Berryville Man Files Federal Lawsuit Over FOIA Response

A local man is asking a United States federal court to help him gain access to information related to the citizenship history of President Barack Obama.

Berryville resident, George Archibald has petitioned the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to compel the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and former White House Counsel Robert Bauer to produce documents that Archibald says may provide new insight into whether the President’s mother forfeited his US citizenship when Obama was just six-years-old.

If Archibald’s suspicion is correct it would raise important questions about the legitimacy of Obama’s qualifications to hold the office of President of the United States.

“I’m not a ‘birther,’’’ Archibald said after filing his lawsuit. “I’m simply interested in getting to the bottom of what appears to be stone-walling by the administration against my Freedom of Information request.”

In the suit, filed on November 16 in the District of Columbia, Archibald alleges that a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that he filed with the FBI’s Winchester, Virginia office on April 15, 2011 asking for information produced during the FBI’s background check of presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama II was improperly rejected. In the FOIA request Archibald asks for “information regarding Obama’s birth in 1961, family background, citizenship, residency, immigration, expatriation/repatriation, and other matters related to Obama’ s origins and nationality generated during the FBI’s 2008 investigation of presidential candidates.”

Archibald’s request is based on President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Executive Order 10450, “Security Requirements for Government Employment,” issued in 1953. Under the Eisenhower directive, the FBI conducts background checks on all presidential candidates. Archibald is seeking information that may have turned up in the FBI investigation related to Barach Obama’s citizenship status after his mother wed an Indonesian citizen.

Archibald believes that after Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro, arrived in Djakarta with her young son in 1967, who he says was adopted by stepfather Lolo Soetoro, Barry Obama maintained permanent residency and schooling in Indonesia until 1971 before returning to Honolulu in 1979 to live with his maternal grandparents where he attended high school and later graduated. Archibald contends that Indonesian authorities would have required the young Obama to naturalize in order to remain in the country and attend school.

“The fact that your mother, Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro, took you [Barach Obama] to live in Indonesia in 1967, at age six, after she had divorced your father and married Indonesian national Lolo Soetoro – where after arrival at Djakarta you both were temporarily refused admission by Indonesian authorities, who balked at your dual U.S.-Kenya nationality,” Archibald said in an open letter to Obama asking the President to release the information requested in the lawsuit.

“Your mother responded upon requirement of the Djakarta government authorities by having you legally adopted as a minor child by your Indonesian citizen stepfather Lolo Soetoro; your adoptive name was changed to Barry Soetoro; your claim to U.S. nationality was renounced; and you were legally naturalized as an Indonesian citizen,” the letter continues.

Archibald believes that the FBI may be holding information related to Mr. Obama’s eligibility to stand for the office of President of the United States according to the stated qualifications of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution of the United States.

“The FBI responded to my request by saying that it generally cannot release these types of personal documents without the authorization and consent of the third party unless the public interest in disclosure outweighs the personal privacy interest and that significant public benefit would result from the disclosure of the requested records,” Archibald said. “In this situation I think that the public interest would be served from a full disclosure by President Obama.”

Robert Bauer, also named in the suit, was Assistant to the President and White House Counsel from December 2009 until June 2011, and advised President Obama and other Obama administration officials during April and May 2011 when Archibald’s FOIA request and subsequent letters were received and considered by the FBI, the White House and administration staff.

“As a career news reporter and book author with credentialed Congressional and the House experience over many years, I have faced stonewalling and cover-up by many presidential administrations and politicians of all persuasions,” Archibald said. “It doesn’t work.”

US District Court Judge Reggie Walton is expected to schedule a hearing on the matter within the next 60 days.

Comments

  1. Why oh Why?? says:

    For real!!! I wouldn’t have published this article wasting space for important positive stories like school issues and community involvement. Hawaii showed it. Oprah showed it. CNN. MSNBC. Fox!!! Why don’t you show your birth certificate. Isn’t it my right to ask for yours. Please this is enough.

    • Pay attention! He’s not asking for his birth certificate. He’s asking for Indonesia records to show he renounced USA citizenship and became Indonesian citizen. Has nothing to do with where Obama was born, but what his citizenship is.

      • Pay attention – Indonesian records do not matter. He was between 5 and 10 years old. Minor child cannot renounce his citizenship, parents cannot renounce it for him. He noever losts his US natural born citizenship status.

  2. Fly on the wall says:

    Oh, dear Lord. This again? Why don’t you focus on something worthwhile? You may have, at one time, been a crack newshound, but this is just sad…

  3. Laurie Allen says:

    Thank you Mr. Archibald for standing up to the “stonewalling” I hope and pray that you get the answers your looking for; for all involved. This a true testament to what ETHICS are and the powers that be should take note!

  4. clarke conservative says:

    Investigative journalism … something the main stream media selectively disregards. It is reassuring there are still a few who honor the principles of the ‘Fourth Estate’.

  5. valeriewalter78@gmail.com says:

    of all the burning secrets our government keeps from us, this is what you’re after? still?

  6. Naked Truth says:

    “I’m not a ‘birther,’’’ Archibald said.

    Really? You and all the others who beat this dead horse. Do us a favor and stop wasting our tax dollars on this kind of stuff. I thought the conservatives wanted smaller government, less spending, and fewer lawsuits. I guess when it suits them!

  7. Unfortunately, the exemptions that are in place are such that this stuff will never be released until Obama dies. Only then will we know that we had a Kenyan running things for four years

  8. You really think that – if there WERE such volatile information in that file – such info wouldn’t have been “accidentally” released by someone on the inside? After all, those folks would be employees who were hired long before Mr. Obama was elected…and thus not beholden to him for anything.

    Honestly, Mr. Archibald, give it a rest. What to you might seem a Don Quioxte-worthy stand against “stonewalling” comes across as a deluded reluctance to accept the reality that maybe…just maybe…Obama AND the State of Hawai’i HAVE been fully compliant.

    • “You really think that – if there WERE such volatile information in that file – such info wouldn’t have been “accidentally” released by someone on the inside? After all, those folks would be employees who were hired long before Mr. Obama was elected…and thus not beholden to him for anything.”

      Information such as this is tightly controlled and is “eyes only”. The people that have access to this information can’t just share it with anyone, even with fellow employees. It is considered a violation of the Privacy Act of 1974 and unauthorized release can lead to revocation of your clearance and dismissal.

  9. What’s making this bad and keeps it going is that the state of Hawaii will not open the actual book that supposedly contains Obama’s birth certificate, even though Obama himself showed what was billed as a legit long form certificate. Another thing that still raises hackles is that there was a woman who had twins in the same hospital that Obama claims to have been born in, just a day or after before Obama was supposedly born there. There are pictures of this woman holding up copies of her kids birth certificates.

    http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/dailypix/2009/Jul/28/M1139416728.GIF

    The numbers on those certificates are higher than the number on Obama’s birth certificate, even though she had her kids AFTER Obama was born

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/27/president-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate

    And here’s the story of Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona, who is requesting to see the microfilm roll for the timeframe of Obama’s birth.

    http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=362625

    • Sorry Sarge but the whole certifcate number thing is meaning less.

