#eligibility: HI Petition Launched in Spite of Introduced Bills

A few days ago, I had reported that Hawaii State Senator Will Espero had introduced two bills in his State’s legislature designed to deal with questions regarding Mr. Obama’s vital documentation. I also referenced a HonoluluAdvertiser.com article wherein the Department of Health’s spokeswoman, Janice Okubo, seemed exasperated over having to deal with approximately a “dozen” persistent requests for departmental records.

Apparently her job is about to get even more interesting.

The Post & Email today announced that they have begun sending out petitions demanding full disclosure of Mr. Obama’s background documentation, including all “government documents pertaining to the preparation of the public statements made” by the Hawaiian Director of Public Health.

As writer Sharon Rondeau posted:

On July 27, 2009, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, made an unprovoked public statement about Barack Hussein Obama’s birth and citizenship status. Since that time, neither she nor the Health Department has released any meaningful “index data” to substantiate the claim that Obama is a “natural born American citizen.”

While birth certificates are protected by privacy laws in the state of Hawaii, the Uniform Information Practices Act, Section 92-F12, mandates that “(15) Information collected and maintained for the purpose of making information available to the general public” must be released upon request. Therefore, when Dr. Fukino voluntarily made her public statement regarding Obama’s status, her department became obligated to release the backup information used to prepare it. To date, Hawaiian officials have refused to provide any correlating evidence used to craft Dr. Fukino’s public statement.

Obama himself has acknowledged that many have questioned his citizenship. However, on his first full day in office, he signed an Executive Order barring the release of his personal records. Never in American history has this been done by a sitting president.

According to the donation page for the petition, the site is intending to send a copy “to Hawaii Governor Linga Lingle (R), to the HI Lt. Gov.  James Aiona (R), to the HI Director of the Department of Health, Dr. Chiyome Fukino (R); and to each member of the HI State legislature: in all, more than 90 governmental officials.”

In part, the petition claims the following:

Barack Obama, however, claims as his father, Barrack Obama, Sr., a man who was a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies in 1961. He makes this claim in his book, Dreams from My Father, and via the release of an electronic image of a Hawaii Certification of Live Birth. If such is the case, he cannot legitimately hold the U.S. Presidency.

As I am sure you will readily admit, it is patently absurd for the United States of America and its citizens to rely upon electronic images of alleged government documents, while the general public is refused an opportunity to inspect such documents. Such a manner of acting violates all that America represents and everything which our Founding Fathers fought and died for in the American Revolution. We are a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people. Our government by nature must be open and transparent.

The State of Hawai’i echoes this long tradition of freedom when in its Uniform Information Practices Act it states (92F-2):

…the people are vested with the ultimate decision-making power. Government agencies exist to aid the people in the formation and conduct of public policy. Opening up the government processes to public scrutiny and participation is the only viable and reasonable method of protecting the public’s interest. Therefore the legislature declares that it is the policy of this State that the formation and conduct of public policy—the discussions, deliberations, decisions, and action of government agencies—shall be conducted as openly as possible. [emphases original]

As I had mentioned in my previous posting, there currently is no Hawaiian State law that bars any individual (or groups of individuals) from petitioning the State government for records, despite whatever statements that officials make in an attempt to quell such questions.

Post continues below
Advertise on this site

In fact, as I’ve been promulgating for over a year, it is the responsibility and obligation of the common citizen to petition their governing authorities by any means legally allowed to ascertain data and information they deem required to fulfill the obligation of citizenship.

To this end, an absolutely fantastic and exhaustive “eligibility primer” has recently been updated by Stephen Tonchen. Aside from bringing the update to your attention and in light of the above-referenced State-bound petition, I think it would be worthwhile to pull a few small excerpts from the lengthy primer update:

1. What is a “Birther”?

News commentators and Internet bloggers sometimes use the word “Birther” as a term of derision and contempt towards people who question Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility. The New Oxford American Dictionary defines “birther” as:

a conspiracy theorist who challenges President Obama’s U.S. birth certificate.

Despite the word’s demeaning connotation, some Obama eligibility questioners have adopted the “Birther” label. See, for example, birthers.org.

This Primer defines “Birther” as anyone who has a fact-based reason to suspect that the circumstances of Barack Obama’s birth — for example, his British/Kenyan citizenship at birth — are not consistent with the presidential eligibility requirements set forth in the U.S. Constitution. This definition of “Birther” is based, in part, on a commentary, titled A Constitutional Crisis is Brewing, published on the Birther website.

As the Birthers, we are pointing out that the conditions of Barack Hussein Obama, II’s birth is [sic] not only important, but critical to the constitutional order of our Nation. (A Constitutional Crisis is Brewing)

Birthers are people who are aware of facts — not mere conjecture or speculation — indicating that Barack Obama’s legal status at birth might disqualify him from serving as president. The President’s circumstances and activities after his birth — his purported adoption and citizenship in Indonesia, his alleged use of a foreign passport, etc. — are of interest, but are not the issues which define who the Birthers are [06].

5. In a nutshell, what is the Obama eligibility controversy?

The following information comes directly from Barack Obama’s “Fight the Smears” website:

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

The above information raises this question:

If Barack Obama was born in the United States but, at the time of his birth, his father was a citizen of a foreign country and not a U.S. citizen, does Barack Obama meet the Constitutional “natural born citizen” requirement for presidency?In other words, even if Barack Obama were a U.S. citizen at birth, can he be a U.S. natural born citizen if his citizenship status at birth was “governed”, even if only partially, by the laws of a foreign country?

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

Birthers say “No”. They believe that, when the Constitution was written, the term “natural born citizen” referred to individuals who were, at birth, citizens of the United States only and were not citizens at birth of any other country. Some children are born with dual nationality. They acquire U.S. citizenship at birth; they also acquire foreign citizenship at birth, either from their birthplace or by descent from their parents. Birthers say that, while these children are U.S. citizens, they are not natural born citizens. In order to be a natural born citizen of the United States, you must not be a citizen, at birth, of any foreign country; which means, you must be born in the United States, of parents who were exclusively U.S. citizens at the time of your birth.

Thus we have two opposing viewpoints regarding the meaning of “natural born citizen”. Which one is correct? So far, the Supreme Court has not answered this question because, until now, there was no reason to. Now, the Supreme Court needs to do its job and answer the question.

22. Didn’t the State of Hawaii recently verify that President Obama was born in Hawaii?

On October 31, 2008, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, released this public statement regarding (then Senator) Barack Obama’s birth certificate:

There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai’i Revised Statutes 338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai’i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai’i. (Statement by Dr. Chiyome Fukino, October 31, 2008).

On July 27, 2009, Dr. Chiyome Fukino issued a second statement:

I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai’i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai’i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago. (Statement by Dr. Chiyome Fukino, July 27, 2009)

Based on these two statements, we can safely assume that President Obama’s original birth records, which are on file in Hawaii, say that he was born in Hawaii.

Under the laws that were in effect in Hawaii when Barack Obama was born, the State of Hawaii would not have knowingly issued an original Hawaiian birth certificate to anyone born outside of Hawaii. Act 96 of Laws of the Territory of Hawaii was adopted in 1911. Under this Act, Hawaiian birth certificates were issued only to individuals who were believed to be born in Hawaii:

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

A subsequent law, enacted in 1955, reaffirmed the fact that Hawaiian birth certificates were given only to individuals who were believed to be born in Hawaii. But the 1955 law allowed Hawaii to issue a birth certificate to a child whose actual place of birth was not independently confirmed by a non-family member.

