Source: http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2012/11/obamas-indonesian-records-further.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 02:00:11+00:00

Document:
THE FULLMOST MEASURE OF SOVEREIGNTY - By default, all candidates are ineligible, not eligible, to hold the office of President until they are proven otherwise. Natural-born citizens are those citizens born under what America’s founders commonly and mutually held as the natural laws of God which, thereby, afford the individual with natal citizenry protected under both the jurisdiction of the constitutional laws of the nation, and by birth to two citizen parents, without relinquishment of that status by expatriation, renunciation or foreign adoption.
NEW YORK, NY – A report released today by TheBlaze.com further affirms that Barack Obama is not eligible to serve as the U.S. president and, therefore, became an illegal president in 2008, because he relinquished his natural-born citizenship status when he became a citizen of Indonesia and that he, most likely, was adopted by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro.
Upon completion of an investigation in Indonesia, the report by TheBlaze's Charles Johnson only clarifies public perception that Obama’s Constitutional legitimacy to hold the office of U.S. President will remain permanently damaged in the absence of confirmative evidence proving otherwise. It was deemed so in this manner so that a candidate’s eligibility could be upheld by the people’s understanding that their welfare was securely held within inviolable sovereignty.
Candidates who fail to meet the measureable standards of eligibility defined by age and duration of residence as well as the full-most possible precepts of the natural-born citizenship requirement, are inferior and deficient by varying degrees up to and including disqualification, unless they are able to refute their lack of legitimacy with irrefutable evidence.
Editor’s note (from TheBlaze): Writer Charles C. Johnson will join TheBlaze Editor-in-Chief Scott Baker to talk about this story on today’s BlazeCast.
As part of our series on President Obama’s education and past, we interviewed Barack Obama’s first ever principal, Father Bart Janssen. Our freelance correspondent, Charles C. Johnson, went all the way to Indonesia to find out more about Obama’s past.
Enrollment documents viewed by TheBlaze confirm that a young Barack Obama was listed as an Indonesian citizen and a Muslim on school registration in the 1960s. And while the document has been reported on before, albeit lightly, TheBlaze has compiled the most complete view thus far of the document and the circumstances surrounding it – including an interview with the president’s first-ever principal while he was in Indonesia.
TheBlaze repeatedly photographed the document in the office of the current headmaster of Santo Fransiskus Assisis, a Catholic school that Obama attended from January 1968 to December 1970 in Jakarta. The record shows that Obama (or his parents) – at least for the period of his life – claimed to be an Indonesian citizen, that he took the last name Soetoro (the last name of his step-father, Lolo), that his religion was listed as Islam, and that he was born in Honolulu.
While Obama’s time at Santo Fransiskus is important (and we’ll explore it in more detail shortly), it’s just as crucial to fastforward to when Obama left the school.
According to records at Santo Fransiskus Assisis, Obama left after 1970 because his family moved. That move was due to Lolo leaving Dinas Topografi, a mapmaking survey company that contracted with the Indonesian army—which is listed in the document we viewed—to join Union Oil where he became a well-connected government liaison officer.
In a taped interview in Indonesian and subsequent email with Akhmad Solikhin, Besuki’s current principal, he told my Indonesian translator and me that, other than Obama, there has only been one non-Indonesian at the school—a Dutch student. That’s not surprising considering Besuki School, founded in 1934, was formerly Carpentier Alting Stichting Nassau School — a school run and controlled by the Dutch for the Dutch colonialists and the Indonesian elite. In 1962 — before Obama attended in 1970 — it was taken over by the Indonesian government. Besuki was then and is now a prestigious place where potential students sit on waitlists. In fact, in 2007 Besuki began using a mandatory admissions test to try and cut down on the number of Indonesian children trying to get in.
Why is this all important? Because given that history, it doesn’t seem likely that the school would have wasted one of their prized seats on a student not claiming to be Indonesian, especially when it was the sort of place that educated the children of government officials and the well-to-do.
Could Obama Have Gone to a Public Indonesian School Without Claiming to Be a Citizen?
Thanks to the political instability in Indonesia that took place between 1965-1967, public records for the 1960s are spotty, at best, for all levels of government. Only the Catholic school Obama attended – St. Fransiskus — had any records to speak of regarding claims of citizenship.
