I don't know anyone else who can't produce one. I think that's a legitimate question."

• U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., believes Obama was born in the U.S. But he also said he thinks Obama is trying to hide something. "I believe he's a natural born citizen of the United States. Therefore, even if he acts un-American and seems to go against American interests, he's still an American-born citizen," he said. "All that being said, probably Barack Obama could solve this problem and make the birthers back off by simply showing ... his long form birth certificate." "I don't know what it is that he doesn't want people to see the birth certificate. I don't think it has to do with his natural-born citizenship," Franks continued. "He's spent an awful lot of money to keep people from seeing the birth certificate. ... I think it has to do with something else."

• Feminist icon, Camille Paglia, a columnist who earlier wrote about the ambiguities of President Barack Obama's birth certificate, told a National Public Radio audience that those who have questions about his eligibility actually have a point. "Yes, there were ambiguities about Obama's birth certificate that have never been satisfactorily resolved. And the embargo on Obama's educational records remains troubling," she wrote.

• In September 2009, New Hampshire State Rep. Laurence Rappaport, R-Colebrook, said he was tired of telling his constituents that he is not sure of Obama's eligibility to serve as President. He met with New Hampshire's secretary of state, William Gardner, who administers the state's elections, to demand answers. "Regardless of where he was born, is he a natural born citizen as required by the Constitution? I don't know the answer to that," Rappaport said. "My understanding is that … a natural born citizen had to be someone with two American parents. If that's true, his father was a Kenyan and therefore a British subject at the time. Then there's the issue: if he was born out of the country, was his mother old enough at the time to confer citizenship? "I expect somebody to come up with the legal answers to this," Rappaport told WND, "and so far that hasn't happened."

(35) As we know, the only "document" that Obama has produced for the American public is an alleged 2008 computer image (which some experts have declared to be a forgery) of an alleged 2007 Certification of Live Birth (COLB) (which Hawaii has yet to even confirm is authentic). Hence, his only proof of where and when he was born is this digital image of only a short-form document and not the long-form birth certificate which latter but not the former includes the name of the hospital and delivery doctor. Apart from the question of whether either or both alleged computer image of an alleged paper document are authentic, there are many problems with simply relying on a birth certificate as conclusive evidence of the place and date of birth. Birth certificate fraud is a real problem in the United States. The U.S. Office of Inspector General published a report in September 2000, entitled Birth Certificate Fraud. The report explains that over the last 25 years there have been a number of studies addressing the problem of birth certificate fraud. The report states that there exist misconceptions among the public as to the integrity of birth certificates. The report says that with current technological advances with computers and the internet, it is easier to produce counterfeit birth certificates. It explains that many times the alleged birth certificates produced by a government agency are based on false or fraudulent information or do not even have documentary evidence to corroborate the veracity of the birth event as stated in the birth certificate. It explains how a birth certificate that is "spawned" by false information or documents is itself fraudulent. The report concludes that "birth certificates alone do not provide conclusive or reliable proof of identity." It adds that "[w]hen used in combination with other documents, birth certificates can add to the level of proof in establishing eligibility and identity." The report recommends that birth certificates should be used "only with other documents." The full report may be read at  We should remember that Obama has refused to release to the American public any of his "other documents" (birth, medical, travel, work, and education). This refusal on his part is very troubling given that the Inspector General in his report recommends that birth certificates be used "only with other documents" and that with Obama we are talking about making sure that he is who he says he is and therefore eligible to receive the vast and singular civil and military powers of the Office of the President and Commander in Chief of the Military of the United States. See also the recent change to the law in Puerto Rico needed because of the massive birth certificate fraud involving birth certificates from there.  ("The Puerto Rican government, in cooperation with the departments of State and Homeland Security, has enacted a new law that invalidates all Puerto Rico birth certificates issued on or before June 30. The law, which takes effect July 1, is intended to combat the fraudulent use of Puerto Rico birth certificates to obtain U.S. passports, Social Security benefits and other federal services, according to the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration"). See also Department of Justice news release on fraudulent birth certificates from the Hudson County Office of Vital Statistics (HCOVS), in New Jersey.  ("As part of the investigation, federal agents executed a search warrant of the HCOVS on Feb. 18, 2004, which resulted in the seizure of hundreds of suspect Certificates of Live Birth which falsely indicated that the named individuals were born in Jersey City, when in fact, they were born outside the United States and were in the United States illegally").