In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or midwife, then all that was required was that one of the parents send in a birth certificate to be filed. The birth certificate could be filed by mail. There appears to have been no requirement for the parent to actually physically appear before “the local registrar of the district.” It would have been very easy for a relative to forge an absent parent’s signature to a form and mail it in. In addition, if a claim was made that “neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as above provided is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local registrar shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.” (Section 57-8&9)I asked the Dept of Health what they currently ask for (in 2008) to back up a parent’s claim that a child was born in Hawaii. I was told that all they required was a proof of residence in Hawaii (e.g. a driver’s license [We know from interviews with her friends on Mercer Island in Washington State that Ann Dunham had acquired a driver’s license by the summer of 1961 at the age of 17] or telephone bill) and pre-natal (statement or report that a woman was pregnant) and post-natal (statement or report that a new-born baby has been examined) certification by a physician. On further enquiry, the employee that I spoke to informed me that the pre-natal and post-natal certifications had probably not been in force in the ’60s. Even if they had been, there is and was no requirement for a physician or midwife to witness, state or report that the baby was born in Hawaii. (Western JournalismInvestigator’s June 10 Report)

If a birth certificate is based solely on a parent’s or relative’s uncorroborated statement, and such a birth certificate is presented as evidence to a court or agency, the court or agency must determine, for itself, the birth certificate’s probative value:

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

At the time of this writing, we are not aware of any law that was in effect in Hawaii in 1961, which allowed the Hawaii Department of Health to knowingly issue Hawaiian birth certificates to babies born outside of Hawaii. Hawaiian Statute 338-17.8, Certificates for children born out of State, allowed Hawaiian birth certificates to be issued to foreign-born children of Hawaii-resident parents. But Statute 338-17.8 was not enacted until 1982, well after Barack Obama was born.

During the early ’60s, whenever a birth was registered in Hawaii, the Department of Vital Statistics automatically generated a birth announcement and sent it to the local newspapers for publication. Obama’s birth announcement appeared in both:

This birth announcement indicates that Obama’s birth was registered in Hawaii in August of 1961.

Nevertheless, a question remains. When Barack Obama’s birth was registered in Hawaii, who or what was the source of Obama’s birth information? Was it a hospital? A doctor? A midwife? Or was it based solely on a parent’s or relative’s statement?

If Obama’s birth registration was based solely on a parent’s or relative’s statement, and such statement was not independently corroborated by someone other than an immediate family member, we must do some further research before we can say anything for sure, one way or the other, about the circumstances of the President’s birth.

23. Doesn’t the mere existence of Barack Obama’s Hawaiian birth registration prove that he was born in Hawaii?

Barack Obama’s birth registration, by its mere existence, indicates that the State of Hawaii believed (or at least did not disbelieve) that he was born in Hawaii. His birth registration wouldprove that he was born in Hawaii only if his birth in Hawaii was witnessed or confirmed by someone other than an immediate family member. For example:

  • If Barack Obama was born in a hospital in Hawaii, his birth certificate would indicate that a hospital had confirmed his birth in that hospital. Such confirmation would show, beyond reasonable doubt, that President Obama was born in Hawaii.
  • If Barack Obama was born at home, his birth certificate would show the name of the professional (presumably, a doctor, midwife or paramedic) who assisted with the delivery. The professional’s name and signature would confirm, and thus remove any reasonable doubt, that Obama’s birth took place in Hawaii.
  • If Barack Obama was born at home and his birth was not attended by a doctor or midwife, his birth certificate would show the name of the doctor who examined the baby shortly after its birth. The name and signature of the doctor who did the postnatal examination would confirm that Obama was born in Hawaii.

But consider this hypothetical scenario: Suppose Stanley Ann Obama (President Obama’s mother) had been a resident of Hawaii since June 1960. Suppose that, in November or December 1960, upon learning of her pregnancy, she received prenatal care from a local doctor in Hawaii. Suppose that, on Tuesday August 8, 1961, Madelyn Dunham (Stanley Ann’s mother, also President Obama’s maternal grandmother) walked into the Hawaii Department of Health office, and registered the “unattended” birth of her teenage daughter’s son. (A birth is “unattended” if it did not take place in a hospital, and was not attended by a doctor or midwife). Supposed Madelyn told a health department worker that her daughter, Stanley Ann, had given birth, at home, on Friday evening, August 4, 1961. Suppose Madelyn also said that only she and Stanley Ann were present during the delivery.

Suppose Madelyn was able to provide the Department of Health with the following documentation:

  • Madelyn’s written statement saying that Barack Obama II was born in Hawaii
  • Proof that she (Madelyn) had been a resident of Hawaii for more than a year
  • Proof that her daughter (Stanley Ann) had been a Hawaii resident for more than a year
  • Proof that Stanley Ann had received prenatal care while in Hawaii
  • Proof that the baby’s mother (Stanley Ann) and father (Barack Obama Sr.) were married at the time of the baby’s birth
  • An acknowledgment by Barack Obama Sr. that he was the biological father of the child

Given the above information, the Hawaii Department of Health — under the laws in effect in 1961 — might have issued a Hawaiian birth certificate to Barack Obama II, even though no one outside of his immediate family had actually witnessed or confirmed his birth in Hawaii. (Western JournalismJune 10 Report).

If the above scenario had actually occurred, it is possible that Barack Obama might have been born outside of Hawaii, and Madelyn Dunham merely registered Barack Obama’s birth in Hawaii, as an “unattended” birth [37].

In the absence of an original long-form birth certificate, such a possibility, however implausible or far fetched, cannot be entirely ruled out. Until President Obama releases an original birth certificate showing independent corroboration of his birth in Hawaii, no one can say for sure whether the President meets the first requirement of natural born citizenship — birth within the United States.

25. If President Obama’s birth certificate shows conclusively that he was born in Hawaii, would it end the eligibility controversy?

Definitely not! President Obama has stated publicly that his father was not a U.S. citizen. According to the Birthers’ understanding of American history, if his father was not a U.S. citizen, President Obama cannot be a Constitutional natural born citizen, regardless of where he was born. If President Obama was born in Hawaii, he could be regarded as a statutory natural born citizen, but he would not necessarily be a Constitutional natural born citizen (See Question 8).

Regardless of what his birth certificate says, Obama’s presidential eligibility will never be settled or resolved, until the Supreme Court decides whether the U.S.-born children of non-U.S.-citizen parents are Constitutional natural born citizens.

26. Aren’t Obama eligibility challenges merely partisan attacks by Republicans against a Democratic president?

The first eligibility lawsuit against Barack Obama was filed by Phil Berg, a lifelong Democrat.

Five days before the Republican National Convention, John McCain’s eligibility was challenged in court (California lawsuit questions McCain’s Eligibility for Presidency).

In Donofrio v. Wells (October 2008), the plaintiff sought to remove three presidential candidates from the New Jersey ballot during the 2008 presidential election: Democratic candidate Barack Obama, Republican candidate John McCain, and Socialist Workers Party candidate Roger Calero. All three had acquired foreign citizenship at birth.

John McCain was born in the Colon Hospital, in Colon, Panama. He was not born in the Panama Canal Zone as widely believed. (See John McCain’s short-form Certificate of Live Birth, and long-form birth certificate). McCain was a U.S. citizen at birth, due to the fact that his parents were U.S. citizens. He was also a Panamanian citizen at birth, due to the fact that he was born in Panama. (Why For McCain But Not For Obama?).

Roger Calero was born in Nicaragua. At the time of his presidential candidacy, he was not a U.S. citizen.

The Republican Party has a history of accommodating presidential candidates whose Constitutional eligibility is uncertain.

  • Chester Arthur — America’s first post-1787-born president whose parents were not both U.S. citizens — was a Republican.
  • George Romney ran for the Republican party nomination in 1968. He was born in Mexico.
  • Barry Goldwater was born (in 1909) in Phoenix, when Arizona was still territory, not yet a state.
  • Lowell Weicker entered the race for the Republican party nomination of 1980 but dropped out before voting in the primaries began. He was born in Paris, France.
  • John McCain was born in Panama, not the Panama Canal Zone as is widely believed. But regardless of whether he was born in the Panama Canal Zone or in Panama itself, he was, in either case, a Panamanian citizen at birth.
  • Bobby Jindal is a possible Republican presidential candidate in 2012. He was born in the United States, but at the time of his birth, his parents were not U.S. citizens. (In a Southern U.S. state, immigrants’ son takes over)

Given its history of eligibility-questionable presidential candidates, the Republican Party would be accused of hypocrisy if it were to challenge President Obama’s eligibility.

Again, there’s so much more to read over at Mr. Tonchen’s page; the above once again provides the rationale for why individuals such as myself continue to question this President’s eligibility.

See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:

-Phil

Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- email: phil [at] therightsideoflife [dot] com

Photo courtesy WND.com

Share this posting:

37 thoughts on “#eligibility: HI Petition Launched in Spite of Introduced Bills”

  1. [To believe that SCOTUS or any other court would hold otherwise is unrealistic: the 2009 ruling by the Indiana Court of Appeals being a case in point.]

