Why baby Obama was Born in Vancouver

 ~The Seattle Scenario~

Reverse Engineering the Dunham-Obama Timeline & Story

A Tale of Four Theories:

In order to determine the truth about Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as the American President it is necessary to exam two subjects completely unrelated to each other, those being the location of his birth, and the nationality of his parents.  There are three theories explaining the one contested requirement for the office of the President, and two of them involve the issue of the location of a candidate’s mother when he or she exited the womb and entered the world.

It is claimed to be connected to the words of the Constitution which require that: “No person except a natural born citizen…shall be eligible to the office of the President,…” [Article II, Sec. I]

The two Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum theories focus on and insist that those words require native-birth, basing that presumption on another baseless presumption which is that those common language words mean something other than their common meaning, and instead are a legal “term of art”, -a claim that neither one of them can validate.

The theory supporting Obama claims that anyone born within American sovereignty is not only “a citizen of the United States” but is also therefore “a natural born citizen” and thus eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief & President per the Constitution’s requirement.

Their rationale is that since the British devolved to labeling every baby born within the sovereignty of the Crown as a natural-born subject, therefore the United States, being the descendant of British law and common law, must also follow the same perversion which supposedly was the accepted status quo at the time of the Revolution and after.

In other words, the greatest philosophical minds in American history, the founders of the nation and framers of the Constitution, the men who believed in unalienable natural rights and not the rights of Kings looked to the rejected British system for how humans relate to their government, and decided that American citizens were not really citizens and the sovereigns of the 13 new nations, but the proposed central government was the new King and was sovereign over them and owned them if born within its borders, just like the King owned everyone born within his.

Supposedly, in their view, native-birth is the basis of citizenship and all native-born persons (even if not true natives) can be labeled as natural born citizens, -with “natural” somehow meaning “native”.

Its doppelganger (the third theory) embraces the same “term of art” interpretation of “natural born citizen” with the presumption of native-birth being necessary for natural citizenship, but they add a second, unrelated requirement which is American parentage.  The first theory is about citizenship based on borders alone while the third theory is based on both borders and blood.  So “natural born citizen” means either one who is:

1.)  born in America.  2.)  born of Americans.

3.)  both born in America and born of Americans.

4.)  or means one born in America, or one born of Americans, -either one, -both are acceptable.  That is the fantasy that Jack Maskell of the Congressional Research Service pulled out of a hat, arriving at it as a compromise that included almost everyone.  Therefore everyone is happy, (except those who want to know the actual truth).

Needless to say, only one can truly be correct, while the others are just feel-good theories for those who embrace them.  The incorrect three all have something in common, and it is the dogma that the words “natural+born+citizen” comprise a “term of art” which each party can define as they so choose.

    A VATTELIAN FANTASY:

    The explanation of the Mario Apuzzo doctrine as to why that third Frankenstein approach is logical and legitimate involves elaborate elucidations containing manifold distortions of fact and common sense regarding the fundamental principles of language and logic.  But the founders did not have (nor require having) a definition of what a natural born citizen is because those words did not exist as a “term of art” in need of a definition but as common words commonly used in conjunction.  It is a pure fantasy to argue otherwise since such an argument is unsupportable by anything in colonial law or history.

It was steeped in the British system of law imposed in the colonies, which was built around “The Divine Right of Kings” philosophy in which the King was to be obeyed as Lord & Master (and owner) of all souls born within his dominion with one word describing the members of the monarch’s nation, that word being “subject”, –not CITIZEN.

In support of their hybrid basis of citizenship, they present an extensive collection of quotes of presumptuous suppositions, ambiguous statements or twisted meanings by uncertain men mouthing what they’d always heard and read from ignorant men who preceded them and who were educated in the British monarchist manner of thinking, none of whom grasped the fundamental underlying principle on which the natural membership of free men in a democratic republic is based.

All of their non-apropos quotes come from men who were slaves to their sovereign, as his subjects for life, or were brain-washed by Law colleges whose body of law was all or largely British-based as to its origin.  But in the new free republic of the united Colonies / States of America, the CITIZENS were the sovereigns, and the government owed them allegiance, -not the other way around.

The sovereign Citizens of the united STATES of AMERICA would own the government, -the government would not own them.  The allegiance that was owed by Citizens was to each other, their State, their Union, and their enterprise of self-government based on a written Constitution and Bill of Rights.  That government would have no authority over their natural membership in their own independently-established system of self-governance.

If you and some wealthy friends establish a private club, does the club secretary or grounds-keeper have the authority to tell any of you that you are not a member because of his or her arbitrary rules?

Does any authority have a moral and legal basis to tell you that you do not belong to your mother and father if you were not born under their roof (within their jurisdiction)?

Place of birth is a totally arbitrary rule based on no principle whatsoever, but instead on an invented, artificial, abstract, invisible line claimed by monarchs based on conquest or treaty.  It has nothing more to do with natural membership in a country than the borders of your parents’ property had anything to do with who your own parents and siblings are and whether or not you are a natural member of the family they comprise.

The Vattelists arrive at a destination that is absurd on its face because it is a distortion and perversion of his non-authoritative observations and requires that “natural” does not simply mean natural but instead means an invented combination of natural blood-based membership with legal border-based membership.

But natural national membership, i.e., natural citizenship, is not dependent on a distortion of the writings of Emmerich de Vattel, nor the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Rights of Man nor the Magna Carta.  It is a fundamental element of the basic nature of sentient life.

It is the basis of cohesive societies and nations, being an upward extension of the principle by which people belong to their own family.

By that same principle they also belong to their own nation.  Law has nothing to do with it.  Nothing that is connected to Law is Natural.  Instead it is man-made, arbitrary and legal in nature.  Nothing that is legal is natural, and nothing that is natural is legal.  Two different universes, -but one exists inside of the other like a small grove of oak trees inside a vast forest of evergreens.  The legal realm exists as a human construct within the natural and philosophical universe whose fundamental nature includes certain primal principles, -principles from which human jurisprudence draws its understanding of natural rights.

Vattel’s writings have no connection to the words “natural born citizen” although it is claimed that he is the source of the term (it was used in a 1795 translation of his massive “The Law of Nations” –first published in French in 1758).

