Monday, November 03, 2008

Obama Citizenship Controversy Continues

With just one day left before Election Day, the lawsuits being filed against Barack Obama for not showing his vault long birth certificate has grown from lawsuits filed in seven states to a new total of eleven states.

Zach Jones is reporting that potential electors of the Electoral College are now filing action against Obama today.


The recent Lawsuit in Washington State demanding their Secretary of State to vet the citizenship credentials of Barack Obama has spawned a slew of similar suits with new lawsuits filed and/or prepared in WA, FL, NC, CO, CA, OH, FL, CT, GA, TX, MI. Related lawsuits HI, US District.

In another unrelated action, though also aimed at forcing Obama to release proof or step down, 24 potential Electoral College electors are filing action Monday morning in court also demanding proof. A call is herein being issued to any elector in any state, especially democrat electors who would like to join that effort. Electors interested in adding their name to this lawsuit can contact Mr. Marquis who will put you in contact with the attorney handling that case.

I am curious to know which side of the political aisle the "24 potential electors" are on? Also, if nothing is done about the birth certificate situation, could some of the Democrat electors end up defecting to McCain?

Also see Peoples

There are many people on the Dem side that think that the Obama birth certificate controversy is over. Apparently, it's not.

Citizen Wells blog led me to America's Right - which has a long and detailed post about Obama's grandmother in Kenya stating that she was present at his birth in Kenya. Another grandson (see transcript at link) tried to cover for her and claimed, "No, no, no - He was born in the United States."


In that conversation, Mr. Shuhubia and one grandson of Ms. Sarah Obama acted as Swahili translators, and as I talked to and questioned Ms. Obama, they would translate what I said to her in Swahili, and then they would translate her Swahili responses to me in English. Ms. Obama can fluently speak Swahili in her native dialect, but cannot read or write. In the ensuing conversation, I asked Ms. Obama specifically, “Were you present when your grandson Barack Obama was born in Kenya?” This was asked to her in translation twice, and both times she specifically replied, “Yes”. Though, some few younger relatives, including her grandson doing the translating, have obviously been versed to counter such facts with the common purported information from the American news media that Obama was born in Hawaii, Ms. Sarah Hussein Obama was very adamant that her grandson, Senator Barack Hussein Obama, was born in Kenya, and that she was present and witnessed his birth in Kenya, not the United States. When Ms. Obama’s grandson attempted to counter his grandmother’s clear responses to the question, verifying the birth of Senator Obama in Kenya, I asked her grandson, how she could be present at Barack Obama’s birth if the Senator was born in Hawaii, but the grandson would not answer the question, instead he repeatedly tried to insert that, “No, No, No. He was born in the United States!” But during the conversation, Ms. Sarah Hussein Obama never changed her reply that she was in deed present when Senator Barack Obama was born in Kenya. A transcript [Note: see this at link] of this taped interview is attached as Exhibit “6”.

The author of that blog states that he does not like this ordeal one bit. However, he also feels that it is important not to suppress information. He ends his article with a "we report, you decide" attitude.

I have to admit that it bothers me that the Hawaiian health department official took action to seal Obama's birth records. If there was nothing wrong, why not just release them to the public so that all speculation could end?

One commenter at America's Right blog sums it up quite well:

Anonymous said...
Hawaiian officials admit withholding Obama’s original Birth Certificate
Posted by Israel Insider on November 1, 2008 at 11:30am
View Israel Insider’s blog

Now it’s pretty apparent why Barack Obama made his sudden, last minute visit to Honolulu. It wasn’t Granny’s health problems that interested him but Hawaii’s Health Department.

The strategy may have backfired. A statement by Hawaiian officials Friday that they have seen but won’t release an “original” birth certificate that has never been released raises more questions than it answers. It undercuts the indignant claims of Obama spokesmen and supporters that the “birth certificate” has been published for months, and the ridicule and claims of “smear” that the Obama camp has made against anyone claiming otherwise.

Image: the “certification of live birth” claimed by Obama campaign as his “birth certificate”

According to an AP report, Hawaii Health Department Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said Friday that she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama’s original birth certificate.

But they won’t say one word about what’s on it.