    I would take my chances on a scotus ruling up or down then the birth certificate/place of birth rabbit hole any day. But I am not convinced that is going to happen.

    Good luck with the illegitimate legal theory.

    IMO

    Obama’s eligibility will be challenged in a number of states in the 2012 election,if he can hang in there that long.

    The strategy laid out for George Romney is working for him, get elected and fight it out in court.

    The Repubs are looking at the electoral map and pushing eligibility iniatives in key states to keep him of the ballot,it should only take a few.
    If they aren’t behind it, then they are fools and deserve to lose.

  2. Who Are You Kidding: Thanks for that. Most informative. Logically argued, too. Very interesting take. Alinsky misdirection. What else could we expect?

  3. How is Barack Obama divided in his loyalty with Citizenship that he lost at the age of 2? Or Citizenship that he gained at 2, and lost when he was 23?Sue

    Readers may be perplexed.

    For Obama loyalists the most effective dismissal of allegations that Obama is under a dual loyalty or is a US “dual citizen” (Kenyan or British) would be to cite the application of Section 32(2) of the British Nationality Act 1948 to those such as Barack Obama Jr who would be deemed illegitimate through the British Kenya Marriage Act 1902. Given Obama Sr. was legally married in Kenya with two children when Obama Jr. was born, Jr. could not be a British citizen by descent at birth. Furthermore, since Kenyan citizenship at independence in 1963 to anyone born outside Kenya was restricted to those whose fathers were born in Kenya, and from whom they inherited British citizenship, Obama was never a US-Kenyan “dual citizen” either.

    So why do Obama loyalists never avail of this effective dismissal of claims that Obama is not eligible to the Presidency based on Vattel? Simple: if Obama at his website (for whatever strange reason) has already claimed two citizenships (UK and Kenya) to which he is not entitled, then he is fully capable of claiming a third citizenship (US) to which he may also not be entitled. Obama and his loyalists prefer to weather the storm of Obama being accused of “dual citizenship”, for which they have two legal defenses (non-recognition of “dual citizenship” in US law and Vattel not incorporated into any constitutional or statutory instrument), rather than draw attention to Obama’s strange propensity to claim citizenships (plural) to which provably he has no entitlement. Vigorously debating a contention that Obama has “dual citizenship” assumes Obama’s US citizenship; the defense against a contention that Obama has falsely claimed US citizenship is undermined by the two other “citizenships” Obama does falsely claim.

    The questions of whether “dual citizenship” precludes eligibility to the Presidency or whether a natural born citizen is solely a person born in the US to a US citizen mother and father have a very easy solution. The Constitution (e.g. Article II-1-5) is interpreted by SCOTUS with regard to the original understanding of the Framers; federal courts can only make decisions based on constitutional and statutory instruments, federal or state. Disquisitions by foreign thinkers and opinions by legislators in debate are not statutory or constitutional instruments, so they cannot be applied by federal courts as rules of decision. No constitutional definition of US citizenship existed before the XIV Amendment and by virtue of Article X (“powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States…”) established state law at the Constitution’s adoption (subsequently incorporated into federal law through the XIV Amendment and upheld by SCOTUS) defined any person (other than the children of diplomats) born in a state of the Union as natural born citizen. No provision has ever been made in federal statute for the status of “dual citizen” and, despite the blind eye in recent decades shown to the holding of other citizenships, the exclusive allegiance of every US citizen resident in America is legally required and all US citizens are exclusively subject to domestic law. The decisions of SCOTUS leading to the toleration of “dual citizenship” have established that the citizenship of natural born US citizens is a constitutional right Congress is unable to arbitrarily withdraw, and which the (legally non-existent) holding of another citizenship overseas cannot by itself affect. Consequently nothing has changed constitutionally or legally since 1787: any person born in a state of the Union, other than the child of a diplomat, is a natural born citizen i.e. a citizen from the beginning of his natural life. To believe that SCOTUS or any other court would hold otherwise is unrealistic: the 2009 ruling by the Indiana Court of Appeals being a case in point.

    A frontal advance on Obama’s well-entrenched position over this long-prepared ground is a mission doomed to failure; on the other hand, if Obama had a strong defense against being outflanked (for example) by the extraction from Hawaii DoH that the filing of his birth was not legally completed in 1961, then DoH would not go to extra-ordinary and extra-legal lengths to protect him. US HEW Natality Statistics 1961 record 34 “non-white” children in Honolulu as born outside a hospital with no doctor in attendance, and several had no birth weight recorded. Readers can be confident that Obama has neither a valid birth certificate nor evidence from the time of his birth (presumably 1961) proving he was born in Hawaii: the birth informant supplied nothing to corroborate his or her claim of Obama’s birth in Hawaii, so we can be sure that the informant was neither one of Obama’s parents and that the informant was unable to produce evidence from Ann Dunham’s or Obama Jr.’s doctor. The most logical explanation, applying Occam’s Razor (as approved by dunstvangeet), is that middle-class Ann Dunham was not in Hawaii when she gave birth to her son. This is why certain Hawaii officials are now calling UIPA (Freedom of Information) requesters “mentally ill” and, together with members of Obama’s political party, are desperately seeking to overthrow the laws of Hawaii to protect Obama, which disturbingly conforms to the stubborn resistance of Obama loyalists: deny, deny, deny, deny, deny.

    Yet it’s hard to deny Obama, his sister, and family friend ex-Congressman Abercrombie have claimed (most notably in Obama’s signed letter) that he was born in Kapiolani Hospital, which for decades filed its births every Friday, although images of Obama’s alleged COLB purport it to have been filed on Tuesday, August 8, 1961: either Obama’s (and Maya’s and Abercrombie’s) claim is untrue or the images of his alleged COLB are not consistent with the facts. Also hard to deny that the alleged original CertificATE serial number (stamped at acceptance) as depicted in images of Obama’s alleged COLB is higher than the serial numbers stamped on known-to-be-genuine CertificATEs for later births (August 5) in Kapiolani which were accepted by DoH six days (and many subsequent births) later (Friday, August 11). Given standard DoH practice, the known-to-be-genuine CertificATE serial numbers and the serial number on images of Obama’s alleged COLB cannot both be valid. What accounts for Obama’s alleged 1961 CertificATE serial number being out of sequence: that it’s a mistake; that COLB forgers chose a number at random; or that another child’s number was stolen? Given Obama wrote in Dreams From My Father that he found his birth certificate as a teenager, and must have discovered his official birthplace (obviously not Kapiolani); and given DoH have deceived, acted illegally, and lied to keep Obama’s 1961 filing a secret; then it’s not likely that the serial number of Obama’s alleged 1961 CertificATE being out of sequence is merely a mistake. Contradiction upon contradiction within Obama’s own evidence: these layers of contradiction invite a flanking maneuver against DoH and Obama loyalists, which can be pressed forward here: http://www.thepostemail.com/legal-fund/

    It should not be forgotten that although Obama Jr. was illegitimate under British Kenyan law because his father was still legally married in Kenya, in Hawaii Obama Jr. was legitimate for two reasons: i) only a Hawaii court could issue a decree annulling a marriage due to bigamy, and no decree of annulment was ever issued; while, ii) before their “marriage” (according to her statement in Dreams From My Father, which Ann Dunham proof-read, and which is admissible in court as an exception to hearsay under Rules 804(3) or 804(4) of the Hawaii-Federal Rules of Evidence) Obama Sr. tricked Dunham into believing that his relationship with his lawful Kenyan wife (Kezia Aoko) was informal; so had an annulment been decreed Sr.’s trickery would have legally accomplished Dunham’s rights as a putative wife and upheld her son’s legitimacy. Obama Jr. being legitimate in Hawaii law means that if (as seems very likely) Ann Dunham gave birth to her son outside the US she did not have the necessary US residency (10 years, 5 after age 14) to transmit even statutory US citizenship to him.

  4. dunstvangeet: It’s been so much fun sparring with you on this issue that I was tempted to hold this back and let you blather on some more about my “pet theory,” but here goes: Game, set, match.