      CNN help a man born after President Obama and before the Nordyke twins get his Hawaiian BC. His BC cert number is significantly higher (10920) then the Nordykes.

      http://nativeborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/img_0035-small.jpg

      And WND recently published a BC from a girl born on August 23rd, 1961 and her cert number is considerable lower (09945) then the Nordyke’s.

      And in her petition to New Hampshire, Dr. Taitz, indicates that the BC cert number of a child (Virginia Sunahara) born on the same day as Preisdent Obama is significantly higher then President Obama’s.

      If you put known certification numbers from August, 1961 in numerical order they also are in alphabetical order. Apparently, the DOH in 1961 collected a months worth of BCs and then processed them.

      • Is there a better copy of that guys BC?

      • Obama’s BC says he was born Aug 4th, the Nordykes twins on Aug 5th. Kinda hard to get get born in between that

        • Well, they also use a clock to record the time. The President was born August 4th in the evening, Waidelich was born August 5th in the morning and the Nordyke’s were born August 5th in the afternoon.

          Copy Waidelich’s BC to your computer and zoom in on the certification number.

        • Sarge, BTW, CNN selected Waidelich because his birth announcement is in the same newspapers as President Obama.

  10. but which is it?
    was obama not born on us soil and had a fake birth certificate drafted or
    did his mother renounce his citizenship in order for him to attend school in indonesia?

    • Two distinctly separate questions.

      Mr Archibald is approaching this from the angle that Obama’s mother, knowingly or unknowingly, got Obama’s citizenship revoked while in Indonesia. A lot of countries don’t play the duel citizenship thing. But if either is the case, we have a problem in that a foreigner is running the country, and badly at that.

      I can tell you that in order to get a top secret clearance in this country, the FBI does an extensive (and I mean extensive) background check. Any number of factors can disqualify you from getting cleared, including drug use. Obviously, even though the president is privy to all government secrets, they don’t have to pass through the same criteria as when Joe Schmucatelli is trying to get cleared. If that were the case, I suspect GWB would may not have gotten a TS clearance because of his supposed drug use. Of course, that drug use would have to be proven in order to deny the clearance. Conversely, there are pictures of Obama appearing stoned and he has openly admitted to using drugs. He also signed a yearbook with the term “To my choom gang”, chooming being a Hawaiian slang term for smoking weed.

      http://www.obamapedia.org/page/Barack+Obama's+Drug+Use

      I’m pretty sure his presidency is a confirmation that pot does indeed damage the brain.

      • And I’m pretty sure that your posts here are a confirmation that you are grasping at any straw to discredit a properly vetted and authentic US Citizen President with whom you hold a tremendous amount of disdain, both political and personal.

    • Right Winger says:

      The only people that know the truth ain’t talking or are dead. That’s why this continues.

  11. The simple fact is that even if the President’s mother got him Indonesian citizenship he would not have lost his United States natural born Citizenship. The Supreme Court decided in Perkins v. Elg that a parent cannot give up a minor child’s citizenship.

  12. Mr. Leonard,

    “Barry Obama maintained permanent residency and schooling in Indonesia until 1971 before returning to Honolulu in 1979 to live with his maternal grandparents where he attended high school and later graduated.”

    President Obama attended Punahou School in Honolulu from the fifth grade until he graduated high school. His picture is in the Punahou School yearbooks continously from 1971 to 1979.

    http://www.craigdailypress.com/news/2009/jan/25/classmate_shares_photos_obama_punahou_school_yearb/

    • BTW, at Punahou School he was listed as Barry Obama. Not Soetoro or anything else.

      http://www.craigdailypress.com/photos/2009/jan/25/17393/

    • WindCommander says:

      That is interesting. If true then how did he get a CT SS# in 1977?

      • WingCommander,

        There is no such thing as a Connecticut SSN. SSN are issued in Baltimore, Maryland. The Social Security Administration website from at least 2001 through today say,

        “One should not make too much of the “geographical code.” It is not meant to be any kind of useable geographical information.”

        Since 1972 SSNs have been based on zip code of the return address on the SS-5 card. And what is the zip code for Honolulu, where the grandparents lived – 96814 – and what is the zip code for Danbury, Connecticut – 06814.

        So what would happen if the clerk in Baltimore typed 06814 instead of 96814.

      • Hawaii Born says:

        Easy:

        96814 = Honolulu zip code
        06814 = Danbury, CT zip code

        Barack could have written his 9 that looked like a 0 and the clerk who entered his information, entered a 0 instead of a 9 and the system kicked out a CT SSN

        BTW from the SSA website:
        http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/geocard.html

        Note: One should not make too much of the “geographical code.” It is not meant to be any kind of useable geographical information. The numbering scheme was designed in 1936 (before computers) to make it easier for SSA to store the applications in our files in Baltimore since the files were organized by regions as well as alphabetically. It was really just a bookkeeping device for our own internal use and was never intended to be anything more than that.

        The Social Security Administration says that the first three numbers mean nothing. My father, born in Florida has a North Carolina SSN despite never living or even traveled there.

  13. Mr. Archibald seems to be repeating the same tall tales the birthers do, but under US law, a US citizen minor cannot renounce their citizenship or have it renounced by the parents.

    “A person who is a national of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by: (a) Obtaining naturalization in a foreign state, either upon his own application or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person: Provided, however, That nationality not be lost as the result of the naturalization of a parent unless and until the child shall have attained the age of twenty-three years without acquiring permanent residence in the United States:…..”
    – Nationality Act of 1940, Section 401

    “A person having American nationality, who is a minor and is residing in a foreign state with or under the legal custody of a parent who loses American nationality under section 404 of this Act, shall at the same time lose his American nationality if such minor has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state: Provided, That, in such case, American nationality shall not be lost as the result of loss of American nationality by the parent unless and until the child attains the age of twenty-three years without having acquired permanent residence in the United States.”
    – Nationality Act of 1940, Section 407

    “From and after the effective date of this Act a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by —
    (1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application, upon an application filed in his behalf by a parent, or duly authorized agent, or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person: Provided, That nationality shall not be lost by any person under this section as the result of the naturalization of a parent or parents while such person is under the age of twenty-one years, or as the result of naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday: ….”
    – 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, section 349 (a)

    “A person having United States nationality, who is under the age of twenty-one and whose residence is in a foreign state with or under the legal custody of a parent who hereafter loses United States nationality under section 350 or 352 of this title, shall also lose his United States nationality if such person has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state: Provided, That, in such case, United States nationality shall not be lost as the result of loss of United States nationality by the parent unless and until the person attains the age of twenty-five years without having established his residence in the United States.”
    – 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, Section 355

    In addition, under Indonesian law at the time, Barack Obama was too old to be granted Indonesian citizenship though adoption (no evidence of adoption has ever been found)

    “Article 2.
    (1)A foreign child of less than 5 years age who is adopted by a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, if such an adoption is declared legal by the Pengadilan Negeri at the residence of the person adopting the child.”
    – Law No. 62 of 1958, Law on the Citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, 62/1958 for short.