He didn’t actually deliberately define nor even use the words “Les citoyens naturels”, nor characterize as a definition his observation that native persons are those born in their parents’ homeland.  He never stated anything like  “ The definition of “Les citoyens naturel” is the following;…”.   The root basis of the Blood & Borders theory is that he did author such a definition and yet that dogma is without any factual foundation since he did no such thing.  He wasn’t in the defining and dictating business.  He was in the observing, describing & explaining business.

The flaws in the premise of the Blood & Borders theory are these:

1. De Citoyens et Naturels (the title of the citizenship section) means:

“Of Citizens & Natives” (not Of Citizens & Natural-born-Citizens).

2. “Les Naturels” means natural or native inhabitants and thus is not a synonym for “citizen” (“born” also is completely missing).  If the title had been: “De Citoyens Naturels” another problem would appear because the position is taken that the concept of natural citizens is non-existent, and instead all “natural born citizens” must be defined as a combination of natural law and human law (being a “term of art”.

With that dogma, the words “natural born citizen” cannot ever be referred to as a natural member of a nation because natural membership doesn’t exist.  Only the term of art definition exists and it must always be referred to with quotation marks (the Constitution being its source) since it is supposed that the words do not mean what the words alone mean.

3. He used the phrase “The natives or indigenous population” to describe the inhabitants of nations and the countries they occupy. Nothing more.

4.  He did not “define” citizens, born citizens, natural citizens, nor natural born citizens.

5.  He observed the source of natural membership in a nation is one’s father’s nationality (like father, like son).

6.  With a father’s nationality being the sole source of natural inherited national membership, the location of the birth transition from womb-to-world was rendered irrelevant in regards to natural law.

7.  Vattel NEVER offered, suggested, nor endorsed the unnatural hybrid concept that natives are only those whose birth met the criteria of both “jus soli” and “jus sanguinis” national membership.

If such a concept was legitimate, historical, and enshrined as law there would be a record of it, and yet there is none.  No nation in history had a legal requirement that those it recognized as natural natives must not only be born of natives but also be born on national soil.

Its equivalent would be a nation like Israel having a law that defined natural born Israeli citizens as only those born of Israeli citizens and born of ethnic Jewish parents.  Or a rule that allows only children born of your parents to be viewed as their natural children and your natural siblings if they are born within the boundaries of their property.  If they were not then they would have to be legally adopted as unrelated non-family children.

Such a combination of criteria (blood and borders) is unnatural and non-existent in every civilized society on Earth.   Plus there’s the fact that the United States government (like all or most governments) recognizes all children of its citizens as natives regardless of where in the world they are born.

Any government that does not is stuck in an antiquated, medieval monarchical system not based on individual natural rights.   I’d like to see one country on Earth identified that has ever required that those it considers its natural citizens be both children of citizens as well as native born.  It instead is always one or the other; “either…, or…” -not “and”.

It’s either jus soli (by right of soil) or jus sanguinis (by right of blood) depending on whether or not the father is a native or an alien.  It’s never both.

The truth is that most natural citizens (the children of citizens) are native-born, but some are not, and… most native-born citizens are natural citizens but some are not because they are born of aliens.  They instead are legal citizens via automatic “naturalization” bestowed by the authority of the 14th Amendment.

If both parents of a presidential candidate must be Americans then that requirement would disqualify Barack Obama since his father was a foreign student.

If the father is an alien, and “natural born citizen” is a “term of art” meaning what they assert that it means, then a requirement that Obama Sr’s child be both native-born and American-fathered in order to qualify to be President would render junior ineligible also.

But if that theory of eligibility is false, then the justification for such a claimed requirement is invalid and imaginary, and since it cannot be met in Obama’s case it provides twice the basis for their insistence that Obama is ineligible to be President.  He would be ineligible either by being born outside of the United States and / or by not having an American father.

Their conjoined-twin retorts that native-birth alone is sufficient for 14th Amendment citizenship, and that that type of citizenship can be considered “natural” because of the perverted history of that word in English common law.  Ambiguity was deliberately injected by the monarchy which used the rationale that such native-born children of foreigners were naturally subjects of the Crown since they were born within the King’s dominion, -and, -even though not born of his natural subjects, they were born of his alien subjects, so being born of subjects, they were naturally subject as well, -not by nature but by force.

That ambiguity is what they base their entire native-birth = natural citizen dogma on.  Their logic is that the native-born are all naturally subject to the federal government, -which is false.  During the Civil War all sons of immigrant aliens were officially labeled “Aliens” just like their fathers, (following the policy of the United States from its inception) and thus were exempt from conscription by the military.  Only citizens and their sons could be drafted, -not the native-born alien-fathered sons of immigrants.

That later was changed after a San Francisco-born son of Chinese immigrants (Wong Kim Ark) prompted the Supreme Court to rule that by the 14th Amendment he was not an alien but a citizen since he was born fully subject to federal jurisdiction (which it requires) and not Chinese jurisdiction only.

The court ruled that children of immigrants are U.S. citizens if born subject to the full jurisdiction of Washington, but it did not rule that the two things that Obama relies on are also true.  They are the presumptions that the ruling not only applies to children of immigrants but also to children born of foreign guests, tourists and visitors, -exempting only those of foreign ambassadors, with all such children labeled (falsely) American citizens being therefore natural born citizens based solely on the place of their birth alone.

So citizens like Mr. Wong, who gained American citizenship against the policy of the executive branch of the U.S. government which sued to prevent it, went from being viewed as aliens to being viewed somehow as natural born citizens eligible to be President, -likewise for those who are not like Mr. Wong and are not children of immigrants but were born of transient foreigners, -including even one born on Hawaiian soil during a re-fueling stop-over.  No philosophy nor principle nor law justifies such a brain-dead policy.

Regardless of what kind of mass-murdering war-criminal or autocratic foreign warlord father they had, America must accept them as being qualified to be the Commander-in-Chief against all of the realistic fears and concerns of the founders & framers regarding foreign powers attempting to insert a “creature” not loyal to America (but to them) into the top majestry of the government and the position of Command in Chief of the United States Army.

The bias in favor of Obama forces his supporters to view such a view as legitimate and reasonable, regardless of the fact that such a non-citizen, non-immigrant father had no connection to the American nation at all.  Nevertheless, being born within the magic American borders makes all babies Americans for some inexplicable reason or other, and all also eligible to be President.  What a load of crap.