    WWI Registration Card 559 A2691
    Theodore Spiro Agnew
    226 W. Madison St.
    Baltimore City, Maryland
    Age 40 Birthdate Sept. 12, 1878
    Race White
    NATURALIZED U.S. CITIZEN
    Occupation Restaurant
    Margaret M. Agnew, wife (nearest relative)
    Registrar’s report
    Height medium
    Hair black
    Eyes black
    Build stout
    No disabilities
    DATE OF REGISTRATION: Sept. 12, 1918

    Bottom line: When Spiro Agnew was born, BOTH of his parents were US Citizens.

  5. dunstvangeet: Did you even read my comment? Did you look at the 1910 census record for Spiro Agnew’s father? It clearly states that he was a naturalized citizen by 1910.

    Therefore, he was a citizen when his son Spiro was born. Therefore, he was also a citizen when Margaret Akers married him, the following year. Perhaps he naturalized specifically so that she would not lose her own US citizenship by marrying him. Therefore, SHE did not lose her citizenship, because her future husband naturalized before 1910.

    Sources state that there was a good deal of confusion concerning the status of US citizens who married foreign men, especially circa 1907. Whatever the case, Mr. Moore also incorrectly wrote down the date of immigration.

    In your mind, should the same hold true for Stanley Ann Dunham, who married a foreign student, not even a resident IMMIGRANT?

    Why does the 1910 census say that Theodore, Spiro’s father, was naturalized? Why does the 1930 census say the same?

    Why does only the 1920 census say that he was an alien, but also gives the wrong date of immigration? There is that record at Ellis Island stating that Theodore arrived in the US in 1902.

    So I have two census records stating that he was naturalized, one affirming that he was naturalized prior to Spiro’s birth. You have only one census record that has other errors.

    dunstvangeet says, “A 1920 Census Record taker marked Theodore Agnew as an Alien in 1920. He said that they immigrated to the United States in 1877.”

    No, dunst, it says 1887; and it also has his age wrong. Did Mr. Agnew forget his own age? More evidence that perhaps a member of the household other than Mr. Agnew was answering the questions.

    dunstvangeet says, “You want us to believe that Paul S. Moore, on the 5th and 6th of January, marked it one way. Switched his way of marking it on the 6th and 7th (for Theodore Agnew’s record). Then switched back to marking it correctly on the 8th and 9th. Completely not logical.”

    No, dunst, I want you to explain how he got the date of immigration wrong and why he wrote that Agnew was an alien when the previous census said that he was naturalized by 1910.

    dunstvangeet says, “The simple facts is [sic] that we have a Census Record that clearly marks him as an alien on January 6th or 7th of 1920. We further have a record that marks him as a Naturalized Citizen in the 1930 census. Using Occum’s [sic] Razor, this is evidence that he got his Naturalization between 1920, and 1930. Spiro Agnew was born in 1919 [sic].”

    No, dunst, since two out of three census records agree, and the Ellis Island records say he came in 1902, and the 1920 census has that wrong, too, Occam’s Razor would say that the 1920 record is probably wrong about his naturalization status, too.

    In fact, you don’t even know who supplied the information in 1920 and whether or not they knew the facts about Mr. Agnew’s immigration and naturalization status. btw, Spiro Agnew was born November 9, 1918. Not 1919.

    dunstvangeet says, “It still casts significant doubt on your two-citizen theory. Simple facts are that Spiro Agnew was born to a non-citizen (in fact, at the time, since Women who married foreigners lost their citizenship, he was married to 2 non-citizens).”

    dunst, who were those two non-citizens that Spiro Agnew was married to?

    dunstvangeet says, “Want to try again with your little pet theory, MGB? Face it, you have absolutely no clue what you’re stating, and right now are trying to make the facts conform with your firm belief, when they seriously do not.”

    Pot calling the kettle. You state unequivocally that Theodore was an alien when Spiro was born. You state that in the face of clearly contradictory records. If you are so sure of yourself, then find the proof. Prove that the 1910 census is wrong.

  6. MGB, you seem to be a lot of conjecture…

    This is what we know.

    1. A 1920 Census Record taker marked Theodore Agnew as an Alien in 1920. He said that they immigrated to the United States in 1877. He also did not fill out the column that was specifically provided for him to fill out on year of Naturalization.

    We also know that in other records, he filled out “Na” for Naturalized Citizen, and filled out the date of Naturalization in records filled out by him before even getting to that house. (see 3 pages before Agnew’s file, and see 2 pages after Agnew’s file). You want us to believe that Paul S. Moore, on the 5th and 6th of January, marked it one way. Switched his way of marking it on the 6th and 7th (for Theodore Agnew’s record). Then switched back to marking it correctly on the 8th and 9th. Completely not logical.

    2. We have a record of Theodore Agnew in 1930, who is marked as a Naturalized Citizen, who is marked as to immigrating to the United States in 1903.

    There is absolutely no evidence that this is his Naturalization Date, and in fact the column header says that it’s the date of immigration. All you’ve done is put doubt on the year he immigrated to the United States. You put a lot of conjecture into your theory, that just isn’t supported by the facts.

    The simple facts is that we have a Census Record that clearly marks him as an alien on January 6th or 7th of 1920. We further have a record that marks him as a Naturalized Citizen in the 1930 census. Using Occum’s Razor, this is evidence that he got his Naturalization between 1920, and 1930. Spiro Agnew was born in 1919.

    It still casts significant doubt on your two-citizen theory. Simple facts are that Spiro Agnew was born to a non-citizen (in fact, at the time, since Women who married foreigners lost their citizenship, he was married to 2 non-citizens).

    Want to try again with your little pet theory, MGB? Face it, you have absolutely no clue what you’re stating, and right now are trying to make the facts conform with your firm belief, when they seriously do not.

    As far as the citizenship status of the mother, citizenship laws at that time were not very protective of women’s rights. This was before the landmark rulings that forced them to be, and it showed them to be more and more replentative of women’s rights. Up until about 1940, if a Woman married a Foreigner, she lost her U.S. Citizenship, even if she never left the United States. There are tons of examples of women being born in the United States, and still losing their citizenship back then. This was before Perkins v. Elg. This was before Anfronyim v. Rusk. The country did not regard the woman’s citizenship as all that important. I’m not saying that it was right, it was just the way it was. In fact, this was true for all women until the Cable Act, which was passed in 1922.

  7. [ANDREW JOHNSON

    Johnson, our 17th President, was born in Raleigh, North Carolina on December 29, 1808. Wiki has this on his father:

    Jacob Johnson was born circa 1778. Some sources indicate that he was born in Newcastle, England and sailed to America around 1795, but other sources indicate that he was born in Raleigh, North Carolina, and that it was his grandfather (and possible namesake) who sailed to North America from England. Historian Rev. Nash A. Odom writes that “In the year 1760, Peter Johnson, migrated from Kintyre, Scotland to North Carolina with his large family and settled in Cumberland County. The preaching instinct broke out again and a number of the Johnsons became ministers. One was the father of Jacob Johnson, who moved to Raleigh, North Carolina and was the father of President Andrew Johnson.” Author Billy Kennedy writes that Jacob’s father, named Andrew, a Presbyterian, came to North Carolina about 1750 from Mounthill, Ireland.

    The weight of authority is that Jacob was born in the US. But even if the other sources were correct, he would have been in the US for 13 years before Andrew was born. The Naturalization act of 1795 called for a five year residence before Naturalization. The Act was modified in 1798 to a 14 year requirement, but then the Naturalization act of 1802 it was put back to five years.

    Jacob Johnson also served as a militia Captain of Muster Division 20 and was the city constable. I can find no allegations that Jacob wasn’t a citizen when Andrew was born. (Jacob Johnson died from complications caused by his heroic saving of a friend’s life.)

    Andrew Johnson’s mother was born in North Carolina in 1782.

    So, Andrew Johnson – born in North Carolina to two US citizen parents, hence – natural born citizen.]

    [Chester Arthur would be next, but I shall save him for last.]

    http://www.peoplespassions.org/documents/Natural_Born_Citizen_and_past_Presidents_Denofrio.htm

  8. Sharon2,

    “You missed the point entirely. Read my comment again, and you’ll see that I said that I don’t think Obama is currently a dual citizen and that my point was to speak generically. Secondly, think hard about this: to be eligible to be a FELLOW at the WHITE HOUSE, one is not permitted to be a dual citizen for SECURITY reasons.”