    There’s also a common birther belief that Indonesia had a law that only citizens could attend schools. Not only has there never been any evidence to back this claim up, but there’s several sources that directly contradict it.

    “The government banned Indonesian citizens from attending alien schools which meant that Indonesian Chinese could no longer attend Chinese language schools.”
    – “Nationalism and ethnic conflict in Indonesia” By Jacques Bertrand, Page 63

    “The government also committed itself to the protection of the lives, property, and businesses of the “alien” Chinese. In its official formulation of policy in June 1967, no mention was made of the 1959 ban on retail trade in rural areas that remained in place. Instead, it encouraged the mobilization of domestic foreign capital (that is, of the “alien” Chinese) for the purposes of national development. It also proposed to phase out foreign capital in certain sectors over the following decade, thereby leaving ample opportunity for non-citizens to apply for naturalization before the phase-out.

    The regime sided with the assimilationist perspective of the LPKB, instead of the integrationist approach that Baperki had propounded. Chinese Indonesians who had joined the anti-communist movement and who were close to the regime viewed assimilation as the best option. The New Order regime consequently adopted policies to eliminate the distinctions marking Chinese Indonesians from other Indonesian citizens. It banned alien schools and urged all Chinese (citizens and non-citizens) to attend Indonesian national schools.”
    – “Nationalism and ethnic conflict in Indonesia” By Jacques Bertrand, Page 65

    Hope this sheds some light on why Archibald’s arguments are invalid.

    • kriselda jarnsaxa says:

      Mr. McKinnon,

      EXCELLENT information. You’d think that would put at least the “lost his citizenship” issue to rest, wouldn’t you?

      • If Obama was raised in Indonesia in his formative years, he would have learned the Indonesian pledge of allegiance instead of Americas. He would have been raised asking Allah to bless Indonesia. He would have learned the language and culture. No law can give or take away the fact that our president was raised as a foreign citizen. So you may be correct. But the fact remains that our president was raised to be an Indonesian citizen in Indonesia. This time in his life is fact. Our constitution forbids foreign citizens from the presidency. Facts are stubborn things that no laws by man can refute or create. This is why people have an inate visceral reaction to his presidency. Americans are trained from birth that no foreign citizen is to rule over them, so they resist Obama. This is also why Obama has an inate need to bow to foreign leaders. It was bread into him as an Indonesian citizen. No law was required for either reaction.

        Is he a legal president? It depends on the definition of “is”.

        • kriselda jarnsaxa says:

          The Constitution may forbid foreign *citizens* but it says nothing about people who’ve lived in foreign countries. In fact, it specifies only that someone needs to be a natural born citizen, but 35 years old and have lived here for 14 years. Obama qualifies on all three points, regardless of where he lived as a child. In fact, he spent *significantly* more time living in America than he did in Indonesia – which accounted only for a very few years in his early childhood. If living outside the country for 4 or 5 years is to be considered a disqualification for the presidency (which is isn’t, of course) then there would be a *lot* of people who would fall into that trap. Plus there’s the fact that while living in Indonesia, the school he attended the longest was a CATHOLIC school where, I suspect, it’s unlikely he was taught to ask Allah for anything.

          And as far as being a Presidential candidate – ANY Presidential candidate – praying to Allah, well, there’s nothing in the Constitution to disqualify them for that reason, either. In fact, the Constitution says that there shall be NO religious test for someone to hold office, meaning that we are FORBIDDEN to enact any laws or rules that would deny someone public office on the basis of their faith. We can individually opt not to vote for them if we don’t like their religion, but if they get the majority of the vote, nothing in the Constitution or the law can or will prevent them from taking office.

        • So…you’re going to call Mr. Obama a liar when he says, repeatedly, that his savior is Jesus? You’re going to toss aside the fact that he was properly vetted by the FBI and deemed worthy of running as a candidate? Funny that you’d scoff at those who ignore “facts” then turn around and do the same.

  14. Roscoe Evans says:

    I don’t mind a creative conspiracy. A former roommate of mine has made millions claiming that space aliens have been re-visiting earth for millions of years to serve mankind, and writing books to “prove” his theory. No problem for me. He flunked out of school with 4F’s and a D in 5 of 5 subjects (he took an “incomplete” in Phys Ed., and was proud of it), and he had to do something to make a living.

    But you guys who tell and re-tell The Big Lie in all of its variations for your petty political purposes are absolute disgraces to yourselves and to our nation. Take a bath, please, then look at yourself in the mirror, and try to think about what you are saying before you spit out another whopper. There are dopes who will believe anything you tell them, you know. And after they go after your President with their torches and their pitchforks, they just might come for the guys who set them on the wrong path to begin with. Now, that would be sweet Justice.

    RW: No. We’re not dead, and we’re not afraid to talk. We’re just a generation older than you, and we usually don’t waste our time trying to educate the intentionally ignorant masses. But I had enough of this Obama Is Not One of Us nonsense when I heard it in my own family, from a dope with also “knew” that Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill Kennedy, because nobody could have made that shot from that window. Well, I was in that window, and I could have made that shot myself, 3 times out of 5, I’d say, and it was time for my cousin to grasp onto a different set of lies if he wanted to justify his ignorance of the political world.

    You guys want the world to stop spinning and time to stop passing while you whine about what might have been, if only this man was not really a United States citizen. There is a real word, you know, and you are irrelevant to it.

    Finally George Archibald [redacted] Don’t believe me? Read more about him. He’s said to be a repeat Pulitzer Prize nominated reporter. I don’t doubt it. I once worked with a colleague who proudly told me that he had, over the course of 40 years, been nominated for the Pulitzer 7 times. I was duly impressed, and deferred to his judgment on several occasions, on several issues.Then I learned: he had been self-nominated.

    George has spent too much of his time looking into other people’s personal lives for my tastes. He may be worthy of some prize, but just not this one.

    • Right Winger says:

      Oh Roscoe, you are way too interested in my opinions. It’s funny how stuff like this brings out posters with different names and people in the Pacific Northwest who have no possible connection to our fair little county. I Wonder how they find us? But it’s good for CDN, no problem with that. Just find it amusing that one person like myself who really doesn’t give a hoot about politics can really rankle you so.