Nevertheless, my Indonesian-born translator and I were able to speak with several government officials about the policy governing adoptions and foreign nationals attending public school. Was it possible that Obama could have gotten into Indonesian public schools without claiming to be an Indonesian citizen?
We searched for any such permission document Obama may have submitted to the department of education by Lolo Soetoro or Ann Dunham, but came up empty. We also could not find records at Besuki School, despite requests.
So how did Obama get in?
It has been a source of speculation for some time that Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro. It is always a possibility, and it could explain at least the citizenship claim on the school form. However, it’s important to not that even if Obama was adopted and became an Indonesian citizen, he would not have lost his American citizenship under existing constitutional law (see the Supreme Court case Perkins v. Elg). Indonesia then and now does not allow dual citizenship, but under American law he would not have lost his American citizenship until he reached the age of majority and chose himself to give it up.
Defenders of the president (and detractors of the adoption theory) point to a 1958 Indonesian law that says a child cannot be adopted if they are over five years old and that Barry and his mother arrived in August 1967—after he had turned six. But Lolo and Ann Dunham married on March 15, 1965, when Obama was three and half and Lolo left for Indonesia in June 1966 while Obama was still four, according to Washington Post editor David Maraniss’s book, “Barack Obama: The Story.” Soetoro, then, could easily have filled out adoption forms, possibly in advance of the Indonesian school year that begins in July, in preparation of his wife and stepson’s arrival. We know that Obama’s mother suddenly reversed her previous position that her husband’s departure to Indonesia would cause undue mental hardship (Maraniss, p. 201) so presumably she had settled on living in Indonesia with her husband and child. Under Indonesian law, when a man married a woman with children, the woman’s children become Indonesian nationals, as well.
Additionally, the way Maraniss describes the relationship between Obama and his stepfather is like it were an adoption. “Like his mother, Barry took the Soetoro name. He called Ann mamah and Lolo papah and did not flinch when Lolo introduced him as his son.” (Maraniss, p. 230) So complete was the view that Barack Obama was Barry Soetoro that Israel Darmawan, Obama’s first grade teacher at Fransiskus Assisis, did not recognize who he was, according to one account.
While the current headmaster of Fransiskus Assisis did not know whose handwriting was on the form, she said it was safe to assume that the information on it was provided by Obama’s mother — his stepfather visited only rarely during the three years Obama attended school. That raises another theory: Could Ann Soetoro, who was said to have been very interested in her son’s education so much so that she tutored him in the morning, have lied or stretched the truth regarding her son’s status to help him get into Besuki school, the best school she could? If so, it wouldn’t be the last time that she did everything she could to have her son get the best possible education.
“His grandfather [Stanley] had told strangers that the boy was a descendant of ali ‘i, native Hawaiian royalty. In Obama’s later memoir, he recalled boasting at Punahou that his father was an African prince. Some classmates remembered it differently, that first he claimed his father was an Indonesian prince.” (p. 268).
It doesn’t end there. Obama’s Occidental College classmate Amiekohel “Kim” Kimbrew of Los Angeles recalled rumors that Obama was a “Hawaiian prince” to the Chicago Tribune. (“Activism blossomed in college,” Chicago Tribune, March 30, 2007).
We also know from reports in the student newspaper that Occidental, which prides itself on its diversity and international relations focus, was trying to bring more minority students to campus at the time. Might Obama have tried to pass himself off as still more diverse? Could he even have lied to “seem more exotic” to an admissions officer at Occidental or Columbia?
Add all that to the fact that Obama embellished in his book, Dreams from My Father, as Maraniss has noted, and that TheBlaze has also revealed in the past he lied about a “transfer program” he describes between Occidental and Columbia in the same book (no such transfer program exists).
That raises the question: Were Obama’s parents lying when they told Fransiskus Assisis that he was an Indonesian citizen?
It’s hard to say, but the answers to such questions matter.
To find out more about Obama’s time in Indonesia, TheBlaze tracked down Father Bart Janssen. He’s the elderly founder of Santo Fransiskus Assisis who we found in a monastery in Den Bosch, The Netherlands. We asked him, through a Dutch translator, what he remembers of the young Barack Obama.