    I understand your point completely. Security reasons in reference to Fellow v. POTUS.

  9. dunstvangeet: I’m aware of the column headings, because I also looked up their meaning over the weekend.

    From experience working with census records, I’m also aware that when specific columns were lacking, census takers often improvised. I have other records where a census taker wrote the date of naturalization in that column, because it was more pertinent to the record than the date of immigration, being more recent information.

    Mr. Agnew’s records are contradictory and elusive; but at least, unlike Obama’s, they’re out there on the Web for all to see–contemporaneous records.

    You say that you have proof that Agnew’s father was not a citizen when Spiro was born. That’s a pretty-sure-of-yourself statement to make, in the face of contradictory records.

    So what do we know so far?

    1. In 1920, the census taker wrote down that Theodore was an alien who came to the US in 1887.

    2. In 1930, the census taker wrote down that he was a naturalized citizen who came to the US (if that’s not the date of naturalization) in 1903.

    In 1910, Theodore S. Anagnost (Anagnostopoulos) lived in Schenectady, NY, with and next to relatives (cousins, siblings). See dist. 7, enumeration dist. 186, ward 7, p. 4A.

    That document states that he came to the US in 1902 and was naturalized by 1910. So perhaps he was naturalized in 1903, shortly after arriving in the US.

    How do I know this is Spiro’s father? Because there is a TIME magazine story about him and his cousins, dating from 1969:

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,840347-2,00.html

    You will find Andrew Chyrsikos in the same city in 1910. A. Kansas is another cousin. Theodore lived with or next to Mr. Kansas.

    On the Ellis Island website, you will find that Theofrastos S. Anagnostopoulos, age 25, came to the US on 9/30/1902, bound for Schenectady, NY, to live with his cousin “A. Kansas”. You can see the actual manifest at the website. Note that the transcriber mistakenly read his middle initial as “L.” when it was “S.”, albeit written in a very florid script. Compare that S. to other examples of the person’s handwriting. You have to register to see these documents, but it’s free.

    http://www.ellisisland.org/search/shipManifest.asp?MID=08846931920007855840&FNM=T&LNM=ANAGNOSTOPOULOS&PLNM=ANAGNOSTOPOULOS&first_kind=1&last_kind=0&RF=13&pID=102784160474&

    So, whatever 1903 meant on the 1920 census, Theodore was naturalized by 1910, before he married and before Spiro was born.

    Look at your 1920 census record again. Notice that Mr. Moore not only wrote down the wrong date of immigration and age for Theodore, he also indicated that Spiro’s mother Margaret, who was born in VIRGINIA, was an alien and, although born in the USA, came to the USA in 1887. How is that possible?

    Her sister Lillian, who lived with her and Theodore at the time, was also born in Virginia; but she was not listed as an alien immigrant. I think Mr. Moore was very mixed up, perhaps could not understand their Greek accent, was in a hurry that day, or else he made false assumptions.

    Considering that the TIME magazine article mentioned “beenamerica”, it’s possible that Theodore’s family went back and forth between America and Greece. Theodore and his brother George may have come to the USA in 1887, as children. At some point, the family may have returned to Greece. Then the siblings came back, with cousins, in the early 1900s.

    In any case, it’s certainly NOT true that Spiro’s mother was an alien immigrant in 1920. So whatever else Mr. Moore documented is suspect.

    So we have dueling census records, although the 1920 census record has numerous errors of fact.

    The 1910 census clearly states that Theodore Anagnostopoulos (Spiro Agnew’s father) was a naturalized citizen in 1910, years before Spiro was born.

    For those who don’t know, the 1890 census was mostly destroyed by fire. So there are no census records for this family prior to 1900.

    Interesting confluence: Now some are claiming that Obama’s original birth records (although recently SEEN by Ms. Fukino) also conveniently were destroyed by fire. When? And where’s any news story about that frightening historical event–that being when Hawaiian state archives were destroyed in a fire?

  10. Sue,

    You missed the point entirely. Read my comment again, and you’ll see that I said that I don’t think Obama is currently a dual citizen and that my point was to speak generically. Secondly, think hard about this: to be eligible to be a FELLOW at the WHITE HOUSE, one is not permitted to be a dual citizen for SECURITY reasons.

    I suppose if I have to explain further, it will be a futile effort.

  11. “Maybe I shouldn’t assume that the argument is obvious:

    White House Fellow: Dual citizenship barred

    POTUS: Dual citizenship allowed”

    I don’t believe I’ve seen any credible evidence that President Obama is presently a dual citizen and I don’t believe I’ve seen anything in the Constitution that prohibits POTUS having dual citizenship. If I recall correctly, wasn’t an early POTUS a french dual citizen while he was POTUS?

    http://books.google.com/books?id=kf48AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA713&dq=jefferson+naturalized+citizen+dane&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

    How is Barack Obama divided in his loyalty with Citizenship that he lost at the age of 2? Or Citizenship that he gained at 2, and lost when he was 23? Has Barack Obama ever made any sort of move that would indicate that he’s loyal to Kenya as much, or more, than he’s loyal to the United States? How does Samuel Alito or Antonin Scalia hold loyalty to Italy? What about their children? They still have dual citizenship?

    Are you saying that Chester A. Arthur held loyalty to Britian when he was President? Are you saying that Andrew Johnson, Ulysseus S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, or Harry S. Truman held any inappropriate loyalty to France when they were in office? (Lyndon B. Johnson, and Gerald R. Ford both had dual citizenship with France when they were born, but France had revised the rule in which they could claim citizenship).

  12. @ SLC

    Here is the info.

    One of these days I will look up the Long article. My guess is that Obot’s already have.

    Breckinridge Long, Is Mr. Charles Evans Hughes a “Natural Born Citizen” Within the Meaning of the Constitution?, 49 Chi. Legal News 146 (1916); … [ couldnt find this article on the internet ]

    http://www.fdlaw.com/articles/The%20Presidential%20Qualification%20Clause%20in%20this%20Bicentennial%20Year.pdf

    [1862, Apr. 11 Born, Glens Falls, N.Y]

    [The papers of Charles Evans Hughes (1862-1948) span the years 1836 to 1950 with the bulk of the collection concentrated between the years 1905 and 1940. The papers focus chiefly on Hughes’s public service and consist of the following series: Family Papers, Correspondence, Subject File, Speeches and Writings File, Biographical File, Miscellany, and Oversize. The Correspondence series is organized in subseries of family correspondence, general correspondence, secretary of state files, and Supreme Court correspondence. The Addition contains a campaign song book from Hughes’ 1916 presidential bid.

    The earliest items in the collection relate to Hughes’s father, David Charles Hughes. Located in the Family Papers, these items include letters of introduction by ministers and members of Wesleyan Methodist societies which Hughes brought with him when he immigrated to the United States from Great Britain in October 1855; documents attesting to his service as a minister of the New York Conference, New Windsor Circuit, Newburgh District; a letter acknowledging his voluntary withdrawal from Wesleyan University while in good standing; and several papers reflecting his affiliation with Baptist churches, including at Glens Falls, New York, where he was ordained as a Baptist minister. Other items include his certificate of naturalization in 1864 and a letter written by him in 1907 to the Sons of the American Revolution presenting genealogical documentation entitling Charles Evans Hughes to become a member of that organization.]

    http://www.loc.gov/rr/mss/text/hughes_ce.html

    Here is some additional background.

    [Although the German-American Alliance forbade political activity, state and local immigrant groups continued to lobby, no doubt exacerbating the bitter feelings that peaked during the 1916 election campaign. Denouncing “that small alien element among us which puts loyalty to any foreign power before loyalty to the United States,” Wilson and the Democratic Party portrayed Republican candidate Charles Evans Hughes—who refused to get involved with the hyphenate issue—as “a dupe of the Kaiser in pro-British areas, and as a Roosevelt-dominated jingo spoiling for war with Germany in areas with a large Teutonic population.” The president played both sides of the nativist coin.]