(36) Bill Keller, leader of, an internet ministry that has over 2.4 million subscribers worldwide and who is seen daily on Comcast's MyTV8, has issued a $10,000 reward to MSNBC host Rachel Maddow to produce Obama's Hawaiian long-form birth certificate. Late last year, Keller was hired to produce and host an infomercial that was seen in markets around the country. He asked the simple question, where was Obama really born? Maddow used her MSNBC program to mock and demean Keller and others who simply request that Obama produce his long-form birth certificate. Keller contacted Maddow's producers and offered to appear with her on her program, but she declined his offer. As a result, Keller has made his $10,000 offer to Maddow to produce Obama's Hawaiian long-form birth certificate. One would think that if Obama has released his birth certificate like his enablers tell the world, the $10,000.00 should be easy money for Maddow to earn. But let us see if she is able to produce the birth certificate and take her cash.

(37) Tanzanian newspaper "The Citizen" published in English reports on 29 Jun 2010 that Obama was born outside of the USA but that did not preclude him from being elected President in the USA and that the people of Zanzibar should follow the example of Obama.

(38) 2nd Tanzanian newspaper "Daima" published in Swahili with a reporter in Nairobi Kenya reported on 2 Sep 2006 about Senator Obama's visit to Kenya that year that Obama was born there in Kenya. Translation provide by the Google Translator online services.

(39) On April 27, 2011, Obama released on the White House server an internet image of an alleged Certificate of Live Birth which states that he was born at Kapi'olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961. It also states that his father was Barack Obama Sr. and his mother was Stanley Ann Dunham. Immediately upon release of this computer image, various computer and internet image experts and knowledgeable persons said that the image was not that of a real paper birth certificate, but rather was an image that was electronically assembled. In other words, the consensus among so many of these experts and knowledgeable persons is that the internet-imaged alleged birth certificate is a forgery. My articles on the forgery are: Obama Releases His Alleged Long Form Certificate of Live Birth But He’s Still Not a Natural Born Citizen , accessed at ; Obama’s On-Line Image of His Alleged 1961 Long-Form Certificate of Live Birth Contains Evidence of Kerning Proving That the Actual Paper Certificate of Live Birth Is a Forgery , accessed at ; When Will Congress and the FBI Investigate the Suspicious Circumstances Involved With Obama’s Alleged Long-Form Certificate of Live Birth? , accessed at  These articles contain many links which will take the reader to the many sources which demonstrate how they concluded that the birth certificate image is a forgery.

(40) With the great doubts with the authenticity of the April 2011 Certificate of Live Birth that Obama released on the internet, 250 members of the Surprise, Ariz., Tea Party, presented a signed petition to Arizona Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio in August 2011, asking him to undertake an investigation into that alleged document.

The Tea Party members petitioned under the premise that if a forged birth certificate was used to place Barack Obama on the 2012 Arizona presidential ballot, their rights as Maricopa County voters could be compromised.

Sheriff Arpaio agreed to investigate the matter through a cold case posse.

Sheriff Arpaio organized the posse. The posse was comprised of former law enforcement officers and lawyers with law enforcement experience.

Beginning in October 2011, it interviewed dozens of witnesses and examined hundreds of documents. It also took numerous sworn statements from witnesses around the world.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio, based on that 6-month investigation, has concluded that there is probable cause that Obama’s April 2011 internet released Certificate of Live Birth is a forgery.

His report was released on March 1, 2012. His posse concludes that there is probable cause to believe someone committed two crimes.

First, they say it appears the White House created a forgery of a government document that it characterized as an officially produced governmental birth record.

Second, the White House fraudulently presented to the residents of Maricopa County and to the American public at large a forged government document representing that it was “proof positive” of President Obama’s alleged 1961 Hawaii long-form birth certificate and therefore proof that Obama was born in Hawaii.