In the late 1960s, Janssen was sent by the Bishop of Jakarta to set up a church in the region, which at the time was a small village well beyond the city limits of Jakarta (though now sits practically in the middle of Jakarta due to the amazing growth of the city). And while his goal was a church, the school was a way to assimilate into the community.
“There were not Catholic churches or schools in that area at the time – it was quite remote, a little village, if you will. Offering a good education was a typical way to get the local people involved with the church and become part of the community,” Janssen told us.
Obama was signed up for the school in 1968 as part of the second class of students entering the school. He was six years old at the time and attended first, second, and third grade there. Janssen doesn’t remember who registered Obama, but he recalls that Obama’s mother didn’t speak Indonesian at the time, so he thinks that both the stepfather and the mother would have been there together to register their son. He also doesn’t think the details in Obama’s registration document should be considered official declarations of his faith or citizenship because it wasn’t a government form and people played loose with such facts at the time. For example, it was typical to register as Indonesian and Islamic just because you were living there, so the religion indicated may just be what his father put down because it was the normal thing to do.
“That was just the norm,” Janssen explained.
It was, Janssen added however, well known that Obama was American and came to the school from Hawaii. And Janssen said he also had an understanding that Obama was raised Christian, though not Catholic, because his mother and natural father were known to be so. Janssen also said he knew that Obama’s birth father was from Kenya and that his mother was American.
And it wasn’t a requirement to be Indonesian or Catholic to attend the school. Things were loose in terms of citizenship requirements in Indonesia, Janssen recalled. He himself had Dutch citizenship when he first set up the school in 1967 and it wasn’t until 1982 that he changed his citizenship to Indonesian. He switched citizenship back to Dutch in 2005 when he returned to the Netherlands.
Though Indonesian citizenship wasn’t required, courses were taught in Indonesian and Obama learned the language in three months. Father Janssen recalled that when Obama took his Indonesian speaking test for the school, the young student told the class that he wanted to be president some day.
While Father Janssen didn’t teach classes and has no direct recollection about Obama’s performance as a student, he said Obama’s teacher told him that Obama was a good student and received good grades.
“He learned Indonesian in 3 months, after all,” he said.
He added that Obama’s parents rented a house nearby so that their son could attend the school, and also remembers that Obama was quite a bit bigger than most other students there.
Obama wasn’t the only foreign student in the school, but Janssen doesn’t recall how many were Indonesian students and how many came from other countries. He said about half the students were Catholic and the rest were other religions, including many of Islamic faith.
1.The document for the first-ever school Obama attended in Indonesia lists him as an Indonesian citizen (born in Hawaii) and a Muslim.
2.Those claims would have benefited a young Obama as he continued his schooling.
3.The Catholic priest who started the school, however, says it was not odd to lie about such things.
4.We know that Obama and his family have a history of mistruths.
5.But it’s also not far-fetched to consider that Obama’s step-father, Lolo, could have adopted him – thus making him an Indonesian citizen as a young boy.
6.Even if he was adopted and was an Indonesian citizen at one time, though, it would not have affected his status as a U.S. citizen per the Supreme Court.
Still, that leaves many questions. And the truth lies somewhere in those facts. Ultimately, only Obama knows for sure what that truth is. And depending on what happens on Tuesday we may or may not know anytime soon.
An exit after one term from the White House could act as a catalyst for more information more quickly. An Obama win, on the other hand, would likely keep any information – at least from the president himself — sealed for at least four more years.
Voters on Tuesday, then, may be deciding more than just who the next president is – they could help decide how much more we know about the one we have now.
Obama, who is not and never was an Indonesian citizen, as a telephone call to the Indonesian Embassy in Washington will confirm, and who was born in Hawaii as his birth certificate and the confirmation of the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii and the birth notice in the 1961 Hawaii newspapers sent to them by the DOH of Hawaii all confirm, was re-elected President of the United States last night. He received more than a majority of the popular vote and more than 300 Electoral Votes (when 369 was sufficient to win).
Go put your head back in the sand, you are brain dead!