    Read more: http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/E-N/Nativism-World-war-i-and-the-1920s.html#ixzz0gtCapp36

  13. Maybe I shouldn’t assume that the argument is obvious:

    White House Fellow: Dual citizenship barred

    POTUS: Dual citizenship allowed

    Uh, which position has the most security concerns?

    Of course, requiring a more stringent qualification for a lesser office wouldn’t be the first nonsensical occurrence in our history.

  14. Wouldn’t the following negate the argument that the POTUS is permitted to be a dual citizen? I am speaking generically as I don’t think Obama is a dual citizen now (how dual citizenship at birth affects the NBC remains a separate issue).

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/fellows/faq#10

    11. Can I be a White House Fellow if I have dual citizenship?

    In order to get the proper security clearance for the Fellowship, individuals with dual citizenship would need to give up any non-U.S. citizenship(s). White House Fellows can be citizens only of the United States.

    Gee, I guess security really is an issue.

  15. MGB, you might want to read the header on the column you’re stating.

    “Year of Immigration to the United States” is the column header of column 22. According to that Census record, he immigrated to the United States in 1903. It was not the year he Naturalized. care to try again? Don’t feel bad. I had to zoom in 400% to make it out.

    You can confirm the census column headings here: http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mobarry/1930Census/1930Columns.htm

    Want to try again?

    So, all you’ve done is cast doubt on the year that he immigrated to the United States. One Census Record says he immigrated in 1903, and another one in 1887.

    I have proof that he was not a citizen in 1920, when Spiro Agnew was born. You have showed me absolutely nothing that discounts that.

  16. Phil says:

    brygenon,

    From the Article, quoting Sharon Rondeau:

    Obama himself has acknowledged that many have questioned his citizenship. However, on his first full day in office, he signed an Executive Order barring the release of his personal records. Never in American history has this been done by a sitting president.

    Obama’s day-one executive order *relaxed* restrictions on release of Presidential records.
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/239/release-presidential-records/

    The order has no effect on the state records at issue. As President, Obama’s executive orders cover the executive branch of the *federal* government. Hawaii’s executive branch is run by Linda Lingle, a Republican who actively supported John McCain in 2008.

    Phil, we’ve been over this myth before. You keep saying that you are just asking legitimate questions, but you keep putting these lies and smears on your blog.

    That’s funny — I don’t see anywhere that Ms. Rondeau said anything about the government level at which those records may be kept.

    Certainly funny you’d say that. Here’s the quote in the full context you had:

    On July 27, 2009, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, made an unprovoked public statement about Barack Hussein Obama’s birth and citizenship status. Since that time, neither she nor the Health Department has released any meaningful “index data” to substantiate the claim that Obama is a “natural born American citizen.”

    While birth certificates are protected by privacy laws in the state of Hawaii, the Uniform Information Practices Act, Section 92-F12, mandates that “(15) Information collected and maintained for the purpose of making information available to the general public” must be released upon request. Therefore, when Dr. Fukino voluntarily made her public statement regarding Obama’s status, her department became obligated to release the backup information used to prepare it. To date, Hawaiian officials have refused to provide any correlating evidence used to craft Dr. Fukino’s public statement.

    Obama himself has acknowledged that many have questioned his citizenship. However, on his first full day in office, he signed an Executive Order barring the release of his personal records. Never in American history has this been done by a sitting president.

    Two paragraphs about Hawaiian records and you couldn’t figure out at what level of government the records at issue were kept? What is this, the Chewbacca defense? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense

    1. brygenon,

      That’s funny — I don’t see anywhere that Ms. Rondeau said anything about the government level at which those records may be kept.

      Certainly funny you’d say that. Here’s the quote in the full context you had:

      On July 27, 2009, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, made an unprovoked public statement about Barack Hussein Obama’s birth and citizenship status. Since that time, neither she nor the Health Department has released any meaningful “index data” to substantiate the claim that Obama is a “natural born American citizen.”

      While birth certificates are protected by privacy laws in the state of Hawaii, the Uniform Information Practices Act, Section 92-F12, mandates that “(15) Information collected and maintained for the purpose of making information available to the general public” must be released upon request. Therefore, when Dr. Fukino voluntarily made her public statement regarding Obama’s status, her department became obligated to release the backup information used to prepare it. To date, Hawaiian officials have refused to provide any correlating evidence used to craft Dr. Fukino’s public statement.

      Obama himself has acknowledged that many have questioned his citizenship. However, on his first full day in office, he signed an Executive Order barring the release of his personal records. Never in American history has this been done by a sitting president.

      Two paragraphs about Hawaiian records and you couldn’t figure out at what level of government the records at issue were kept?

      Once again, I don’t see anywhere that Ms. Roundeau said anything about the government level at which those records may be kept, even in light of what laws and/or Executive Orders may currently or will soon exist.

      I never said — as you’ve just said — that “[I] couldn’t figure out at what level of government the records at issue were kept;” that’s not the issue and not the question.

      -Phil

  17. …an end run around the very clear requirements of the Constitution means nothing.MGB

    dunstvangeet tried this in September 2009, with a stack of US President’s born in America to US citizens, whom dunstvangeet claimed had some kind of dual nationality. Although my position is that dual nationality is a fiction unrecognized in American law, and that the US Constitution follows state law in defining a natural born citizen to be any person not the child of a diplomat born in a state of the Union, I commented to dunstvangeet it is undeniably unprecedented that a President has been elected and only one of his parents was a US citizen at his birth. I also reminded dunstvangeet that SCOTUS noted in Walz v. Tax Comm’n of the City of New York, SCOTUS, 1970: “It is obviously correct that no one acquires a vested or protected right in violation of the Constitution by long use, even when that span of time covers our entire national existence, and indeed predates it.” Recent court cases have demonstrated that state officers have invariably shirked the responsibility for establishing the bona fides of primary and presidential candidates (instead relying on a supposed honor system, with political parties confirming eligibility), so instancing previous candidates doesn’t prove much. Even so, the fact is none of the “questionable” candidates dunstvangeet cites below as a precedent was elected.

    dunstvangeet‘s real problem is that the same Constitutional article and state law, which would define Obama as a natural born citizen IF hypothetically he was born in a state of the Union, cannot so define him were he born outside a state of the Union, and neither Obama nor anyone else has produced legal (never mind admissible) evidence of where Obama was born. Indeed, dunstvangeet has to explain why, given the law which supports Article 2(1)(5) is so well established, civil rights lawyer and community organizer Obama has avoided every leadership opportunity to document incontrovertibly the historic precedent he allegedly sets for all his fellow natural born citizens, and conclude the wider issue for all time. However, the truth is the controversy has moved on since September 2009. dunstvangeet now has to confront facts which cannot be manipulated into rationalizations for Obama’s inadequacies:

    1 A Tuesday (8-8-61) filing of Obama’s birth (as depicted in images of his alleged COLB) does not support Obama’s claim of a hospital birth. Kapiolani Hospital always (i.e for decades) filed births on a Friday, in accord with DoH Vital Records Regulations Chapter 8 Section 8: “Local registrars shall transmit certificates filed with them weekly…

    2 Obama sought amendment(s) to his filing = a non-hospital birth.

    3 Obama’s birth involved a delayed filing with no supplementary evidence = again, a non-hospital birth, and a non-complete, non-legal “registration”.

    4 DoH will not go on record and acknowledge Obama’s COLB = a non-complete, non-legal “registration” and-or forgery of COLB.

    5 DoH has deceived, lied, and acted illegally in relation to Obama’s filing = a non-complete, non-legal “registration” and-or forgery of COLB.

    Obama’s story unravels with the exposure of that first untruth, on White House letterhead with his signature, about being born in Kapiolani Hospital: Kapiolani simply never filed his birth with Hawaii DoH. According to Hawaii law and DoH Vital Records Regulations in 1961, an affidavit by a child’s mother or father or another person would have been sufficient to complete a non-hospital registration in Hawaii in 1961. Supplementary evidence (e.g. from health professionals) might also have been required. As Hawaii DoH confirm in answers to UIPA (Hawaii FOIA) requests, whoever attempted to register Obama’s birth did not provide an affidavit of the circumstances of Obama’s birth or the acceptable supplementary evidence (e.g. a record or affidavit of professional care during or after Ann Dunham’s pregnancy) — the birth informant was asking Hawaii DoH to believe that Ann Dunham was completely alone at 7:24 in the evening, when Obama Jr. was allegedly born, that Dunham had received no medical care during or after her pregnancy, and that for some reason Dunham and Obama Sr. were unable to come in with an affidavit or supplementary evidence.