What they fail to grasp is that you can be a United States citizen and yet not be an “American”.  Wong Kim Ark was such a person.  He was Chinese in his language, appearance, clothing, ancient heritage, diet, traditions and probably thinking as well.  It was because of the total alienness of the Asians and the impossibility of them assimilating into white European-descended America, that the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed.  That and the fact that they had emigrated in such tremendous numbers that they were distorting the demographics of entire regions of California.

The problem wasn’t that they were immigrants, but that they were very alien immigrants, -very non-Western, non-democratic, non-Christian, and non-American.    Their whole way of thinking was different.  Children born to them were raised to be just like them but with some degree of assimilation resulting from public schooling.  They were U.S. citizens but not very American in the character of their identity and world-view.

It’s the same with natives of the North Slope of Alaska and its other vast regions.  Since Alaska was the property of the U.S. government, they, the Eskimo and Inuit peoples, -like other Native Americans, were viewed eventually to be legally U.S. citizens since Congress declared them to be so if they had no objection.  Thus they become citizens but would not have considered themselves “Americans” because that carries a connotation that wouldn’t apply to them.

The Vietnamese “boat-people” who fled their country by the tens of thousands after its fall to the North, eventually, (after years of limbo living in refugee camps) were admitted to the United States and granted U.S. citizenship.  They thus became citizens and yet were thoroughly Vietnamese in every way, -not Americans.  Similarly for the inhabitants of Guam and Puerto Rico who are U.S. Citizens.

Citizens?  Yes.  Americans?  Not so much.

Conversely, one can be an American and not be a United States citizen.  The children born here of illegal immigrants (raised here and educated in our schools) know no other country and possibly no other language than English.  They are culturally American and only American and yet they are not United States citizens.  They are solely citizens of their parents’ homeland and yet might not even be registered there.  That would make them stateless persons (without any nationality) who happen to be Americans.  Barack Obama, by United States law (not policy) is just such a person.

His supposed native-birth does not provide the circumstances which the Supreme Court based its 14th Amendment Wong Kim Ark opinion on since his father was not a member of American society as a legally sanctioned immigrant.

He was instead merely a temporary foreign student with no attachment to America, and not under subjection to its political jurisdiction.  Being subject solely to Great Britain, subjection to Washington could not flow through him to his son and thereby qualify him under the 14th Amendment by being merely native-birth.

So there you have it, -two absurdities presenting themselves as being reasonable & true when they are neither.  But the second or middle “theory” is both and is in fact not a theory but a fact.  It is the immutable and everlasting principle of natural membership, -a principle that extends from families (parents and children) to tribes to nations.  It is natural membership by birth, -by blood, -by inheritance, -not by borders, or territorial boundaries of any kind since they are all invented man-made designations that have nothing to do with natural membership.  But they have everything to do with legal membership via permission of the State, -permission granted to those who have no right to membership since they are outsiders, or were born of outsiders on the soil of the insiders.

Since the first two theories de-legitimize Obama if he was not born within the U.S., the location of his birth is crucial to determining his eligibility by them, -while the truth is that the issue of birth location is irrelevant for natural citizens since their citizenship is inherited from parents who are citizens, -and not bestowed by law or government based on national borders.  That being the case, it doesn’t matter where Obama was born since he was not born of American parents.

Only an America mother & father produce natural American children.  All others are born with “alienage” from a foreign parent, and thus are not natural citizens but instead are legal citizens by either statute if born abroad, or by the 14th Amendment if native-born.

But let’s suppose that one or the other of the two false theories is right, and native-birth is crucial to eligibility, in that case it’s vital to determine where he was born in order to get half-way to the truth regarding his ineligibility, because if he can’t be presumed to have been native-born, then he can’t be presumed to be eligible, although for the wrong reason.  So what’s the best way to ascertain the facts regarding his origin?

It’s by reverse-engineering the timeline of his earliest years and drawing extrapolations from what little is known.  That is done by working backwards.  It requires a Sherlock Holmesian investigation based on few facts but strong logic, -like the case solved by “The Dog That Did Not Bark”.  Why did the dog not bark during the murder?  Because it must have known the murderer.  Pure inescapable logical deduction.

Let’s now consider…

The Move That Shouldn’t Have Happened

The investigation begins with….

~a freedom of information request to the University of Hawaii which showed that Ann Dunham was registered for classes there in the spring of 1963, with the only earlier registration being in the fall of 1960.  Where was her “husband” at that time?

He was in Boston attending Harvard after having completed his bachelor’s degree in Hawaii.  Had Ann been living with him in Hawaii up until his transfer to Harvard?

Hardly.  In fact there is no evidence nor assumption that they ever lived together, regardless of the lie to the contrary in “Dreams From My Father” and Obama’s fairy tale lie to the 2004 Democratic Convention.  Instead, he was in Hawaii while Ann was in Seattle.  When did she move from Hawaii to Seattle and why?  Those questions are at the heart of the issue.  His legitimacy hinges on them.

The Washington University records show her registered for fall classes on August 19, 1961.  Her husband and her parents were still in Hawaii.  Why wasn’t she with them?  There must have been a really, really good reason, or two, -or three.  And there were.  But before considering the “why”of her move, we need to consider the “how”.

A single mother without reliance on a still non-existent welfare-state would have to work or be supported.  Work would have been unlikely in 1961 since single mothers were not a significant part of the workforce in that era, and also because of her dual responsibility to attend to her college work and care for her baby, -nor was employment necessarily needed since she was an only child, and her parents could afford to take care of her expenses.  So school and motherhood were probably the limits of her life in Seattle.  It stands to reason that her parents were supporting her since that’s what parents do for their only-child daughter.

That provokes several important questions, including; if she lived in their home in Hawaii, and gave birth there or in a hospital, why was she half an ocean away a mere week or two after her first birth?  How and why would such a move take place and in such a time-frame?  It makes no sense since it has no logical explanation.

Logic says that it wouldn’t have happened, and asks: “If she was living in Seattle and being supported by her parents during the third week of August, why would one assume that she was not there during the third week of July?  -and perhaps the previous month as well?”

Why is it necessary that she not be in Seattle during the third trimester of her pregnancy?  It is because it does not fit the presented narrative nor the abstract birth documentation images offered as proof of a Hawaiian birth.