"President Barack Obama's long-form birth certificate released by the White House on April 27, 2011, is suspected to be a computer-generated forgery, not a scan of an original 1961 paper document as represented by the White House when the long-form birth certificate was made public," Arizona's Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio said at a press conference on March 1, 2012 in Phoenix.

He continues: "My investigators believe that the long-form birth certificate was manufactured electronically and that it did not originate in a paper format as claimed by the White House."

This is the major preliminary finding of a six-month ongoing Sheriff's Cold Case Posse law enforcement investigation into the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate and his eligibility to be president.

The Cold Case investigators further determined that the Hawaii Department of Health has engaged in systematically obstructing the public from inspection whatever original 1961 birth records the Hawaii Department of Health may have in their possession.

The investigators documented a number of inconsistent and misleading representations that various Hawaii government officials have made over the past five years regarding what, if any, original birth records are held by the Hawaii Department of Health.

"Officers of the Hawaii Department of Health and various elected Hawaiian public officials may have intentionally obscured 1961 birth records and procedures, to avoid having to release to public inspection and to the examination of court-authorized forensic examiners any original Obama 1961 birth records the Hawaii Department of Health may or may not have," said Mike Zullo, the lead investigator in Sheriff Arpaio's Cold Case Posse.

The Cold Case investigators have not yet determined who, when, or precisely how the long-form computer-generated birth certificate released on April 27 may have been forged.

But the investigators say that based on the evidence contained in the computer-generated PDF file released by the White House as well as important deficiencies in the Hawaii process of certifying the long-form birth certificate they have established probable cause that a forgery has been committed.

"A continuing investigation is needed to identify the identity of the person or persons involved in creating the alleged birth certificate forgery, and to determine who, if anyone, in the White House or the state of Hawaii may have authorized the forgery," Arpaio said.

“As I said at the beginning of the investigation, the president can put all this to rest quite easily,” Arpaio said. “All he has to do is demand the Hawaii Department of Health release to the American public and to a panel of certified court-authorized forensic examiners all original 1961 paper, microfilm and computer birth records the Hawaii Department of Health has in its possession.”

Arpaio also emphasized that the Hawaii Department of Health needs to provide, as part of the full disclosure, evidence regarding the chain of custody of all Obama birth records, including paper, microfilm and electronic records to eliminate the possibility that a forger or forgers may have tampered with the birth records.

The sheriff also said that Obama needs to authorize Kapi’olani Hospital to release any medical records that it may have on Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, his mother, and for the newly born Barack Obama, to provide corroboration for the records held in the Hawaii Department of Health vault.

Only with “authentic Hawaii Department of Health 1961 birth records for Barack Obama” can we reasonably concluded that Obama was born in Hawaii as he claims, Zullo said.

“[A]bsent the authentication of Hawaii Department of Health 1961 birth records for Barack Obama, there is no other proof he was born anywhere within the United States.”

The investigators have also concluded that Obama's Selective Service card was most likely a forgery, revealed by an examination of the postal date stamp on the document. Additionally, records of Immigration and Naturalization Service cards filled out by airplane passengers arriving on international flights originating outside the United States in the month of August 1961, examined at the National Archives in Washington, D.C., are missing records for the week of President Obama's birth, including the dates Aug. 1, 1961 through Aug. 7, 1961.

Among the evidence released at the press conference are five videos which demonstrate why the Obama long-form birth certificate is suspected to be a computer-generated forgery. In these videos, Sheriff Joe Arpaio presents the results of his investigation. He has also produced a sixth video which show that by examining the postal date stamp on the document the posse has concluded that President Obama's Selective Service card is most likely a forgery.

The videos consist of step-by-step computer demonstrations using a control document. They display the testing used by the investigators to examine various claims made by supporters of the April 27 document.

The investigators contend the videos illustrate their conclusion that the features and anomalies observed on the Obama long-form birth certificate were inconsistent with features produced when a paper document is scanned, even if the scan is enhanced by Optical Character Recognition, OCR, and optimized.