  15. Naked Truth says:

    Maybe to be far, Archibald ought to uncover where George W Bush was really at during his years with the National Guard.

    • Dan Rather did extensive digging on this, to a point where he was touting forged documents on the CBS Evening News as the real thing. It eventually cost him both his job and credibility

      • Naked Truth says:

        So you pick what you believe to be true, without first-hand knowledge?

        • Here’s all you need to know about Dan Rathers slide down the rabbit hole

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

          The right hand side shows the supposed “real” document that was supposedly written on a typewriter. It was overlayed by the same document typed out on Word. Hmmmm. Looks identical, which is an impossiblity considering the type set was different on a 1972 typewriter verse Word.

          But that didn’t stop gool ol’ Dan from presenting it as real to the American people. Even after other networks stopped showing it and/or refuted the documents, good ol’ Ahab……..or,uh, Dan, in his chase for the Great Whale, stood by it night after night on CBS, and it eventually got him and a few other uppity ups fired

          And the networks wonder why their veiwership is going down or why no one believes the MSM anymore

          • Naked Truth says:

            I know, you all believe Fox News. It was a couple of years ago, when Fox said if you didn’t support the President, you were Un-American. Funny how a Democratic President changes things.

          • And funny how during the Bush adminstration, especailly during the Iraq war, democrats said “dissent was the highest form of patriotism”

            Funny indeed

  16. Uncommonsenser says:

    Oh Geez, another Birther bellyaching, wasting judicial time and resources. A hearing in 60 days? Whoever gave you that line doesn’t know squat about the law or the federal courts. Here’s how this is going to turn out: Archibald is going to get thrown out of court, either on a Motion to Dismiss or a Motion for Summary Judgment. If he ever bothers to figure out how to serve the defendants. Here’s hoping the US Attorney’s office asks for fees and costs. Enough is enough.

    Oh, btw, Archie, a parent can’t forfeit a child’s American citizenship. Crack a law book before filing this offal.

    • do you want to debate on the merits? or do you want to debate on the law? on either you have no standing….Shabazz is not a citiXen under any deifinition…..

  17. All you need to know, and we all know these simple facts;
    If your daddy was a Kenyan Brit, for the office of POTUS you’ll never be fit! A2. S1. p5
    Obama Sr. was never an American citizen, he was even deported. So under our Constitution and the British Nationality Act of 1948 which Obama Sr. lived under, Obama Jr. was born a British Subject! No British Subject can ever be considered a Natural Born American Citizen. Case Closed! He is a usurper!
    So!
    Want to get him out of office?Let’s talk people and numbers for a second! With the exception of Paul, the rest of the RepubliCAN”T field is Obama lite as has been stated before. Not a one will barricade our borders, deport 20M illegals, cut the Communist give-me-programs, simplify the income tax, and start taxing the 47% while their benefits are already being cut. So why will Americans get out next November and take a part of their day to vote. Sure they hate Obama, but they don’t have a champion that will go to war and defeat the Communist coup that has America by the throat. Knowing this they will stay at home and let the foreign Muslim Communist usurper get his underclass slaves to elect him once again. Just promise them more handouts, you don’t have to fulfill them all, just read that teleprompter and chant more, more, more. They’ll come out in droves and ACORN vans. But wait. What about the forgotten ones? The anti war, bring the troupes home, no war is worth fighting, baby boomers. Or the feminist pro Hillary hanging oners that have never forgotten that evil black MAN usurped their Queen! Now think about this. Want to get rid of Obama? You don’t have a candidate to fulfill your wildest dreams you just want to get rid of Obama! Run Ron Paul against him! Bring back Sarah Palin as VP. The old anti war hippies, Feminazies, and true haters of Obama will put Ron Paul over the top. This would be the biggest Republican turnout you could get! What you got to lose? 4 more years of Obama?

    • Nope…the case closed is the determination that you do not know what you’re talking about. Obama was born on the soil of the United States of America – the Big Island of Hawai’i. According to the US Constitution, that grants him citizenship. His application to run as a presidential candidate was vetted by the FBI 4 years ago, and nothing was found to invalidate his application; else, why would he have been allowed to continue to run for that office if his standing as a candidate did not meet the minimum legal definitions? His long-form BC was released, and certified by an officer of the State of Hawai’i.

      Truly, it is apparent that there are those of you who will never rest on this issue, regardless of the facts that get in your way. Sad to see the gall that churns in you all is so potent.

      • WindCommander says:

        What we have is a failure of our educational system.

        The founding fathers wanted to make certain that a foreign agent (especially British) could not hold the office of POTUS and destroy this great country from within. As a safeguard they chose the language of A2 S1 C5 to specifically require a natural born citizen. Such a term was well understood in 1787 to mean a person born of TWO CITIZEN PARENTS or in other words a citizen BY BLOOD!

        The official definition of “natural born citizen” was set in a Supreme Court case, Minor V. Happerset, to be born of two citizen parents. This precedent has been used several times in later cases and still applies now!

        It easy to see how the country was duped into electing the first Resident of the US (no P), but now that error must be corrected. There are ballot challenges occurring in NH, GA, AL, HI and soon to be more. An 85 page report was submitted in NH showing the evidence that Obama cannot be placed on a ballot. This will continue and grow until justice prevails.

    • Obama’s mother is an American citizen and no matter where her son was born, this makes him an American citizen. If his father was a British citizen the child will be afforded dual citizenship. We have an African American President. Get over it for this “feminazi” will vote for him. Again.

      • The New Kenyan Government in the WH says:

        An American citizen is not a qualification to be President. It is a natural born citizen.

  18. Johnie Bagofdoughnuts says:

    One way to settle it is bring out the microfilm files from the hospital like Sheriff Joe say’s. Obama has never proved anything on the BC issue.

    • Well, that would settle things.

      Here’s how the FOIA process works. When you make a request on a living person, the person’s information (SSN, date of birth,place of birth) is going to be protected under the Privacy Act of 1974. However, there is a release form you can fill out and send to the person on which you are requesting information. If they sign it, it makes the information protected under law releasable. Obama has never done that. He released a photcopied birth certificate after showing his lame short form for years. If he has nothing to hide, why not sign a release form and let everything out?

      As to the FBI, I’m sure they’ve never investigated a presidential candidate with Obama’s background. But I’m sure even if they did find something, can you imagine the political firestorm that would erupt if they came out and said, in the middle of Obama’s Kool Aid ride, that he’s not eleigible because he was a foreigner? Can you imagine the political fallout from that?

      I can hear the shouts of “racists”, “keeping the black man down” et al right now

      Personally, I’d like to see both the microfilm and the FBI report. I know for a fact that someone will not be cleared for a TS if both parents aren’t citizens, so they have to know the nationality of his parents .