But what if they are as false as the false narrative that Obama’s parents lived together as a family for two years?  What if there were very good reasons for her to be in Seattle during the last few months of her pregnancy?

If there were no good reasons, then the Seattle scenario falls flat, but if there were, then the Hawaii scenario is deflated and rendered questionable, and even dubious.  So let’s consider the possible reasons.

Reason # 1.  Reasonable Choice.  A State Department officer responsible for deciding the request of Obama Sr. for an extension of his Visa wrote in his notes that they were considering adoption via the Salvation Army.  That leads to the conclusion that it was decided that the best choice for her was to find an adoptive couple to take the baby right after delivery.  That would be the logical choice given both of their circumstances (being young unemployed students).   It also raises the question of why they would even get married if they had no child to raise and formed no family?

Reason # 2.  Necessity.  The Hawaiian population of middle-class, middle-aged married couples who were Negro and unable to have children or desiring or willing to accept a teen-mom’s baby was essentially zero.

The 1960 Census found that people who were not White, Hawaiian (or Polynesian), or Chinese, Japanese, or Filipino was just 3.8 percent.  Almost half of the population was under 21 at the time, so many of the 3.8% who happened to be Black and young, would not have been part of the eligible adoption-capable population, rendering it less than 1%, -with the rest being either unmarried, unemployed, too old, or poor, or already having their own children.  It is highly unlikely that an adoptive Negro couple existed in Hawaii, -hence the need to move to a bigger pond.

Reason # 3.  Preference.

That pond was Ann’s only long-term home town, (having suffered through five moves before Seattle) -the town where she spent all of her teen years.  It can reasonably be presumed that she missed her old environment where she had friends and acquaintances, (while in Hawaii she was a total stranger).  Home sickness may have been a factor.

Reason # 4.  Opportunity.  The Negro population of Seattle was much greater than that of Hawaii, (perhaps 800% greater) so chances that some “family services” non-profit organization could find her an adoptive couple would have been notably greater.

Reason # 5.  Convenience.  With her whole life and education still in front of her, it would not have been seen as desirable to “be punished” (as Obama puts it) with an unwanted and full-time baby-sitting, child-rearing job.  The benefits of being single would have been very apparent.

Reason # 6.  Face-saving.  In 1960, in a pre-abortion, pre-women’s liberation, pre-no-fault divorce world, the birth of a child outside of marriage carried a very strong social stigma (shame) and label (a bastard, -meaning illegitimate).  Both Ann and her parents would have suffered damage to their public image if her out-of-wedlock pregnancy was visible for Hawaiian society to see.  Hence the justification for their “shotgun wedding”.

A future birth to an unmarried couple could be addressed by some form of civil marriage process, but not conception outside of marriage.  The appearance of a mulatto baby and a mother with no husband by her side nor living with her, (-and one of a taboo racial type) would have resulted in a certain amount of social stigma or shame.  But if one moved away, that would eliminate that possibility regarding the opinion of one’s neighbors and acquaintances, nor would pregnancy have to be explained.    In that era even the very word “pregnant” was avoided, “with child” being used instead.

Miss Dunham’s intimate relationship with Obama Sr. began at an unknown point.  It may have begun earlier than the date of conception, and it may have continued many weeks after conception and early pregnancy.

But it stopped at some point (assuming it was not a “one night only” fling) and that would probably have been after Ann was feeling very abnormal, and went to a medical office and had “the rabbit test” performed on her urine.  It would have come back positive.  Then they would have had to have had a talk.

Neither would have welcomed such news and would have thought that adoption would be the best way to handle it in order to avoid complicating their lives, but in the meanwhile, marriage was the only acceptable course of action.   Thus with “encouragement” from her parents, and the possibility of deportation for impregnating an under-age American teen, no doubt he was compliant to their demand that he legitimize their conception via some sort of marriage.  But at some point he had to have finally told her the truth about his Kenyan family.

Learning that her African paramour was a deceiving, adulterous bigamist who was already a father with another wife, after assuming he was single, available, and never married, might have hit her pretty hard, and shattered any fantasy world she might have been living in.  It’s likely that he kept it to himself before the birth, afraid that it wouldn’t end well for him if he dropped such a bomb since bigamy has always been illegal in the United States.

Perhaps he never told her, but instead she found out via second-hard sources who had heard about or read about his background.  He was in the newspapers in Hawaii (before the arrival of the Dunhams) as the only African student in Hawaiian history, so his story may have been known by others but not them until the truth was leaked after she became pregnant and “married” to him.

After pregnancy was confirmed she became very focused and practical in choosing what she wanted to do in the future since without legal abortion as an available option that future was coming down the track straight at her.

So we see many reasons to leave Hawaii during her pregnancy, and they have few equal counter-arguments for staying besides the universal preference of a teen mom with a new-born to stick close to her own mom for a month or more after her first birth.  Since that did not happen, no known counter-facts render these deductions impossible, implausible nor unlikely simply because there are no known facts since the last evidence of her presence in Hawaii was in February of 1961, -three months after becoming pregnant (possibly on Halloween night after a libertine party that included lots of drinks and lowered inhibitions).

Do the facts then argue for a birth location in Seattle instead of Hawaii?  Logical deduction argues otherwise because the Maricopa County Cold Case Posse investigation green-lighted by Sheriff Arpaio found that the microfilm record of the INS forms filled out by passengers of all international flights into Hawaii for the first week of August, 1961 was missing from its reel in the government archive, (August 1-7) -without explanation while no other sections  were missing from the months before.  No explanation was given as to why the microfilm covering the leading week of the month of August was missing.

The chance of that being pure coincidence, when such a thing simply doesn’t happen, points to a deliberate removal of evidence of Ann Dunham flying from a foreign city into Hawaii on or before  the 7th of August (assuming she gave birth on the 4th).  Such a city could only be Vancouver, British Columbia.   It is located just 140 miles from Seattle, -a four hour+ drive in 1961.  I made that drive and back in one day in 1975 with others on a newer stretch of highway and we did not need a passport back then, just a driver’s license, -which she had.

“The name ‘Vancouver’ previously referred to Vancouver Island, and it remains a common misconception that the city is located on the island, which it isn’t.  The Greater Vancouver area is the most populous in Western Canada.   As of 2009, Port Metro Vancouver is the busiest and largest port in Canada, and the most diversified port in North America.”