More than two years have passed since this article was posted, and Obama is still the president of the United States, and there has not even been a call in the US Congress to investigate Obama's alleged Indonesian citizenship (or for that matter the even more nutty claim that he was born in a foreign country). That is because neither are true.
Obama and Beck deserve each other. One was never a NBC and one provided cover for the fraud that occurred. Beck has no credibility and his Blaze is years late to the party. i don't think Beck has ever been able to say the words "natural born citizen". He is afraid of Article II apparently.
Obama is a Natural Born Citizen (I don't know about Beck). Obama is a Natural Born Citizen because (1) he was born in Hawaii, as his birth certificate and the confirmations and the birth notices, etc all show; and (2) every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born Citizen.
Point Number 2 was decided by the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case (which BTW was AFTER Minor v. Happersett) and it ruled six to two, one justice not voting, that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth and that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born US citizen.
No credible evidence has ever been provided demonstrating that Obama is a Natural born citizen or that he was born anywhere, let alone Hawaii. The birth certificate you refer to has been proven by a 10 month investigation to be a .pdf counterfeit image allegedly made from as yet undisclosed document sources. Calling it a birth certificate is a lie. No corroborated evidence has been presented proving Obama's Hawaii birth. To say the image is proof of Hawaiian birth is a lie. Birth notices were automatically demonstrated from birth registrations submitted to the DOH, not from hospital birth records. To say the birth announcements indicate a birth in Hawaii is also a lie. Article II mandate supercedes all case law addressing the matter until the Constitution is lawfully amended directly addressing Presidential eligibility, not transient citizenship. The question is not of citizenship, it is of Presidential eligiblility. To say case law occurring 130 year too late means NBC as defined by the Const. is irrelevant is a lie. A natural born citizen is, at least, one born on U.S. soil under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Constitution to TWO citizen parents. Obama said this himself in support HR 511 Re: the eligibility of John McCain. All definitions which deviate are lies.
Only birther "experts"---who have not proved that they are really experts, and who certainly have not proved that they are fair and impartial---say that there is anything wrong with the image of Obama's birth certificate.
The birther "experts" include Paul Irey, who has repeatedly claimed that Obama did not attend Columbia College, despite the fact that Columbia University has stated that Obama did attend (and that he graduated). And they include Doug Vogt, who claims to have found the original altar of Abraham. It is such "experts" as these that the birthers rely on for their case.
There are many real experts who say that there is nothing wrong with Obama's birth certificate, including John Woodman, who happens to be a member of the Tea Party and who dislikes Obama and Obama's policies, but shows that the birther "experts" are wrong. They also include Ivan Zatkovich, who was hired by WND to examine the image of Obama's birth certificate, and when he submitted his report that there was nothing wrong with Obama's birth certificate, WND simply did not publish it.
It is clear that rational conservatives do not believe the "birth certificate was forged" claims. Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and the National Review certainly do not.
And the conservative secretary of state of Arizona asked Hawaii to confirm that Obama was born there and to confirm specified facts on Obama's birth certificate. Hawaii did, stating that it compared the image of Obama's birth certificate with the file copy (which is an additional confirmation that there was a file copy BTW) and that Obama was born there and that the facts match.
The secretary of state of Arizona accepted this confirmation and ruled that Obama will be on the ballot in Arizona in November, and he was--and he was on the ballot in ALL the states (and he won both the electoral college vote and the popular vote by more than two and a half million votes). This indicates that the conservative secretary of state of Arizona does not believe the claims that the birth certificate is forged (including those of Sheriff Joe) and that he does believe the officials in Hawaii.
How do we know that there is a birth certificate for Obama in the files in Hawaii and that it shows that Obama was born in Hawaii??
The first way is the short form birth certificate. That was created by a clerk copying the information off of the original document in the files. If there were no document, there could be no short form birth certificate. Hawaii has confirmed that it sent a short form birth certificate (COLB) to Obama.
The second way is that Hawaii said that there is, several times, under both Republican and Democrat governors.
The third reason is that the current director of health of Hawaii stated in a letter that she had seen the long form birth certificate being created by photocopying onto security paper the original document that was in the files.