      Bottom line is, why won’t he sign a consent form and let everything be released?

      • Keeping moving those goalpost.

        Originally it it was show us the LFBC now it’s show us the microfilm of the LFBC. Why should anyone believe that the microfilm would satisfy you.

        Here is a site, you might find interesting:

        http://www.obamabirthbook.com/

        It addresses your concerns about the LFBC.

        As to his SSN, all evidence (selective service record, tax returns) show that he has used the same SSN since 1980. There is not a single piece of evidence that he has ever used any other SSNs. There are public databases which contain disclaimers that they are not responsible for thier accuracy. But even Neil Sankey who found the “multiple SSNs” in those databases says they are meaningless.

        “Most recently, he carried out an exhaustive search of databases that he claims threw up 140 different identification numbers and addresses for “Barack Obama”. He admits the findings prove nothing — there is nothing to link the entries to the president — but he believes it raises further doubts that need investigating.”

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/22/barack-obama-british-conspiracist

        That was in November, 2009 and still there is nothing to link the entries to the President.

        • The SSN is a whole other rabbit hole

          http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=344461

          Like I said, if he’d just sign one of those Third Party release forms, we’d know everything.

          Why won’t he do it?

          • Sarge,

            Did you see this category at the WND link.

            6.SSN Assignment Based on Harassment/Abuse/Life Endangerment

            Do you think that with all the publicity about his SSN that the Social Security Administration may have flagged his SSN in their system?

            So what would you do if irresponsible people broadcast your SSN widely over the internet? Get a new SSN?

      • Sharon Strickland says:

        Sarge – FYI–I held a Top Secret for a very long time and my father was a Virginian and my mother was never a citizen. She was an Irish War Bride. I worked as a DoD manager, Office of the Secretary of Defense. Believe me, I was checked in every way and my NACI file states my mother was never a citizen.

        So, your stating that to have a TS a person must have two citizens as parents will not stand. Sorry.

        • Sharon

          It sounds like you’re retired. Did you have a clearance pre or post 9/11? When I went thru the process(post 9/11 last time) , I was told that your parents and grandparents had to be American or have some kind of legal status. I have a friend that is second generation Russian who was told that the requirement used to be four generations and that if that had not changed, she would not have been cleared.

          Now like I said, it’s not like presidents are held to the same standards simply because Obama’s admitted drug use (more than recreational) would have precluded him from getting a TS. I know for a fact that government agencies are having a hard time recruiting right now because most of the kids that apply have more than recreational drug use in their past.

          And you know the double jeopardy. Lie about your anything and get caught, you can kiss a TS goodbye.

          BTW, Obamas father was not American. He never had any status here except foreign student. I believe he was even deported at some point.

  19. Roscoe Evans says:

    For the same reason that he is unlikely to remove all of his clothing and allow you to probe his every oriface to prove his humanity: your demands are extralegal, unprecedented, and irrelevant, and calculated only to demean and discredit the man.

    • My demand is to ensure that the country is not being run by a foreigner with foreign leanings. It’s disturbing enough that he bows to every foreign leader that there is, especially muslim ones. Personally, I believe he has muslims leanings simply because at the age he was in school in Indonesia (which BTW has the largest population of muslims on the planet) he was quite probably expected to start memorizing the koranic verses. Hence his quote that the muslim call to prayer was the “most beautiful sound he’d ever heard”. Hence his backing of “democracy groups” in the middle east, all of which are pro Iranian and even have some Al Qaeda mixed in in the case of Libya. Add to the fact that he was “mentored” by a known communist, hung around an American hating preacher and was buds with a terrorist that participated in domestic bombings and is to this day still teaching in collage.

      Can you imagine if any of the Republicans running for office had that background? I mean for crying out loud, the media is whining about how much Newt spent on his wife in a jewlery store and about Herman Cains supposed affairs. It’d be a 24 hour circus.

      But demand t know what the FBI found about Obama and you’re a fringe kook

      Sad that people are so snookered, even to this day

  20. The Obama Timeline author says:

    Read The Obama Timeline; it supports Archibald’s claim.

    Although the birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Obama (“BHOSO”) is clearly fraudulent, it does not matter. Obama cannot legally serve as president, regardless of where he was born.

    In 1862, Congressman John Bingham—the “father of the 14th Amendment”—stated, “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” In 1866 Bingham stated, “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” Bingham’s definition was never disputed by other Congressmen. (Unscrupulous Obots—including attorneys filing briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court—have omitted the words “of parents” when quoting Bingham’s statement, in a shameful and intentional effort to mislead.)

    In Minor v. Happersett (1875) Chief Justice of the Supreme Court C. J. Waite wrote, “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

    • To understand the Framers meaning of the term “natural born Citizen”, we need to look to the writings of the people who were alive in 1787. Let’s see,

      “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.” William Rawle, 1826

      Timeline, did you know that William Rawle was a personal friend of Benjamin Franklin. That he and other Founders (Thomas Paine, Benjamin Rush, Robert Morris) use to go to Franklin’s house twice a month to discuss politics and the new country. They had to take a short break from there meetings as some of the members had to attend the Constitutional Convention. And did you know that President Washington appointed him to be the United States District Attorney for Pennsylvania.

      • The New Kenyan Government in the WH says:

        Rawle was a zealot and abolitionist. He spun his yarn to give citizenship to the slaves.

  21. It is interesting those who chastize any investigation of the current President were probably the first to raise and defend consipirancy against the past President (National Guard service, 9/11 duplicity, attack Iraq, Halliburton, etc)

    A Free Press is supposed to provide independant ‘checks and balances’ of the excesses of government. Without it would undoubtably lead to tyranny. The real danger arrises when the Press become the propaganda arm of the administration in power.

    It is the duty of the press, and citizens in general, to demand open access to our government officials – and with that constitutional right I salute Mr. Archibald’s efforts.

    • Fly on the wall says:

      CC, it’s just as interesting that you choose to make broad generalizations about those criticizing this waste of court time and resources. The past POTUS had his flaws and intellectual shortcomings and so forth, and the current POTUS is not perfect, either. Indeed, even Reagan (gasp!) and Washington (double gasp!!) were flawed men, too. You act like you know me, but you do not.

      The president, the secretary of the state of Hawai’i, and the FBI and the board the governs national elections have produced sufficient evidence that Mr. Obama was and is adequently credentialed to be (and run for re-election as) POTUS. If his documents weren’t in order, back in 2007, do you honestly think he would have been allowed to run? I don’t think so.

      • clarke conservative says:

        It is Mr. Archibald’s constitutional right to waste court time and resources. It is his right as a journalist and as a citizen to question government, to demand answers from those who choose to represent us, to find out the truth.