An attempt to find a qualified and interested adoptive couple in the greater Seattle area most likely also met with failure because of the size of the African-American population there.  In this century it remains at around only 8%.  It’s unlikely that it was greater back in 1960, and more likely it was smaller.  But the number of African-American middle-class couples who were infertile and/ or sought adoption would have been infinitesimal in size if any such couples even existed.

Ann, having discovered that there was no “market” for a “Negro” child, would have then had to look across the border to Vancouver as a final possibility.  Thus it is highly possible and likely that she attempted to find an adoptive couple there by relying on the well-established Family Services of Greater Vancouver, “a community-based not-for-profit organization providing social services across the lower mainland since 1928”.

“Whether you are a birth parent thinking about placing your child for adoption in British Columbia or an adoptive parent wanting more information on how to adopt a child locally or from overseas, our team of experienced professionals can assist you through the adoption process.”

But, after finding no takers in Hawaii and Seattle, she may have failed to mention to them, while speaking on the phone, who it was that fathered her child, and what race it was likely to be.  No one at that point would want to walk right into further rejection, so she might not have been up-front with them.  After all, why prejudice prospective adoptive parents in advance?  Let them see the baby first and then maybe they might find they could accept it.

Of course that would have come as a pretty big shock, so she would have had to have kept her baby by choice or by necessity.  She may left Vancouver just a day or two after birth, without obtaining an unwanted Canadian birth certificate because that would require a longer hospital stay to achieve, or she gave birth using a midwife with no medical assistance.

Almost nothing can be determined about that period of her life except the known fact that she was in Seattle two weeks after giving birth.  That leaves open the possibility that she was there two or three months before, as well as the possibility that her mother was with her in the last couple weeks of her pregnancy, and may have arranged many things for her, including adoption inquiries, -as any normal mother would.

If she (and possibly her mother) took a bus to Vancouver due to a possibility that an interested couple there might adopt, and she gave birth there, then several known facts would make sense.  The first is a reason why she was even in Seattle (two weeks after the birth) instead of remaining in Honolulu with her parents and “husband”.  Common sense and facts-of-life allow arriving at certain conclusions about her transplanting herself back in Seattle.  We can assume the following:

1.  Return to Seattle may have been something that she desired but also something that wasn’t backed by enough impetus to strive for until all adoption possibilities in Hawaii were exhausted, producing no interested couples.

2.  Not attending classes during the winter semester left a lot of free time on her hands, which she probably filled with employment, -possibly as a probationary type of temporary worker, -maybe at one of her parents’ place of employment, or nearby within walking distance.

3.  During those winter-to-spring months she learned how to drive.  Quote: “We know from interviews with her friends on Mercer Island in Washington State that Ann Dunham had acquired a driver’s license by the summer of 1961 at the age of 17.”  She could have worked a distance from a parent’s job location and borrowed that parent’s car during the day to get there, -or been dropped of.

4.  By working and living at home, she could have saved some money for the future, and used it for expenses related to moving to Seattle, along with all the support that her parents would have provided.

5.  When it became evident that adoption in Hawaii was impossible, Seattle became the only alternative avenue to pursue.  Ann would have wanted the certainty of having a waiting adoptive couple lined-up before birth instead of the uncertainty of being indefinitely entangled with a baby until fate finally opened that door for her, so moving to Seattle would have been necessary to find a couple before her delivery date.  And she definitely would have preferred to be there in spring or early summer when the weather was nice and her old friends were out of school.

6.  Making the move back to Seattle would have involved well determined timing.  It wouldn’t be good to be there too soon for no reason when she could be living with her parents’ support in Hawaii, but she had to be there earlier enough before birth to find an adoptive couple, and before her pregnancy became too disabling for getting herself all set up with living accommodations.

7.  With a driver’s license and money from months of employment, along with financial support from her parents, she could have made the trip back to Seattle on her own, bought a car, set herself up, and sought out the help of an adoption agency if she did so around her seventh month of pregnancy.

8.  Her mother would have joined her in mid to late July, and facilitated reaching out to the Vancouver family services organization for adoption help since by then it would have been rather clear that no prospective adoptive couples in Washington State were interested in her particular offer.

If they were given reason to hope that a Vancouver, B.C. couple was interested, and they traveled there, and she gave birth there, that would explain the fact of the missing INS microfilm record.  She would have filled one out on the plane trip from Vancouver to Hawaii on probably August 6th, and it would have been recorded in the microfilm record and a digitized version created in the future for the State’s switch to digital records and data-bases.

It would also explain the fact that an official of the Hawaiian Dept. of Health stated two weeks before the surprise appearance of the long form Certificate of Live Birth pdf on April 27th, 2011 that what was seen in their archive was half hand-written and half typed, -meaning only one thing.  It was a self-attesting affidavit written out by Ann Dunham (as required for all non-hospital births for which birth certificates were sought) and typed up by a clerk as a statement of the facts regarding the child.

Take a look at what it probably looked like: https://h2ooflife.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/dunham_affidavit_simulation-b.pdf

[If the PDF version doesn’t display properly (due to your device lacking its non-embedded fonts) then examine the jpg version instead:  https://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/the-obama-vital-record-simulation/    Her handwriting should look like “hand writing” and not like print-font text.]

That means it wasn’t a normal typed & signed Certificate of Live Birth from a hospital in Hawaii. See the note at the bottom, which I wrote to the person who uncovered this act. *

Hawaii, after the Sun Yet San scandal, instituted ACT 96;  AN ACT

To PROVIDE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF HAWAIIAN BIRTH.

Be it Enacted by the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii:

SECTION 1. The Secretary of Hawaii may, whenever satisfied that any person was born within the Hawaiian Islands, cause to be issued to such person a certificate showing such fact.

The Secretary, with the approval of the Governor, may make such regulations respecting the form of application and certificates, the method of proof, kind of evidence, and time, place and manner of hearing, and all other matters and circumstances connected with such application, proof and hearing as to him may appear necessary,….
The Secretary may furnish the form of such applications and certificates. All applications shall be by sworn petition, in which the party shall set forth circumstantially all the facts upon which his application rests, and shall be accompanied by sworn affidavits of witnesses.
The Secretary and such persons as he may designate and appoint may examine, under oath, any applicant or person cognizant of the facts regarding any application and for that purpose he and they are hereby authorized and empowered to administer oaths, subpoena and compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of books and papers, punish for contempts and, generally, to exercise the same authority with regard to their special jurisdiction as is by law conferred on District Magistrates.