    The choice is simple: either i) middle-class Ann Dunham, far advanced into a pregnancy which had proceeded without any professional care, was left without access to a telephone, family, friends, or neighbors on the evening (allegedly) of August 4 when her astonishingly rapid labor completed, and she (or Obama Sr.) were unable to visit with DoH carrying a big bonny baby boy together with an affidavit and maybe supplementary evidence of his birth; or, ii) Dunham and Obama Sr. were not in Hawaii when their son was born and his birth filed. (UW records place Dunham in Washington sometime before August 19, 1961; and Seattle witnesses around that time say she was accompanied by a son who was several weeks old).

    Applying Occam’s Razor, Hawaii DoH in 1961 found the simplest alternative more probable, which is why Obama’s filing was never legally completed.

    The contemporary response of Hawaii DoH to having information from the People’s records (even privacy-exempt records) prised from its crooked fingers through UIPA is to seek (via Espero’s Bill) the overthrow of the laws of Hawaii which were enacted to make government accountable to the Sovereign People. The OIP Acting Director (who previously worked with DoH crafting UIPA responses) has resorted to insulting the Sovereign People as “mentally ill” for requesting access to the People’s records at DoH: records which the People (even those who are ill) have paid for, own, and are legally entitled to see. The considered opinion of DoH and OIP is that it is better to resolve the controversy by overthrowing the law than for DoH to exercise its own independent authority under DoH Vital Records Regulations Chapter 8B Section 2.5(B)(2) – which it illegally hid until November 2009 – and issue an informational, non-certified copy of Obama’s 1961 vital record: the Sovereign People would have to be very seriously “mentally ill” (or Obama loyalists) to believe that transparent nonsense. For DoH to go this far in order to cover-up its own illegality, lies, and duplicity can only mean that the illegality, lies, and duplicity it is protecting must, itself, be even more heinous and loathsome.

    Obama will not run for a second term if election legislation in various states is likely to be used against him; however, by then the law will have been successfully ousted in a former Republic of Laws, whatever SCOTUS may have said in Walz in 1970. We will not be the People we once were. Your last best hope: http://www.thepostemail.com/legal-fund/

  18. dunstvangeet: From HERITAGE QUEST:

    AGNEW THEODORE 45 M W GREE MD BALTIMORE 15-WD BALTIMORE 1930
    Series: T626 Roll: 859 Page: 8

    Naturalized 1903. Census taker Leticia E. Tyson, April 5, 1930. She must have been more thorough than the guy in 1920, or maybe he couldn’t understand Greek.

    Little Spiro is still living at home with parents.

    Since you also use Heritage Quest, one would think you’d look for Mr. Agnew in all years. Huh?

  19. From the Article, quoting Sharon Rondeau:

    Obama himself has acknowledged that many have questioned his citizenship. However, on his first full day in office, he signed an Executive Order barring the release of his personal records. Never in American history has this been done by a sitting president.

    Obama’s day-one executive order *relaxed* restrictions on release of Presidential records.
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/239/release-presidential-records/

    The order has no effect on the state records at issue. As President, Obama’s executive orders cover the executive branch of the *federal* government. Hawaii’s executive branch is run by Linda Lingle, a Republican who actively supported John McCain in 2008.

    Phil, we’ve been over this myth before. You keep saying that you are just asking legitimate questions, but you keep putting these lies and smears on your blog.

    1. brygenon,

      From the Article, quoting Sharon Rondeau:

      Obama himself has acknowledged that many have questioned his citizenship. However, on his first full day in office, he signed an Executive Order barring the release of his personal records. Never in American history has this been done by a sitting president.

      Obama’s day-one executive order *relaxed* restrictions on release of Presidential records.
      http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/239/release-presidential-records/

      The order has no effect on the state records at issue. As President, Obama’s executive orders cover the executive branch of the *federal* government. Hawaii’s executive branch is run by Linda Lingle, a Republican who actively supported John McCain in 2008.

      Phil, we’ve been over this myth before. You keep saying that you are just asking legitimate questions, but you keep putting these lies and smears on your blog.

      That’s funny — I don’t see anywhere that Ms. Rondeau said anything about the government level at which those records may be kept.

      -Phil

  20. MGB, mind linking me to the Government Database where it states when Agnew’s father was naturalized, and the year that he was naturalized?

    I have a 1920 Census record that clearly says that Spiro Agnew’s father, Theodore Agnew, was an alien at the time of the census. Spiro Agnew is listed as being born at the time. It lists his immigration year into the United States, but clearly lists his father as being an alien, and clearly does not list a Naturalization year, 2 things which it is clear in the Census Record that there is a space for.

    I looked up this online through Heritage Quest. The census record is from the 11th Ward of Baltimore, Baltimore County, Maryland. The sheet number is 3B. I’ve checked the work of the census taker, and other places he does mark down the Naturalization year on the form. Heritage Quest has the further system of classifying it as: Series T625, Roll 661, Page 134. The sheet was filled out by Paul S. Moore, who on other places did in fact mark that

    Again, 1920 is after 1919, and I have a government record that clearly shows that Spiro Agnew’s father was an alien at the time. I ask you to show me where I’m wrong, by actually linking me to a place I can verify that Theodore Spiros Agnew was Naturalized in that year. I have specific information to show that he’s not. I’ve given you enough information to verify that information. So, please, tell me where I can verify that he was Naturalized in 1903.

    As far as my others…

    John C. Frémont – Born out of an affair by Ann Whiting and a French Immigrant servant by the name of Charles Fremon. Fremon immigrated in 1910. Whiting left her husband (an arranged marriage) and went with Fremon. This was a scandal in Virginia at the time.

    Charles Curtis – It is no secret that he was born in Topeka, Kansas on January 25, 1960. Kansas entered the union on January 29, 1861, a full year after Charles Curtis was born. Furthermore, Charles Curtis’s mother was a Native American that may have not been a citizen, since Native Americans were not usually given U.S. Citizenship at the time.

    Wendell Willkie – (born in 1891) 1920 Census shows his father naturalized in 1870. I was wrong on this one, and I apologize.

    Andrew Johnson – There are references to an immigrant having the same name as his father settling in the area. However, this may have been his grandfather, and not his father.

    MGB, I challenge you to give me information that shows that Theodore Spiros Agnew was Naturalized in 1903. I’d like to know where you’re getting your information.

  21. Other Republican Presidential Candinates

    John C. Frémont – Father was a French Immigrant

    Wendell Willkie – Born to German Immigrants

    They also forgot V.P.s, which are required according to the 12th Amendment to be eligible for the Presidency.

    Andrew Johnson – May have been born to 2 English Immigrants

    Spiro Agnew – Republican V.P. for Richard Nixon. Was born to a Greek Immigrant who was not naturalized when Agnew was born.

    Charles Curtis – Republican V.P. for Herbert Hoover. Born in Kansas while Kansas was a territory, and not a state.

    These three were sworn in with no objection from anybody.

    [Edit – Removed Earl Warren. According to the 1900 census, his father was born in Iowa]

    Please show information that would indicate that the parents did not ‘naturalize’ BEFORE the births of the people you identify.

    NBC=person born to natural parents who are US CITIZENS, however those parents obtained that US CITIZENSHIP.

  22. C.Scott says:
    February 23, 2010 at 6:59 am
    “The Republican Party has a history of accommodating presidential candidates whose Constitutional eligibility is uncertain.”

    Stephen forgot 1916 Republican candidate Charles Evans Hughes.

    A Natural Born British Subject.

    Where is your information that his father did NOT naturalize before C.E.s birth?

    Re; Charles Evans Hughes

    Hughes was born in Glens Falls, New York. In 1859, his family moved to New York City, where his mother enrolled him in a private school. His great grandfather was a Methodist preacher from Buffalo, who became a Christian following his arrival in Japan, and Charles followed the Christian religion.