        If there is nothing to hide … then what does this administration have to worry about?

        • Roscoe Evans says:

          For the sake of George’s pocketbook, I hope Judge Walton does not find that Archibald is wasting the court’s time and resources.

          By the way, did CDN ask Archibald who is funding his windmill tilt? That’s been part of the journalist’s drill, at least since Richard Nixon’s Watergate.

          • FOIA requests are free up to a certain page count

          • Zephaniah Swift, US Congressman and future Chief Justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court published, “A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: in Six Books”

            In what is the first legal treatise published in the United States (1795), Swift wrote,

            “The children of aliens born in this state are considerded as natural born subjects and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens. “

  22. Roscoe Evans says:

    So, we’re supposed to believe that the FBI has information that our President is a foreign national, acting intentionally against the interests of the United States, and that George Archibald knows this but is being frustrated by federal law and procedure from proving it, huh?

    How many individuals are part of this conspiracy, and what motivates them?

    I have read George Achibald’s autobiography. He made a name for himself by probing other men’s personal lives. [redacted] his methods are reprehensible. Go right ahead: buy and read his bio. he needs your cash.

  23. I salute you, Mr. Archibald!!!

  24. richard saunders says:

    how about those non b/c records sealed up nice & tight?
    1. who paid the tuition for the exclusive punahou schooling & grade point average?
    2. occidental college tuition & records?
    3. columbia tuition & records?
    4. harvard…..
    5. harvard law review articles?
    6. universtiy of chicago?

    my guess is that if those records are released they will prove that barry soetoro got a free ride from affirmative action & was at best another “c” student.

  25. Voice of Reason says:

    In other countries and in other times, publicly questioning the legitimacy of the head of state would get you imprisoned or far worse. Thankfully, we live in a country where we can engage in this type of debate. Having said that, I think we need to be careful. Debating the policies of our leadership is our responsibility as informed citizens of a democracy; the loyal opposition. Arguing whether or not our elected leaders are really legitimate does not move this discussion of policy forward. The current president was elected by the voters of the United States; the ones who choose to exercise that option. To repeatedly question the lineage of the president 3 years into his term appears “Warren Comission”- the grassy knoll -conspiratorial at best or over the top partisan at worst and takes away from the real debate. Election day 2012 is less than a year away. No matter if you support or oppose, celebrate the fact that we can have this debate and VOTE.

  26. The New Kenyan Government says:

    [redacted] A natural born citizen is born in the US to citizen parents.

    • Fly on the wall says:

      Here’s what the Constitution has to say. Pay attention to the first sentence:

      AMENDMENT XIV
      Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

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

      http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html

  27. The New Kenyan Government in the WH says:

    Here are a few facts…

    1. Indonesia doesn’t allow or recognize dual citizenship.

    2. Adoption under age 5 results in automatic Indonesian citizenship, as long as the adoption is registered with the Indonesian courts.

    3. The U.S. state department has recognized that the U.S. cannot protect the citizenship of children adopted OUT of the United States, especially to countries that are not part of the Hague Convention.

    Under International Law, Obama would not have been a dual citizen if he was adopted in Indonesia.

    4. Obama was not a natural U.S. citizen at birth and he may have had foreign citizenship as an adult.

    If he has lied or tried to cover up his foreign citizenship, then he has defrauded the American public.

  28. The New Kenyan Government in the WH says:

    Obama’s vital records have never been presented in front of a judge. It is time for the stonewalling to stop. It is time Obama’s political operative stop flooding the internet with misinformation in an attempt to deceive the voters.

    How many voters knew Obama’s father was deported at the request of Harvard College back in 1964. Why was this information buried by the media prior to the election.

    How many voters know Mr. Obama could have been legally deported with his father? If junior was living with senior..he would have been deported.

    Obama never satisfied the subject to jurisdiction requirement in the 14th Amendment and he never met the requirements in Wong Kim Ark. Obama’s father was a transient alien student who never had permanent residency and domicile.

    Several Supreme Court Justices have defined a …natural born citizen is born to citizen parents.

    The Supreme Court has never said…a natural born citizen is born to a citizen and a Kenyan. NEVER.

    • Roscoe Evans says:

      Barry Obama and Mama Obama did not travel to Indonesia until Barry was SIX. Your house of cards, predicated upon your puported “fact” number 2, lacks a foundation.

      To get before a judge, you need a justiciable issue. “He is not one of us” does not qualify.

      Obama’s father was a bigamist, a fact that bothered Harvard. He also was a subject of the British Commonwealth when Junior was born.

      Kenya was not an independent nation when Barack was born.

      These, too are a few facts.

      Few of your facts, like few of mine, matter.

    • Neither have the vital records of almost every American Citizen. So what.

      He has a certified birth certificate from Hawaii. That in and of itself is enough to qualifiy him to be President. And it doesn’t need to present in a court.

      The Supreme Court has never ruled on the definition of natural born.

      Reread Wong Kim Ark. It did.

  29. The New Kenyan Government in the WH says:

    What is left out of this discussion..Wong Kim Ark satisfied the citizenship requirements laid down by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark v the United States. One of the requirements is both parents must have domicile and permanent residency at the birth of the child.

    Obama does not meet the same requirement if he was born in Hawaii. This is overlooked by the voters. Obama’s father was a transient alien student who had no plans to stay in the US. He was never a permanent resident and he was not domiciled.

    Justice Gray affirmed Ark a citizen. He was never affirmed a natural born citizen. Justice Gray could not because Minor v Happersett defined a natural born citizen as being born in the US to citizen parents.

    Gray had to devise this new type citizenship..a citizenship different from a natural born citizen.

    • “Justice Gray affirmed Ark a citizen. He was never affirmed a natural born citizen. Justice Gray could not because Minor v Happersett defined a natural born citizen as being born in the US to citizen parents.”

      Justice Gray said,
      “His [an alien] allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”

      1) an alien’s allegiance to US is direct and immediate;
      2) continuing while in the United States
      3) and his allegiance is so strong that like in England his child is “natural born”
      4) and the child is a citizen.

      As to Minor v. Happersett, that case has never been seen as defining “natural born citizens”.

      “But the supreme court has never squarely determined, either prior to or subsequent to the adoption of the fourteenth amendment in 1868, the political status of children born here of foreign parents. In the case of Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 168, the court expressly declined to pass upon that question.”

      Justice Morrow, Wong Kim Ark, District Court Northern District of California, January 3, 1896 No. 11, 198.

      and

      “Thus, the Court [Minor Court] left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.”

      Court of Appeals of Indiana, Ankeny and Kruse, vs. Governor of the State of Indiana,

      • The New Kenyan Government in the WH says:

        The comment is a nonsense assumption. The court never said such thing. WKA was affirmed a citizen because his parents were domiciled at his birth. Obama was never domiciled. WKA meets Grays definition of citizenship and the 14th Amendment’s subject to jurisdiction.