Conspicuously, Hawaiian officials refuse to confirm that the information on the “original” certificate conforms to what has appeared on the “Certification of Live Birth” produced in 2007 that has so far been passed off as original by the Obama “Fight the Smears” site (here) and the Annenberg-backed site (here). The latter dedicated a photoshoot to examining in pornographic detail a computer-generated facsimile that may bear no relation to the original document that the State of Hawaii now admits holding.

Can anyone smell “red herring”?

All of the obfuscation, which has been going on for more than four months, begs the question that the Obama campaign and its media supporters have steadfastly refused to answer: why won’t the original birth certificate be released?

Why can’t the Obama campaign do as the McCain campaign did, and release the original, typewritten document that the State of Hawaii, finally and in the last days before the election, admits exists in its “vaults”? What could be so damaging or contradictory that Obama has felt the need to keep hidden all these years and has created elaborate cover-ups to put forward computer-abstracted certification of live certificate instead of the original birth certificate?

Fukino says that no state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, ever instructed that Obama’s birth certificate be handled differently. But state officials, including Lingle’s office, have consistently refused media requests for the release of the document, saying that only Obama himself, or a close family number, was authorized to have access to the “original” certificate. She says state law bars release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who does not have a tangible interest.

Apparently that does not include the American People.

And yet Obama claimed in his memoir Dreams from my Father that he had in his possession his birth certificate. Unless the document has been “lost,” he could publish the original without visiting grandma in Honolulu.

Something doesn't smell right. And, the fact that lawsuits are increasing and electors are questioning all of this just one day before the election should highly concern all Americans.



Citizen Wells

Americas Right

Update: Also see Doubts persist about Obama birth certificate - Considerable evidence still points to candidate's birth in Kenya

Update: Video of Obama's Kenyan grandmother stating in her native language that Obama was "born (in) this village."

Update: Also see What is the Deal on this Birth Certificate - The constitution demands “natural born” so as to mitigate the possibility of “divided loyalties.”


Matt W. said...

Admittedly, Obama refusing to release records is troubling, but I think it's strategic. I think it's meant to distract people from the issues. And from looking at the number of posts you've been doing on it, it's working.

McCain stands head and shoulders above Obama on the issues. We need to be hammering the issues, that is where we can win. Let the people who are digging for the truth on the citizenship thing keep digging, and see what they come up with, but it's too late for it to matter for tomorrow. We have to defeat Obama on the issues.

I just watched a McCain rally, and if he had been campaigning like this for the past several months he would be crushing Obama, not that the pollsters would be honest about it.

As to the electors, I would hate to see McCain win on the basis of that, I want to see him win the vote, sufficiently to overcome the voter fraud that's been going on. If Obama wins the vote in those states and the electors turn around and vote for McCain (which they can legally do, though most people don't understand that) it will be used to destroy our electoral college system, which could end up being a more stunning victory for the left than an Obama Presidency.

Let's spend this last day hammering the issues, that is where we can still win.

preacherman said...

Thank you for sharing this with us during this important election. I really enjoyed reading your blog. I will be visiting often.

spud tooley said...

you know, the saddest part about this is that even Chrstians were vocal participants.

or so i hear.


Gary Baker said...


"even Christians were vocal participants."

I understand, Mike. We all know how upset you get when Christians participate.

Seriously, it takes no verification at all to say Christians participated. For that matter, it takes no verification to claim to be a Christian. You know that.

As for how Michelle Obama was treated, she had every right to go out and campaign for her husband. But when she started criticizing policies from other candidates and the current administration, she crossed the line from supportive spouse to political advocate. That meant that her own views were up for scrutiny. I don't agree with a lot of the garbage that candidates have to put up with or pundits for that matter. You're correct that it's sad. I have no idea what would count as the saddest part.

Matt W. said...

Wow Mike, you're so right! It's absolutely unconscionable that Christians and Conservatives took offense at the wife of a Candidate for President of the United States said that when her husband was doing well in the polls was the first time in her adult life time that she had been proud of her country (she added the "really proud" later), and then said that our souls are broken, and that the American people are cynical, and that this Country doesn't treat it's citizens fairly. you're right, we shouldn't have said anything about all of that stuff. After all, it's not like she has a 17 year old daughter that got pregnant and is trying to do the right thing. It's not like she had the audacity to give birth to a Down Syndrome baby. It's not like she (as the spouse of a candidate) got a DUI over 20 years ago, or once flirted with an anti-American Political party, but without joining... wait, maybe the anti-American thing is a bad example... apparently we're not allowed to point out things like that... or is it only our side that's not allowed to point that out? It must be, because it seems that only the Democrat candidates families are out of bounds... can't talk about Obama's wife, can't talk about Biden's son having been a lobbyist, right up until his dad was nominated for VP...