Additionally, the posse says, the videos demonstrate that the Hawaii Department of Health Registrar’s name stamp and the registrar’s date stamp were computer-generated images imported into an electronic document, as opposed to rubber stamp imprints inked by hand or machine onto a paper document.

“That we were able to cast reasonable suspicions on the authenticity of the registrar stamps was especially disturbing, since these stamp imprints are designed to provide government authentication to the document itself,” Zullo said. He stressed that if the registrar stamps are forgeries, the document itself is likely a forgery.

The videos may be seen here:

Pt 1 Introduction – Regular Scan:

Pt 2 Layers, Stamp & Noise

Pt 3 OCR Theory

Pt 4 Optimization

Pt 5 Conclusion

Pt 6 Selective Service

With “probable cause” having been established that crimes have been committed, Sheriff Arpaio has concluded that a criminal investigation is warranted.

He asked that any other law enforcement agency with information referencing this investigation be forwarded to his office.

He has also added that greater scrutiny of presidential candidates is needed.

Arpaio has concluded that a congressional investigation is warranted

See this story by WND for more information,

For more information, see and CBS Television coverage of Sheriff Arpaio’s investigation and press conference can be seen here

None of the above 40 factors alone would be sufficient to disprove that Obama was born in Hawaii. But the totality of them raises more than legitimate doubts. What is now most disturbing is Sheriff Arpaio's Cold Case Posse has now concluded based on its 6-month investigation that there exists "probable cause" that Obama's alleged April 27, 2011 birth certificate and his Selective Service Registration are forgeries.

With the "probable cause" developed by Sheriff Arpaio's posse, Congress should definitely step in and conduct a full investigation, using the full force of its resources and subpoena powers. Needless to say, Congress should compel Obama to dispel this evidence by providing corroborating evidence supporting his claim that he was born in Hawaii. That evidence must be more than just posting in April 27, 2011 a computer image on the internet of an alleged Certificate of Live Birth.

One would think that the Obama camp and all those who support him would mount an all-out attack and present all the evidence that proves Obama was born in Hawaii. What is important to ponder is that after almost two years of public trashing of the Obama birthplace issue, the 2008 alleged electronic on-line image of an alleged 2007 Certification of Live Birth (a COLB which is not a Certificate of Live Birth that contains the name of the birth hospital and delivery doctor), the two 1961 newspaper announcements, what some Hawaii officials say in 2009 and 2010, and an April 2011 electronic image of an alleged Certificate of Live Birth is the only evidence provided by our nation’s editors and political leaders on the question of where Obama was born. So let us review. What evidence do we currently have which sufficiently proves where Obama was born? We have an unconfirmed 2008 computer image on the internet of an inconclusive COLB which some experts maintain is a forgery, two unsubstantiated 1961 newspaper announcements (which were placed in those paper automatically by the health bureau statistics office, not the family, after someone filed a registration of birth form) which do not tell us the source of the birth information stated therein, some hearsay statements made by Hawaii officials in 2009 and 2010 which all together and by themselves do not conclusively prove that Obama was born in Hawaii, and a computer image of a Certificate of Live Birth which Sheriff Arpaio's posse has shown is a forgery.

What makes matters worse is that these same leaders have not taken Obama to task for his hiding his personal papers from the American public (original certified true paper copy of his 1961 birth certificate and travel, work, and education documents). That is a lot to think about. What ever happened to America’s intelligence? The manner in which our nation’s leaders have addressed the Obama birthplace issue is shocking given that we are supposed to be concerned with properly vetting and identifying the to-be President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Military before we entrust him or her with the survival and preservation of our nation and the free world.

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

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

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Posted: April 25, 2010
Updated June 24, 2010
Updated July 16, 2010
Updated January 1, 2011
Updated March 28, 2011
Updated March 4, 2012

Copyright © 2011, 2012
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

A comment about the Hawaiian birth certification issue by Commander Kerchner:

Birth certificate registration fraud is more common than people realize. Here is an example of how people born in other countries were being falsely registered as born in the USA.

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

And also in this recent story:

Charles Kerchner
Commander USNR (Retired)