The fourth reason is that the existence of Obama's birth certificate in 1961 is proven by the birth notices sent to the newspapers of Hawaii in 1961 by the DOH of Hawaii. Only the DOH could send those notices to the Health Bureau Statistics section of the papers, and the DOH sent only sent those notices for children whom it had issued birth certificates for.
Would you like me to post the citations of the confirmations by the officials in Hawaii?
And now, a question for the few who still think that Obama could have been born in a foreign country.
The meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE OF BIRTH, which in Obama's case was the USA, Hawaii having been a state in 1961. The meaning was defined by the Wong Kim Ark case, which was AFTER Minor v. Happersett, and which ruled six to two (one not voting) that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law (not from Vattel) and that it refers to the place of birth and that EVERY child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born US Citizen.
Obama said this himself in support HR 511 Re: the eligibility of John McCain..
Answer: Obama did not say a single thing. He did support the eligibility of John McCain who was born on a US naval base. Are you saying that a US naval base is not US soil???
That you still must defend him means that we have won. That you must exert your efforts in a mere campaign to defend the moment of his birth means that we are victorious in undermining his diabolical scheme for reparative justice. Whereas his power is usurped, his policies are even more illegitimate when measured against the laws of nature and decency. We are well in our knowledge that he would rather be unencumbered by such impalements but simply is unable to provide the qualifications to meet that mark.
That there remains such intense controversy among the public as to the eligibility of the usurper, Obama, it is enough to satisfy decent citizens knowing that conflict shall tarnish his name with an eternal indecisiveness of identity. Between the interpretation of terms and the constructional meaning of the words “natural” and “born” and “citizen”, as they apply to this man, it will never be forgotten forever the utter lack of consensus as to his original legitimacy as defined by the laws of nature, let alone bear the power of governmental office of men, provides circumstantial justice against him in the eyes of history. That is good enough for me, because thereon such disagreements lie the fertile seeds of revolution since his fraudulent power as a president will only be held in contempt by half the nation and diametrically garrisoned by the other.
In the absence of confirmative truth, the justified hostility against this man is well enough to call him inferior and undesirable, thereby successfully undermining his image and inflicting damage to his legacy at its foundation, regardless of legal prevalence or relief. That half of the multitude despises him for his delusions and lack of authenticity is well enough to set him in history’s unwantedness, because future generations will not define him by statutes, they will measure him by the metrics of honorability and worthiness. These are the qualities that endure, not that he was vigorously defended by his fawning minions. A man defended by protest is far more reviled by history than the man who need not be defended in the first place.
Shall anyone argue that the legitimacy of no other president in American history has been opposed by so many as Obama’s? That, in itself, is impairment enough to call him inferiorly qualified, argued against or not. That the question even persists among so many is confirmation of deficiency, regardless of legal provisions, for no other man of such lauded praise by a blind, bowing constituency has ever been proven so deficient, regardless of legal incrimination. That arguments still continue after 5 years is a conquest by vintage American citizenry. It is the glory hand taken by advanced citizens as reason warranting reconciliatory action…which will come.
As so stated into the record, whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen' of the United States, there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military, nor to prevent those children from serving as their country's President. Such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen'.
Re: "....means that we have won."
Obama is still the president, you know. That means you have lost.
Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it resolved, that John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
This understanding may have been reflected in the first naturalization act of 1790 "An Act to Establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization," which provided "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."
Even by the oft protested definition of NBC by citing common law, it is by the citizenship of the father to which the son is ligamened. Obama is a foreign-born usurper, ineligible to hold the blood-ransomed office of the U.S. presidency. Contradictions to this are vile lies.
Re: "Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936..."
That is right. He as born on an American military base--which is US soil---that is sufficient.
The children of US Ambassadors who are born outside of the USA MAY be natural born citizens. The children of foreign ambassadors born in the USA are NOT natural born citizens of the USA. But the children of everyone born in the USA except for the children of foreign ambassadors is certainly a Natural Born Citizen regardless of the citizenship of his parents---one of them or two of them, or his father or his mother.
Here are just some of the seven state courts and one federal court that ruled that Obama is a Natural Born US Citizen because the US SUPREME COURT ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case, which BTW was AFTER Minor v. Happersett, that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and that it includes every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats.
Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: "Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."
Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: "It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens."
Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: "No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father."
Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: "Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise"
Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: "In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive."
BTW, the US Supreme Court turned down birther appeals of the Farrar ruling, which had said "children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents." The result of the US Supreme Court turning down the appeals of that case is that the ruling in that case STANDS.
Oh, and one court also ruled the same way on McCain, saying that his birth in the USA (on a US military base) was sufficient to make him a Natural Born US Citizen.
Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: "Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,"
Re: "Obama is a foreign-born usurper."
You have to answer how Obama could have gotten from a foreign country to Hawaii without a US travel document such as being entered on his mother's US passport or a US visa, and if he had such a document, how come the Bush Administration did not show it? Was the Bush Administration part of the plot?
The notion of Obama’s mother, late in pregnancy, traveling alone (WND has shown that Obama senior was in Hawaii on August 4, 1961) from Hawaii where there are good hospitals, to Kenya, where there was Yellow Fever and bad hospitals (or to some other country), and doing so without any INS record of her leaving the USA or any record of her arriving in Kenya (or another country)—---is totally absurd. And the fact that there is a birth certificate showing that she gave birth in Kapiolani Hospital in Honolulu makes it even more absurd.
smrstrauss: May I ask you one simple question? The President stated in his autobiography, "Dreams From My Father" ( page 24, paragraph 3), that, "I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school..." Why, then, has he never put the issue to rest by simply showing it. He apparently has the original birth certificate given to his mother when he was born.
The answer is that he probably left the original official copy of his birth certificate in the book. In any case, he lost it. Millions of people lose their original birth certificates; that is why states issue official copies on request. Mitt Romney also showed an official copy (and in fact a short-form birth certificate without the name of the hospital on it) not the one that was sent to his parents.
Smrstrauss: Thank you for that insight. And here I thought perhaps the dog ate it along with his homework.
smrstrauss: "In any case, he lost it." That is simply out-of-hand-rejection of information not in keeping with one's own narrative. I will save you the time of looking for the book. On page 23 in his book "Dreams From My Father" he writes of his father: "In an article published in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin upon his graduation, he appears guarded and responsible, the model student, ambassador for his continent. He mildly scolds the university for herding visiting students into dormitories and forcing them to attend programs designed to promote cultural understanding--a distraction , he says, from the practical training he seeks. Although he hasn't experienced any problems himself, he detects self-segregation and overt discrimination taking place between various ethnic groups and expresses wry amusement at the fact that "Caucasians" in Hawaii are occasionally at the receiving end of prejudice. But if his assessment is relatively clear-eyed, he is careful to end on a happy note. One thing other nations can learn from Hawaii, he says, is the willingness of races to work together toward common development, something he has found whites elsewhere too often unwilling to do. I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school. It is a short piece, with a picture of him. No mention was made of my mother or me, and I'm left to wonder whether the omission was intentional on my father's part, in anticipation of his long departure, Perhaps the reporter failed to ask personal questions, intimidated by my father's imperious manner,or perhaps it was an editorial decision, not part of a simple story that they were looking for. I wonder ,too, whether the omission caused a fight between my parents." As one an tell, he had the article in hand as he wrote his book. And, if he had the article, he had the birth certificate. One can certainly one can make that assumption.
smrstrauss: He found the article and birth certificate while in high school. They were links to his long missing father and thus very important to him. He still had them as he wrote "Dreams From My Father" while in his 30's. Can you honestly question his having them yet today? I can not.
I can question your facts. The book says that he saw the old birth certificate. It does NOT say that he still had it. Yes of course I can question whether he had the birth certificate that was sent to his mother in 1961 when he asked for a copy in 2007. Why? Because MILLIONS of people lose their original birth certificates and because virtually all of the people who ask for copies of their birth certificates do so because they lost the original.
As for "he had the article in hand as he wrote the book." Probably not. He has an excellent memory, and where he doesn't he makes things up. In any case it is NOT proof that he had the article in hand or more importantly that he had the original birth certificate in hand and still more importantly he could still have lost it between the time when he wrote and 2008. STILL more importantly, the short form birth certificate is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with showing one of them---which is what Mitt Romney did.