You're so right Mike, we're just such horrible people.

spud tooley said...

matt, gary,

the defense that another's sins somehow frees you to commit your own is one that a lot of people will likely try when they someday stand before God. it's good to see you two are getting in a little early practice.


Matt W. said...

OK Mike, first, before seeing your comment, Christine and I both posted Sympathies to Senator Obama and family.

About your second comment, it seems that you are now claiming that pointing out what someone else has done constitutes a sin... and yet you are always pointing out what you feel that we have done wrong... how do you work that one out?

I'm just a little confused how pointing out what Michelle Obama said, at campaign events, constitutes a sin, and then pointing out the hypocrisy of the left with regards to Sarah Palin is justification for my "sin" of talking about what Mrs. Obama said in a campaign speech.

Can you honestly not see that talking about what someone says when they make a political speech is fair game? Honestly?

Gary Baker said...


"the defense that another's sins somehow frees you to commit your own is one that a lot of people will likely try when they someday stand before God."

Not really, Mike. I leave that to the Nazis and liberals, the "ends justify the means" crowd. No doubt I will have great embarrassment before Christ when all my sins are laid bare. Two things that I am truly grateful for: When judgment comes, there is the truth that faith in Christ will wash away my sins, and when asked if I believed, I can enthusiastically say "Yes, all of it," and not "Well, the parts that I agreed with..."

smrstrauss said...

This just in, Obama has been elected the 44th President of the United States.

Also, he was born in Hawaii. The 'evidence' he was born in Kenya is pretty slim. I've listened to the tape of his grandmother and it is not clear that she understood the question. Even if she did, it's not evidence.

It would be so easy to get evidence if he were born in Kenya. All you would have to do is go to the records of people that arrived in Kenya in 1961 and see if Obama's mother was one of them. Those are probably public records.

The certificate (or certification, whatever) of live birth has been accepted as legal proof of Obama's birth in Hawaii by a court in Virginia. (Monday. See:

Here is a report from a web posting that is not official, of course, but it seems accurate mainly because the fellow who posted it was AGAINST Obama. He is disappointed, but accepts the ruling. You can find this post at : (

(Note that sometimes the author correctly puts COLB correctly and sometimes he types it as CLOB, but he means certificate of live birth throughout.)


The Court made the following findings:

1. The Certification of Live Birth presented to the court is unquestionably authentic.

The court noted that the certification had a raised seal from the state of Hawaii, had a stamp bearing the signature of the registrar of vital statistics. The court found “wholly unpersuasive” any of the internet claims that the birth certificate was altered in any way. Furthermore, the document itself was accompanied by an affidavit from the State Health Director (of Hawaii) verifying that the document is an authentic certification of live birth. The court held that there could be no doubt that the document was authentic unless one believed that the state of Hawaii’s health department were in on an elaborate and complex conspiracy – and that there is not a shred of evidence that this is the case.

2. The Certification of Live Birth establishes that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen.

The affidavit of the State Health Director states that the information on the CLOB is identical to the information on the “vault” copy of the birth certificate, and that both documents establish that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu. The Court noted that the CLOB is valid for all citizenship purposes. The court noted our argument that the COLB is not valid for determining citizenship, but referred us to Hawaiian law that states otherwise. “There is no difference between a certificate and a certification of live birth in the eyes of the state. For instance, either can be used to confirm U.S. citizenship to obtain a passport or state ID.” The court found that Hawaiian law makes the COLB valid for all purposes with the exception of determining native Hawaiian heritage for certain state and federal benefits. The court held that if Mr. Obama were born elsewhere and the birth registered in Hawaii, the “place of birth” line on the COLB would reflect that fact. The court stated that there could be no doubt that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii and that any argument to the contrary was fanciful and relied on completely unsubstantiated internet rumors.

3. For that reason, 8 U.S.C. §1401(g), which at the relevant time provided as follows:

“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: ***(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:…..
is irrelevant to this matter, as Mr. Obama was conclusively born in Hawaii.