        Mr. Obama if born in Hawaii does not meet the same standards as WKA.

        Obots need to get their stories straight.

        • Fly on the wall says:

          Obama was born in Hawai’i, which – in 1961 – was officially the 50th state in the United States of America. Thus, anyone born in that state is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States government. Plus, his mother was a full US citizen.

          “Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

          Sorry, NKG, your thin arguments don’t stand up in the most basic of Constitutional tests.

  30. George Archibald says:

    In response, let me commend the accurately reported story of my lawsuit by Ed Leonard, and the valuable information contained in many of the comments. Contrary to some comments, one vital objective of the lawsuit not discussed in the story or any of the comments was my demand under law for an itemized listing of all documents from the Obama FBI background investigation that the government has withheld under the Freedom of Information Act.

    The Supreme Court ruled long ago that such an itemized listing, called a Vaughn Index, must be provided when a government agency refuses to release documents in its possession under the FOIA, along with the reason for the denial, which must be a valid refusal under one of seven exemptions listen in the FOIA statute. A Vaughn Index is standard procedure in FOIA denials, but the FBI and Justice Department under direction of President Obama’s appointees have refused to comply with this requirement.

    Obviously I must correct the untrue implication of commenter Roscoe Evans that I nominated myself four times for the Pulitzer Prize in journalism. The Washington Times newspaper nominated me successively for Pulitzers for exclusive national news investigative journalism — the Geraldine Ferraro financial ethics story in 1984; the Michael Deaver lobbying story in 1985; for United Nations misuse of U.S. financing in 1995; and for coverage of the national education story from 2002-05.

    It is standard practice for national news organizations to choose what they believe to be their best work in reporting and photography for the Pulitzer and other major competitions.

    I am sorry that the emotionalism generated by the Obama controversy has resulted in the implication made by Mr. Evans regarding my own journalism honors.

    • But isn’t a Vaughn Index only generated after a search for records? In your case no such search took place because you asked for the records of a live person. No search, no Vaughn index.

      Can you clear of the question of when you believe President Obam returned from Indonesia to the United States. The article makes it appear that you believe he returned in 1979. This would be factual wrong.

      • George Archibald says:

        Response to GORE FAN: No, at the time of the government’s initial denial of my FOIA request last May, the FBI was required under the decision in Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F 2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973) to provide me an itemized Vaughn Index that properly identified and justified each document withhheld under a specific FOIA exemption.

        The government’s hostility to this FOIA request and failure to produce a required Vaughn index has prevented scholars, researchers, the news media, and general public specific knowledge of what information and documents exist — including other federal, state, and Indonesia government records regarding President Obama’s legal birth, nationality, residency, citizenship, and changes throughout his life that relate to his qualifications as a candidate and the legitimacy of his presidency.

        The only goal here is to get complete answers to unanswered persistent questions with solid documentation that may or may not be in the FBI files. The thoroughness of the FBI background check is itself an important question that should be resolved for the historical record.

        • You mean Captain Transparency, the man who said he’d run the most transparent adminstration in history, is hostile to a FOIA request? God knows he’s declassified enough other stuff.

          And so much for this quote,eh?

          “Information will not be withheld just because I say so. It will be withheld because a separate authority believes my request is well grounded in the Constitution. Let me say it as simply as I can, transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.”

        • I believe your understanding of a Vaughn Index is mistaken.

          From Judical Watch v. Clinton,

          “Agencies need not provide a Vaughn Index until ordered by a court after the plaintiff has exhausted the administrative process”

          And from Allen v. Department of Homeland Security,

          “Furthermore, to the extent Plaintiff requests a “Vaughn” index from the Defendants to justify non-disclosure of all the documents to the Court, such a requirement is unwarranted as Plaintiff failed to perfect his FOIA requests by not complying with the applicable regulations; as such, the agencies were not required to search for the documents in question and do not have any documents to index as they appropriately did not search for the documents at issue”

          Until they are required to search for the documents, they do not have to index anything. Because your FOIA failed at the inital stage (lack of signed consent from a living third party), there never was search.

        • The FBI does not do background checks on Presidential Candidates. The EO that you refer to 10450 is only for employees hired by an agency or department.

          This transcript of a call with Special Agent-in-Charge: C. Frank Figliuzzi of the Cleveland FBI.

          http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/09/20/philip-j-berg-lawsuit-obamacrimescom-colb-update-comments-insights-fbi-response-special-agent-in-charge-background-checks-elected-officials-american-political-process-berg-website-comments/

          In summary, the FBI does not do background checks on candidates for elected office.

          • This is incorrect. The FBI does all the background checks for government agencies. Well, except for one agency that starts with “C” and ends with “IA”

            Again, they do not give security clearances to presidential candidates per say. They do background checks. They are two different things. Obama would not pass a TS security clearance screening. He may not even pass muster for a “Secret” clearance

          • Fly on the wall says:

            So…you know more than that FBI special agent with knoeledge of his own department? You’re also forgetting that, as a sitting Senator, Mr. obama already HAD his security clearance. As do Mrs. Bachmann and Mr. Paul as sitting Representatives. Since they do not “work” for any specific agency, how does your thin argument stand up?

          • Generally, agents themselves don’t conduct those investigations. There are far too many of them and far too few agents to have that going on. And having a TS clearance doesn’t mean you get to see everything you desire. It’s all on a “Need to know basis.

            Again, if Barack Obama were an average American aplying for a TS clearance, he’d be denied just based on drug use alone, and probably on his associations as well

          • Right Winger says:

            “…average American aplying for a TS clearance, he’d be denied just based on drug use alone,…”

            Not true. If past drug use were a disqualifying factor in the Clearance process, you’d be hard pressed to find many clearable folks. Lying, however, will always disqualify.

          • I know this thread is getting long, but I posted in here about how government agencies are having a hard time recruiting people for sensitive postions right now because of their past drug use.

          • Right Winger says:

            More than likely it’s people lying about it. They usually adjudicate it out if the subject signs a form that they won’t use anymore. However, the more current the drug use, the less likely the clearance will go through.

          • RW,

            If you lie,and get caught in the investigation, you’re toast. The government doesn’t want liars in the civilian workforce, just in Congress.

            Of course, the conundrum is that if you tell the truth about snorting coke or other dubious activities, you’re toast as well.

  31. Roscoe Evans says:

    No George. The point of my remark is that I deferred to the judgment of my coworker on the basis of his purported honors, instead of evaluating his comments on their merits. His “honors” were irrelevant to his remarks, as are yours.