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

    Supreme Court Justices

    Charles Evans Hughes (1862-1948)

    Charles Evans Hughes was born in New York state on April 11, 1862. His father was a minister who moved to the United States from England. His mother’s family had lived in America from the colonial period.

    http://www.michaelariens.com/ConLaw/justices/hughes.htm

  23. United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas On Founding Documents

    “…the framers …understood that for liberty to exist the populace needed to be educated enough to understand liberty and to be able to defend liberty. They also understood that liberty was not on automatic pilot, that liberty would not exist simply because it was once started, and that having won it it was very delicate and had to be protected…”

    http://www.thehopeforamerica.com/play.php?id=897

  24. dunstvangeet: A simple search of government records proves that at least one of your claims is wrong. How can we, therefore, believe that the rest of your list is correct? Do you intend to mislead or do you simply regurgitate cut-and-paste falsehoods?

    Spiro Agnew was born in 1918. His father, Theodore Agnew (aka Anagnostopoulos) was naturalized in 1903. Last time I checked, 1903 occured BEFORE 1918. His mother, btw, was born in Virginia.

    But even if your list of ineligible VPs/VP candidates were correct–even if so, who cares?

    That one party or another may have pulled a fast one and done an end run around the very clear requirements of the Constitution means nothing. We’re talking about TODAY. We’re talking about THIS POTUS, who, btw, spent formative years in another country, registered at public schools in that country as a citizen OF that country. Is anything remotely like that true of those on your list?

    We’re talking about an undocumented POTUS who very suspiciously will NOT present actual paper documents to courts of law (or to the media or to any concerned member of the public) to PROVE what he and his supporters want us to believe–that he IS eligible under the Constitution to be POTUS. There can be several logical assumptions in response to this puzzling refusal to produce the documents, none of them look good for him: Either the documents do not exist, they cast doubt upon his eligibility, or in some other way they prove that he misled the American people BEFORE the election.

    As simply and eloquently put by Elspeth: “FULL DISCLOSURE.”

    “Precedents” do not change the very clear requirements of the Constitution. Amendments to the Constitution are the only legal way to change the provisions OF the Constitution. Hiding “proof” and obfuscating does not allow someone to “Pass Go.”

  25. Why hasn’t law enforcement gone after Obama for birth document fraud?
    Why hasn’t law enforcement gone after Obama for forging selective service registration documents?
    Why hasn’t law enforcement gone after Obama for foreign campaign contributions?
    Why hasn’t law enforcement gone after Obama for social security fraud, and the use of 39 SS numbers?
    Why hasn’t law enforcement gone after Obama for perjury when he swore that he had no aliases?

    Just wondering.

    1. bob strauss,

      Why hasn’t law enforcement gone after Obama for birth document fraud?
      Why hasn’t law enforcement gone after Obama for forging selective service registration documents?
      Why hasn’t law enforcement gone after Obama for foreign campaign contributions?
      Why hasn’t law enforcement gone after Obama for social security fraud, and the use of 39 SS numbers?
      Why hasn’t law enforcement gone after Obama for perjury when he swore that he had no aliases?

      Just wondering.

      As you likely already know, law enforcement does not possess the “energy,” as it were, to initiate investigations on an arbitrary basis — sort of like the Supreme Court cannot simply hear a case on its own; someone must bring a case to them to consider first.

      Of course, I do not deny that the “birther”derogatory initiative has been effective. Based on what I’ve documented solely on my own blog, it’s quite obvious that there are many in public life who are literally afraid to go after questions such as eligibility for fear of being branded a racist or worst.

      But even with such an Alinsky-ite tactic at work (and it’s obviously undeniable that it’s at work — how many times does the press reference “birthers” — clearly a term meant to degrade — in connection to any presidential eligibility story? Countless times), I and numerous other sites have documented where many individuals have brought not only what you’ve listed to public officials but more, to no avail.

      And you might have had a point in push back by saying that those same law enforcement personnel simply saw nothing with which to press forward, except for a new Headliner I’ll be posting later today.

      It is beginning, as I knew it would from way back.

      -Phil

  26. Phil, I’m repeating this comment here, because it pertains to this new thread.

    From http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/verify.html

    The LEGAL definition of the word VERIFY: “to confirm or substantiate by oath, affidavit, or deposition.”

    Consider this “unprovoked” press release:
    “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health VERIFYING Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i . . . ”

    What part of the above statement required interpretation and advice from the Attorney General of the State of Hawaii before that statement was released?

    Suppose an affidavit by “any person with knowledge” of an unattended birth was one of those “original vital records” filed at the DoH, with another vital record being a preliminary birth certificate, awaiting supplementary information. Would Fukino then be LEGALLY ACCURATE if she made this statement?:

    “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health that confirm or substantiate by oath, affidavit, or deposition that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i . . . ”

    Is not the above statement the LEGAL EQUIVALENT of the statement that Fukino did release? Perhaps this is why Fukino said, “I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.” She has nothing further to add, especially in answer to questions about what exactly that carefully parsed sentence means. The AG apparently says that his office wasn’t consulted about the definition of “natural born citizen.” Was the AG consulted about the legal definition of “to verify?” Has everyone been asking the AG the wrong question?

    Full disclosure.

    In re: Mr. Tonchen’s summary. It’s excellent, but I take issue with this statement: “At the time of this writing, we are not aware of any law that was in effect in Hawaii in 1961, which allowed the Hawaii Department of Health to knowingly issue Hawaiian birth certificates to babies born outside of Hawaii.”

    I believe that the statutes in effect at that time would have allowed a Hawaiian birth certificate to be issued to a child born outside Hawaii if that child were a foundling and/or was adopted by two Hawaiian residents. The birth certificate would say that the birth took place in Hawaii, even if it did not. That’s the way I read the statutes.

  27. Other Republican Presidential Candinates

    John C. Frémont – Father was a French Immigrant

    Wendell Willkie – Born to German Immigrants

    They also forgot V.P.s, which are required according to the 12th Amendment to be eligible for the Presidency.

    Andrew Johnson – May have been born to 2 English Immigrants

    Spiro Agnew – Republican V.P. for Richard Nixon. Was born to a Greek Immigrant who was not naturalized when Agnew was born.

    Charles Curtis – Republican V.P. for Herbert Hoover. Born in Kansas while Kansas was a territory, and not a state.

    These three were sworn in with no objection from anybody.

    [Edit – Removed Earl Warren. According to the 1900 census, his father was born in Iowa]

  28. Excellent article, Phil.

    Elspeth, I agree. See:

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/02/19/presidential-eligibility-three-simple-requirements-2/

    “What if ‘Birthers’ were ‘Age-ers’?”
    by Sally Vendée

    An excerpt:

    We can argue the constitutionality of the various legislation proposed and passed by this administration, but the very legitimacy of our Commander-in-Chief, who has sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, is arguably the most important issue, as it is the most symbolic of all. The buck stops at the President’s desk. Either his power is granted, and thereby limited, under the Constitution—or he is placed, or places himself, over and above it and the law.

  29. This historic drama underscores how cavalierly America’s leaders have regarded the Constitution over the years, and how disdainfully many of them have regarded well-meaning Americans who have honestly questioned their leaders’ integrity and attachment to the Constitution itself. And it’s not getting any better at all. Sobering, to say the least.

  30. c. scott,

    “Stephen forgot 1916 Republican candidate Charles Evans Hughes.”

    Please provide the link to credible evidence that there was any controversy regarding Charles Evans Hughes.

  31. Just wanted to share a quote from the Wall Street Journal:

    In a discussion of how the government of Iran is using the internet against their opposition (“The Digital Dictatorship,” 2/20/10), emphasis mine:

    In the age of the Spinternet, when cheap online propaganda can be easily bought with the help of pro-government bloggers….

    This is an interesting and informative article: we all (opposition posters too) need to be aware of what it presents. Check it out.

  32. Full disclosure!

    Too many questions remained unanswered. The eligibility issue needs to be put rest once and for all.

    Mr. Obama’s agenda has been very ambitious. Perhaps he would have more support if this matter were cleared up.

    Thanks, as always, Phil, for pulling together the information that needs to be considered.

  33. “The Republican Party has a history of accommodating presidential candidates whose Constitutional eligibility is uncertain.”

    Stephen forgot 1916 Republican candidate Charles Evans Hughes.

    A Natural Born British Subject.

Comments are closed.