4. Mr. Obama did hold dual citizenship in the U.S. and Kenya until he became an adult. When Barack Obama Jr. was born Kenya was a British colony. 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: “British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.” In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UK. Obama’s UK citizenship became an Kenyan citizenship on Dec. 12, 1963, when Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. The court noted that Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:

1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…

2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.
Thus the court held that as a citizen of the UK who was born in Kenya, Obama’s father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UK status at birth and given that Obama’s father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), thus Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship in 1963.

However, the court further held that the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya’s Constitution specifies that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya. The court held that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama has ever renounced his U.S. citizenship or sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.

The court held that there was no legal requirement that Mr. Obama renounce his Kenyan citizenship or affirm his U.S. citizenship in order to maintain his status as a natural born citizen.

5. Mr. Obama did not lose his U.S. Citizenship based on the acts of his parents, including adoption by an Indonesian citizen. The Court held that no action taken by the parents of an American child can strip that child of his citizenship. The court cited to the 1952 Immigration & Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, Sections 349 and 355, which was in effect in the late 1960s when Obama went to Indonesia, and which stated that a minor does not lose his US citizenship upon the naturalization of his parents or any other actions of his parents, so long as the minor returns to the US and establishes permanent US residency before the age of 21. Thus the adoption of Obama did not serve to strip him of his U.S. citizenship. The fact that Indonesian law does not allow dual citizenship is irrelevant, as U.S. law controls. Furthermore, the Court held that traveling on a foreign passport does not strip an American of his citizenship. The Court noted first that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama traveled on an Indonesian passport (Mr. Berg and others we reached out to for evidence never provided any evidence of this claim or any other of the claims we could have used some proof of.) Nonetheless, the court held that such travel does not divest an American of his citizenship.

The Court makes other holdings and findings that I won’t bother you with here. Needless to say, the decision is wholly against us. The court finds the claims against Mr. Obama’s citizenship “wholly unpersuasive and bordering on the frivolous, especially in light of the complete absence of any first-hand evidence on any critical issue” and further classifies it as “conspiracy theory of the lowest sort, fueled by nothing than internet rumor and those who truly want to believe egging each other on.”

I like the part about “conspiracy theory of the lowest sort.”

Anonymous said...

Change is inevitable and a long time coming. The world can hope for America again and move beyond the hypocritical, ignorant perspectives of small minded people pushing against honest politics.

Whatever your perspective...
We do not live in the same America anymore and I thank God for this.

Christinewjc said...

smrstrauss -

Thank you for providing all of that information.

If it is true that Obama has nothing to hide, then why doesn't he release the vault COLB to the public?

I am wondering if it might have to do with the possible embarrassment that someone other than Obama Sr. was his father? It has been rumored that Frank Marshall Davis is actually Obama Jr.'s father. However, if this was ever found to be true it wouldn't really affect his eligibility to be POTUS. Why would anyone go to such lengths to prevent the knowledge that he is a bastard (using term as descriptive - not meant to be derogatory? Like I previously wrote, it might be highly embarrassing (knowing what we all know about Davis), but not as bad as the question of genuine citizenship.

My question still remains, Why all the secrecy?

Notice what this commenter wrote:


A certificate of live birth makes BO a citizen. Plus there is an affidavit from someone in Hawaii attesting to this.

You've bought the spin. The officials in HI have stated that they have verified there is a vault copy (original). They have not stated any of the details. There is still question. IIRC, HI has a law on the books that says they'll issue a BC even if not born in HI (place of birth would be noted, however), it has been linked on many threads here. I'll see if I can find it.

The simplest of answers to the most basic of questions. Why won't B.O. release it?

15 posted on Monday, November 03, 2008 11:53:14 AM by IYAS9YAS (Ever notice that Obama supporters chant "O-Bahm-AH" while McCain/Palin supporters chant "U-S-A".) /quote

Several other commenters are still asking questions, including this one:


To: Arthur Wildfire! March
Please see my comment #36:

I just checked - a rather (!) anti-Berg site. They have not posted this reported decision, and have added a note that they have information that it may not be “real.”

Given that that site has every “reason” to post information that contradicts Berg’s case, and still is calling reports of this case into question, I consider that a rather big deal, so am posting that as an update here.

Now I don’t know what to believe - and recognize that i’ll get flamed for this - but this poster’s prior posts on ObamaCrimes sounded very believable. /quote