SECTION 2. Any applicant or any person, who shall give or offer any false testimony, oral or written, under oath, in support or respect of any application for a certificate under the provisions of the foregoing Section, shall be deemed guilty of perjury and shall be punishable accordingly.

Discussed by the boogle here viewtopic.php?f=52&t=5691&p=227949#p227949

That “sworn” statement by Obama’s mother was treated as the self-attested truth given by an adult American citizen in the HDoH response to a telephone inquiry from the INS related to Obama Sr. and his Visa status (which furnished them the impression that Obama Jr. was born in Hawaii), but may not have fulfilled DoH requirements for corroboration of the stated “facts” from other persons or records as needed for the issuance of a birth certificate.

Her affidavit may have stated that her son was born at home in Hawaii, or it may have stated that he was born in Vancouver.  She may have told the truth that he was born in Vancouver but without realizing that even though she was an American, it did not necessarily follow that her son was, -which was the case since she was several months too young for her citizenship to pass to her foreign-born child by law.  That situation would have put him in a nationality limbo without any official papers from any government, -not Canada, nor Kenya, nor the United States.

If in her affidavit she stated honestly that her son was born in Canada (thinking that he would be a U.S. citizen through her) then she would have been met by disappointment when they informed her that only children born in Hawaii were eligible for a late birth certificate (one issued if not born in a hospital) and that the issue of a birth certificate was between her and the jurisdiction in which she gave birth.

They also would have informed her that the issue of the child’s citizenship was between her and the Immigration and Naturalization Service.  It would have required a birth certificate or a properly witnessed and attested affidavit in order to process a claim of foreign birth to an American mother, but the INS could not have helped her with her child’s citizenship issue since she was not 19 years old as required to convey her citizenship to him if he was born out of country.  As a result, he would not have had a birth certificate nor a citizenship certificate, and would have been an American in a way, but not a U.S. Citizen.

And he never really became an American in the common and traditional sense which that appellation implies.  Guam-ians are U.S. citizens but not really “Americans”, nor are Hawaii-raised children having African fathers fitly described as American in any traditional sense since both Africa and Hawaii are so remote and unconnected to America and its historical roots, including places like Lexington, Boston, Philadelphia, New York, Atlanta, etc.  It would be nearly impossible to relate to the birth of such a distant young nation.

Two thirds of the population of Hawaii is Polynesian and Asians of the Pacific and Pacific Rim nations, and so Barry grew up to be a Pacific Ocean raised international citizen of the world, -with ties to Indonesia, Africa, and Hawaii, -but without any strong nationality ties to heartland American values and official United States citizenship.

Part 1.  by Adrien Nash  October 2013

http://obama–nation.com

Suranis, CONGRATULATIONS! YOU JUST CONFIRMED THE SEATTLE SCENARIO AND SHOT-OFF BOTH OF YOUR OWN FEET! THANKS! YOU IGNORANT SUCKER! ~and now i must apologize for my ill-mannered remarks, please forgive me.

If you weren’t so arrogant and damn cocksure of your unshakeable certainty, you would have read Pt.1, ~the Seattle Scenario and learned that my hypothesis did not follow that of others who assume that Obama actually received a Hawaiian birth certificate but via lax rules.
I came along and hypothesized that he never even received one at all!
And the logic for that was that Hawaii must have had some rules that required proof of statements made in “half hand-written, and half-typed” affidavits. It was purely a logical guess that I felt must be true and thus I based the entire non-birth certificate theory on it.

Now, you have provided the smoking gun that I didn’t have, due to only having time for reading and writing, and not extensive research for confirmation of my assumptions.
Well, now they are no longer just assumptions. You have shown that they are in fact, fact. THANKS AGAIN!

This Act shows why Ann could not obtain a birth certificate. She could not produce any sworn witnesses to a home-birth and thus had to walk away from the application process. No Certificate of Live Birth for Vancouver-born Barry. A stateless person. A non-citizen. An unconstitutional President.

Advertisements

About arnash
“When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.” - Mark Twain - Politicians and diapers - change 'em often, for the same reason. "Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." Ronald Reagan "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley, Jr. “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell The people are the masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it. Abraham Lincoln “Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell “Satan will use a lake of truth to hide a pint of poison”.

35 Responses to Why baby Obama was Born in Vancouver

  1. Starbeau says:

    Mr. Nash,

    I believe you have overlooked a scenario relative to Obama’s birth location and citizenship.
    I have examined every document and photograph of Obama with his family available since he became a presidential candidate. I have not seen one single photograph of Obama with his family that has not been photo shopped by inserting him into the photo.
    – Obama does not have a long form birth certificate in Hawaii or any other state in the US per lead Investigator Mike Zullo of Sheriff Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse.

    – The Long Form Birth Certificate put on the official White House website is a total fraud.

    – The draft registration of Obama is an easily identified forgery.

    – Obama has used a stolen Social Security number for several years. The number was originally assigned to Harrison Bounel, born in 1890.

    – I have not seen any photograph of Stanley Ann Dunham that has not been photo shopped.

    When Obama burst on the scene following his speech at the Democrat convention, there was very little known about him and nothing has changed since.

    Long before that, there were many complaints about the NBC clause in the constitution and attempts to remove that clause. All have failed.

    Some curious facts have emerged since Obama was elected.

    – There was absolutely no vetting of Obama. Why not?

    – There were rumors that Obama was born in Kenya, but that quickly disappeared from the media by those claiming that he was born in Kenya being labeled as “birthers”.

    – Read about the quashing of an indictment against Elizabeth Duke on June 17, 2009 at http://amoprobos.blogspot.com/2013/07/obama-dismisses-indictment-against.html

    The scenario that everyone is overlooking results from investigations by Martha Trowbridge. See http://terribletruth.marthatrowbridgeradio.org/blog/2013/07/26/dreams-from-obamas-mother-f-b-i-fugitive-domestic-terrorist-elizabeth-ann-duke/

    Martha Trowbridge has done outstanding investigative work and analysis on the man that presents himself as Barack Hussein Obama.