    I have read your autobiography. Like every writer, including me, you need an editor, and its shows. I hear you are a fun guy, but I dislike your politics, and consider this effort to de-legitimize a sitting president, elected by a popular and electoral college majority, akin to a political assassination.

    Good luck with Judge Walton. He is unlikely to defer to your journalism honors, but will render an opinion on the merits, instead. If there are any.

  32. The New Kenyan Government in the WH says:

    Mr. obama’s supporters like to claim WKA was affirmed a natural born citizen to justify Mr. obama. This is false.

    Please note Chief Justice Fuller in dissent quoted Vattel….”natural born citizens are born from citizen parents”.

    The Obama supporters want this hidden. A vast conspiracy is underway to hide the truth regarding Mr. Obama’s spurious birth.

    There can be no doubt Mr. Obama is merely a perpetual inhabitant. He is not a 14th Amendment citizen and he is not a natural born citizen defined by numerous Supreme Court Justices.

    • Interesting that you cite from the dissenting opinion. But ok

      Chief Justice Fuller in his dissent also said,

      “And it is this rule [English Common Law], pure and simple, which it is asserted [by Justice Gray’s opinion] determined citizenship of the United States during the entire period prior to the passage of the act of April 9, 1866, and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, and governed the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen” used in the Constitution as originally framed and adopted.”

      And he said,

      “I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”

      Two questions:

      1.) if the majority opinion is not declaring WKA a “natural born citizen”, why is Justice Fuller saying that it does?

      2.) If Minor v. Happersett created a binding precedent for the meaning of the term “natural born citizen”, why didn’t Justice Fuller cite it as such? Remember Justice Fuller wrote the Ex Parte Lockwood decision.

      When Justice Fuller finally does cite the Minor decision he cites the question of doubts about the citizenship of child born to foreigners and says “for the purposes of the case then in hand, it was not necessary to solve.”

  33. The New Kenyan Government in the WH says:

    Let me explain what is a spurious birth. This comes from Roman Law. When a child is born to parents who have different citizenship’s or different countries. This child is considered spurious. A spurious birth is unnatural.

    A natural birth is a child born to parents from the same country. Obama has a spurious birth. The Framers knew the meaning of spurious.

    • A natural birth can also be an out of wedlock birth.

      “M. Marbois asked, are natural children admitted in America to all privileges like children born in wedlock ? I answered, They are not admitted to the rights of inheritance; but their fathers may give them estates by testament, and they are not excluded from other advantages.” Diary of John Adams, Vol. III

  34. The New Kenyan Government in the WH says:

    Please permit to show how Mr. Obama’s supporters spread misinformation. They like to quote from Justice Gray in WKA. This is what he said and his supporters like to spread around the internet.

    “All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons bornin the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance gotogether. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as in England.”

    They use this quote to falsely prove Obama is a natural born citizen. What is the origin this quote. Lets investigate.

    This is taken from U.S. v Rhodes (a circuit court decision), but in that decision, this passage is summarizing dicta in Shanks v. Dupont, an 1830 SCOTUS case.

    Here it is folks:

    “The Treaty of 1783 acted upon the state of things as it existed at that period. It took the actual state of things as its basis. All those, whether natives or otherwise, who then adhered to the American states were virtually absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown; all those who then adhered to the British Crown were deemed and held subjects of that Crown”

    When it says “natives or otherwises,” the natives refers to people born on U.S. soil. Depending on the political allegiance of the parents, you could be born on U.S. soil and be a British citizen, not a U.S. citizen.

    It says if you “adhered” to the Crown, you were a British subject … native or otherwise (born in the U.S. or not). The key factor isn’t jus soli, it’s jus sanguinis. If we are to accept a common-law definition of NBC, the key factor is jus sanguinis.

    The other problem is that the common law in England required the parents to have “actual obedience” to the crown. There’s no American concept analogous to this. Second, English common law did not respect dual allegiances. You had solitary allegiance to the crown and it was perpetual allegiance. By citing the passages above, with reference to the Treaty of 1783, it is saying you cannot be a dual citizen. You are either one or the other.

    Your allegiance (through the parents ) is either to the crown and you are a subject, or you’re allegiance is to the United States and you are a natural-born citizen by birth. It doesn’t accept a combination of allegiances. Obama’s father never had allegiance to the United States.

    His mother’s allegiance is irrelevant, because a natural-born citizen cannot be a dual citizen by the terms of this treaty. It explains why Gray used common law, but NOT the term natural-born citizen, to declare Wong Kim Ark to be a citizen by birth. What he did require, however, was permanent residence and domicil, neither of which that Obama’s parents had.

    • Jane Boyles says:

      I would like to add a slightly different perspective to this discussion as a person who has gone through the immigration and naturalization process and who is very familiar with these US Government procedures. Just for the record, I received a temporary visa in 1995 when I immigrated to America from England and a conditional permanent visa in 1996. I received my permanent resident status and Green Card in 1998, and I achieved my US Citizenship by Naturalization in 2006. I was born in England, and on achieving my US Citizenship I did not renounce my United Kingdom Citizenship, so became a Dual Citizen, holding both USA and UK passports. Also, during the time I was going through my immigration process, my US-born husband and I had two children, both of whom were born in Winchester Hospital, and both of whom are Dual Citizens of the USA and the UK.

      A very useful booklet has been produced by the US Office of Personnel Management Investigations Service, titled “Citizenship Laws of the World” and published by the Library of Congress, International Law Division, Law Library, and Directorate of Legal Research:

      http://www.opm.gov/extra/investigate/is-01.pdf

      This document details every single country in the world and itemizes that country’s citizenship requirements and if dual citizenship is recognized or not. Please look on page 9 for the USA listing, page 95 for the Indonesian listing, page 106 for the Kenyan listing, and page 208 for the UK listing.

      The most relevant information is to be found in the USA listing. It states that US Citizenship is based upon Title 8 of U.S. Code 1401 – 1409, dated 1986, and that US Citizenship is conferred in 4 ways – by birth, descent, naturalization, and other (certain provisions to persons who have performed specific military service to this country). So, US citizenship is conferred by birth:

      “Child born within the territory of the United States, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.”

      Also for the record, the State Department has produced a very succinct leaflet describing Dual Nationality:

      http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html#

      The US Immigration Service also sets out details regarding Dual Citizenship in the US:

      http://www.us-immigration.com/information/dual_citizenship.html

      Lastly, the “Citizenship Laws of the World” document explains Dual Citizenship thus:

      “Based on the U.S. Department of State regulation on dual citizenship (7 FM 1162), the Supreme Court of the United States has stated that dual citizenship is a “status long recognized in the law” and that “a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both. The mere fact he asserts the rights of one citizenship does not without more mean that he renounces the other.” (Kawakita v. U.S., 343 U.S. 717) (1952).