Equally important is that the original birth certificate is NOT on security paper, so it is even more easy to forge than the short form birth certificate, and if Obama had showed it--if he had not lost it--then birthers would have claimed that IT was forged.
Finally, there is no #@!@!*^%##!ing proof that Obama was born anywhere else than in Hawaii and you still have not answered how Obama could have gotten from a foreign country to Hawaii without a US travel document such as being entered on his mother's US passport or a US visa, and if he had been such a document, how come the Bush Administration did not show it? Was the Bush Administration part of the plot?
smrstrauss: I have never said the President was not born in Hawaii. My only point is that, in my opinion, he found and in all probability still has his original birth certificate. I question why he let this drag on for almost 5 years.
A man with such strong feelings of father-loss and desire to fulfill his father's dreams would not lose the article or the certificate regardless of what millions of others have done.
You can speculate that he still has his original birth certificate. But it is only speculation. You have nothing to go on other than the fact that he had it at one time.
Well, lots of people had their birth certificate at one time.
Between the time when Obama saw the original copy in a book and the time when he got a perfectly legal birth birth certificate from Hawaii he traveled a lot. People tend to lose their birth certificates when they travel.
Moreover, your speculation about people with such a strong feeling of father loss is based on the absurd notion that Obama kept the birth certificate that he found. Well, guess what, it was not his to keep. It belonged to his mother. So, a good possibility other than leaving the BC where it was, was to give it to his mother----who owned it after all---and then she lost it. In any case, it was lost.
It being lost is the most logical explanation. But there is another one. It is that the current birth certificate, the one on security paper, is actually a better document to show than the original, which is not on security paper and hence is easier to forge.
In any case, he was clearly born in Hawaii, which is a fact that you acknowledge. Thank you for that.
Today I learn about birth certificates in the United Kingdom.A birth certificate is a vital way of recording the birth of a new baby. It also helps countries and local councils keep a close check on the population growth. There are two forms to which the term birth certificate can refer to. The first is known as the original document, the second is a certified copy which represents the original record of birth.
The birth certificate gives the individual an official identity from the moment it is born. Since 1827 the registering of births and also deaths and marriages has been common practice in the United Kingdom. Initially there were no fines for not registering the arrival of a new baby boy or girl, that however, changed before long because keeping an eye on the changes in population numbers, gave a better indication of the spending required in the coming years ahead, in terms of education, transport, and any the availability of manpower, should the need arise. Possibly due to Britain's acquisition of countries it called its commonwealth, the racial mix of the British population was very varied. Every birth certificate from the United Kingdom, will include details about the birth, such as the name and gender of the child, the name(s) of the parents, even sometimes the race of the baby is required. Crucially details like date of birth and location of birth add up to make up the identity of the person.
I would VERY MUCH like to know the Federal STATUTORY references for your chart at the page top. Although I am not a lawyer I have done considerable research on citizenship because of my own status as a Citizen by Birth born in the UK. I have yet to find ANYWHERE is statute where it discusses the TWO US CITIZEN PARENT matter.
The Constitution mentions the term Natural Born Citizen only once and never defines the term. The only other time it appears in US statute that I am aware of is the very first citizenship law passed in 1792 as I recall. The next time the citizenship laws were revised the term never appears again.
There are two and only two kinds of citizenship defined in statute: Citizenship by Birth and Naturalized Citizen. I have yet to find a THIRD "Super Citizen by Birth" defined anywhere.
As I said I'd like to know the statutory references so that I can correct my inadequate knowledge.
I dare ya to try and debunk it!
Every child born on US soil is a Natural Born US citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats, and Obama's birth on US soil has been proven by (1) his Hawaii birth certificate; (2) the repeated confirmation of their sending it to Obama and all the facts on it being the same as what they sent by the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii; (3) the public Index Data file; (4) the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 (and ONLY the DOH could send birth notices to that section of the papers, and it only did so for births IN Hawaii); (5) the Hawaii teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, after hearing of the birth of a child to a woman NAMED STANLEY from the head of obstetrics at Kapiolani Hospital; (6) the INS inspector who checked on Obama's father's residence status and wrote: "They have one child, born in HONOLULU."

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.