    • arnash says:

      I have yet to come across a photo of Obama that is photoshopped, and I’ve edited over 15,000 photos in the last decade so I know a few things about photo-editing. That said, I’m aware of only one which was claimed (by an article at WND) to have been photoshopped, and it was so amazingly wrong that it seemed like a hoax.

      As for the pdf birth certificate image, its anomalies appear to be the result of the unique software of a high-end Xerox workstation copier/scanner/printer in the White House. But even a legitimate pdf image resulting from a unique scanner in no way substantiates that the scanned hard-copy used to produce the digital pdf was from an original Hawaiian hospital birth certificate and not from a perfectly normal hard-copy counterfeit, like thousands of other counterfeits produced each year. The long-form bc is in an abstract format and not a photo-reproduction format, which means it was created in the digital realm, legitimate or illegitimate, so no one can claim that it represents a TRUE AND CORRECT COPY.
      The claim that its information matches what is in their files or records is highly deceitful because having been party to the production of a counterfeit, it is certain that the parties involved would have inserted into their “files” or “records” (record = the DoH hard-drive data-base) a copy of the counterfeit or its false information. Any clerk could do it. Think of what Edward Snowden could do.

      • smrstrauss says:

        Re: “. The long-form bc is in an abstract format and not a photo-reproduction format, which means it was created in the digital realm…”

        No, the Xerox workstation research shows that it was a SCAN of a physical document, on security paper.

        Re: “The claim that its information matches what is in their files or records is highly deceitful because having been party to the production of a counterfeit…”

        Answer: So you are claiming that the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii have participated in forging Obama’s birth certificate and they then LIED about having sent it to Obama and lied about all the facts on it being accurate. Well, guess what, there isn’t even evidence that Obama’s mother had a passport in 1961—and birther sites, which have copies of Obama’s mother’s passport file—have never told people the date on which that file was CREATED. (I wonder why not? Answer, because the date on which the file was created was AFTER 1961, hence she could not have traveled to a foreign country in 1961—except to Canada or Mexico, but Hawaii does not have a border with either of them).

      • arnash says:

        I wrote: “The long-form bc is in an abstract format and not a photo-reproduction format, which means it was created in the digital realm…”
        Since you are ignorant of what that means, I’ll explain it once again. The Hawaiian long-form and short-form “birth certificates” are NOT actual photo-reproductions of physical documents but are digital abstracts and not TRUE COPY replicas. The long form birth certificate format reproduces all the detail from the original microfilm image except that of the paper it was typed on. The imagery of the paper was digitally deleted because of the large amount of memory it required back when memory was small and high cost.

        The long form is accurate in every birth certificate except Obama’s because there is no reason for the HDoH to fabricate a counterfeit for anyone except Obama (who was not born in the United States).

        “the Xerox workstation research shows that it was a SCAN of a physical document, on security paper.” I assume that research is correct. I also assume that the physical document scanned was a digital counterfeit created on a computer within the HDoH from the affidavit written out by his mother, signed, and transcribed by a clerk into a vital record statement.

        “So you are claiming that the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii have participated in forging…” Blah, blah, blah, and I never mentioned BOTH parties since it was all the work of Democrat socialists. The former Republican governor was too naive to grasps that those who work in the HDoH would not be as honest as angels and might tell her a fib that they wanted the nation to believe, thereby securing “bi-partisan” validation, when the governor was just a “useful idiot” stooge for their lies.

        “Well, guess what, there isn’t even evidence that Obama’s mother had a passport in 1961”
        reply: Well guess what, she didn’t need one, which you’d know if you paid attention. Travel between the U.S. and Canada in 1961 occurred without the need of a passport, as my own experience revealed.

        “hence she could not have traveled to a foreign country in 1961—except to Canada or Mexico, but Hawaii does not have a border with either of them).” Duh! Last I checked, Hawaii was a part of the United States in 1961 and travel between it and Canada was almost as routine as between Seattle and Vancouver (for which no passport was needed).

  2. Adrien Nash says:

    While working on this exposition, I realized exactly what I was seeing and hadn’t taken note of previously while looking at the first and primary statement of the Director of the Hawaii Dept. of Health Chiyome Fukino. What we see is that it cannot be attributed to her since she didn’t write it nor sign it. It is just three statements by an unknown person quoting supposedly comments by someone at sometime who is insinuated to be Dr. Fukino. Check-out the quotation marks surrounding everything, and try to explain what the hell they imply.

    That “statement” is totally worthless as an official State document and hence it was released as a “News Release”. Did you know that a State government was in the news business? Neither did I!

    No one can be credited for it nor prosecuted for it since it’s unattributed. That shows that it was cunningly crafted by a clever lawyer who knew how to avoid making perjurous statements that might come back to haunt one. So you should take that statement not as evidence of its content being true but as evidence of the falsity of its content, -content shielded behind the protective barrier of quotation marks. False “facts” in a false and worthless format.
    ~~~
    October 9, 2013 reply to that comment:

    gorefan says: (quoting me)
    ” What we see is that it cannot be attributed to Fukino since she didn’t write it nor sign it.”

    Did you not read the big title of the release?

    “STATEMENT BY DR. CHIYOME FUKINO”

    You could [also] read her second statement from July, 2009 in which she referenced her “original statement issued in October, 2008″.
    http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2008/Nov/01/ln/hawaii811010345.html
    BTW, you are an idiot.
    ~~~~
    Adrien Nash says:
    October 9, 2013

    STATEMENT BY ADRIEN NASH

    “BTW, you are an idiot.”
    Question: Is that my statement or is it your statement? It is in my post therefore it must be my statement to myself, right?
    Or are you an idiot for not being smart enough to grasp that nothing in quotes is a “statement” by the presenter since it is merely a quote?
    Well you are an idiot for not grasping the inescapable fact that nothing in quotations is a legal statement attributable to a particular individual unless it is signed by that individual. But quoted statements are never, ever signed by the quoted person.

    If someone issues a “News Release” that contains a quote from someone unidentified who libels you, and it isn’t signed, is that quote and that “News Release” truly a “statement” by the person that issued the “News Release”? Of course not! It IS A FRAUD on the public!

    The Fukino “statement” was deliberately designed to pull the wool over the eyes of all of those who are willingly true believers of anything that supports the security blanket of their ideology and the man who carries its banner. Do I really have to demonstrate what a real statement looks like? Okay, if I must…

    STATEMENT BY BARACK OBAMA

    I, Barack Obama, wish to convey to the American people that I was not born in Hawaii, and have never possessed a birth certificate issued by its Dept. of Health. I instead was forced to have a counterfeit fabricated to placate the doubtful and deceive the gullible. To these facts I attest, witness my hand, (signed) Barack Obama
    ~~~~
    See what’s missing? QUOTATION MARKS that a lawyer required be used in order to defend against any future liability for making a false statement in an official capacity.

    In Fukino’s interview regarding Obama’s birth controversy and her statement, all she had to say was something that can be read as a rather large Freudian slip: “”This has gotten ridiculous. There are plenty of other important things to focus on, like the economy, taxes, energy.”

    Note what she said and what she didn’t say. “other important things” means that even though the subject of Obama’s birth location may also be important, “let’s not focus on it but let’s instead be drawn away from it by other important things so that we don’t push the quest to uncover the truth.”

    She didn’t say anything connecting herself to the so-called “statement”, nor did she say anything in support of it nor anything attacking suspicions about Obama’s birth location. Why? For the same reason that the “statement” was put in quotation marks. To fool FOOLS!

    The “interviewer” goes on to say:
    “They (skeptics) point to the lack of an official state seal on the document, although Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo say seals often are placed on the backs of birth certificates. Bloggers and other skeptics also wonder why a large black rectangle appears next to the words “CERTIFICATE NO.”
    Spokeswoman Janice Okubo said the blackened portion is a department file number that was redacted to prevent hackers from breaking into the Health Department’s system.”

    WOW! and WOW! again! Two big fat LIES. Seals are not placed ON paper documents. They are stamped, embossed INTO the paper forming a sculpted 3-D image that is visible and touchable from both sides.
    Second, as all know, the birth certificate registration number has absolutely NOTHING to do with system security or a threat to it. So her “explanation” as to why the short-form BC had Obama’s registration number black-out is totally false and deliberately so in order to hide the fact that he had no number because he had no birth certificate and thus one had to be fabricated, later adopting a number from a deceased baby (Virginia Sunahara) whose original birth certificate has been kept secret even from her own brother.

  3. David Farrar says:

    Great work. I enjoyed it. But John Jay would not have considered both parents being necessarily US citizens to produce an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born citizen. They would have assumed only the US citizenship of the father to have been required. The ‘tradition’ of both parents being US citizens prior to the birth of a natural born US Citizen was an extension of the palpable fear our founding fathers had with dual allegiances at birth and European influences, and was to be avoided and an adjunct provision of an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born citizen .

    Your point on the government owing allegiance to the new born is interesting. This may be the point in Gray’s decision in the Wong Kim Ark case. However, I think we agree, a natural born US Citizen is a person who acquires citizenship at birth under the cloak of allegiance of its father to support and abide by the US Const. as a member of the “Consent of the Governed”.

    De Citoyens et Naturels, in my humble O, does not mean, “Of Citizens & Natives”, but exactly what it says: “Of Citizens & Naturals”. De vattel even clears this up even further when he directly equates “les naturels, ou Indigènes: “the naturals are the indigenous population. A natural born US citizen is a person who acquires US citizenship, naturally, at birth, from its US Citizen father, would be the commonly held definition in 1789.

    Lastly, if the half-written statement accompanying Obama Jr’s birth was accepted by Hawaiian Health Department officials, it would mean Obama must have been born at home. But I thought Hawaiian Health Department officials have acknowledged the information contained on the document exhibited on Obama White House web page is the same information they have in their file.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • arnash says:

      David, a few thoughts on your comments; “The ‘tradition’ of both parents being US citizens prior to the birth of a natural born US Citizen…”
      The word tradition was rightly contained within quotes because there was no actual tradition since the issue was never raised except once or twice in all of U.S. history and was yawned at by the press and public. (Breckenridge Long)

      The citizenship of the mother was a non-issue solely because no American man was capable of having a foreign wife since foreign brides were automatically naturalized via marriage. All wives of Americans were Americans also. Citizenship and subjection to federal political jurisdiction flowed from the head of the household, which, within marriage, was always the husband-father.

      ” I think we agree, a natural born US Citizen is a person who acquires citizenship at birth under the cloak of allegiance of its father to support and abide by the US Const.”

      David, it’s dangerous to the truth of the matter to put it in those particular words. Natural born citizens never acquire their nationality as do naturalized citizens, since it is something that they are born being. They are born being Americans, and all Americans, strictly speaking, are citizens of the United States. Just like males & females, Blacks & Whites are born being the gender that they are or the race that they belong to. They don’t acquire their gender or race at, from, nor upon birth. It is predestined from conception. It’s the same with natural citizens. They are Americans from conception and have no other political nature. Nothing can permanently change that except their own volition at adulthood.

      Also, it’s dangerous to not avoid connecting the principle of natural citizenship (patrilineal descent) with 14th Amendment jus soli citizenship via what they have in common, -which is that the fathers of natural citizens as well as native-born immigrant children are under subjection to the natural duty of the males of a society to defend it by fulfilling their primal obligation to serve their nation in its defense.

      The ambiguity (regarding citizenship origin) that results form pointing out that common duty, or required allegiance (which is passed from father to son) can cause some confusion as to the source of citizenship. It is not what they have in common that is at that source since there are two sources, one natural and one legal. All male citizens have a common duty but not a common origin of their nationality, -some being dependent on law for that for which they have no natural right since they were born of outsiders.

      “Naturels” must be translated into something that exists in the English language, and the term “the naturals” doesn’t really exist or have any meaning, -so “natives” is as close as one can come.
      Part II is next.

    • smrstrauss says:

      There is absolutely no evidence that the writers of the US Constitution used Vattel, who is not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers, instead of the common law, which they were overwhelmingly familiar with as lawyers and justices and which they referred to in the Federalist Papers about twenty times. Yes, they did read Vattel, but then they read a lot of other things too. And, since they did not follow Vattel’s recommendation that every country should have a state religion, what makes you think that they followed Vattel in the Natural Born Citizen definition?

      IF they had used Vattel and not the common law, which duh, was far more common, they would have told us—and they didn’t.

      • arnash says:

        If you had more than half a partisan brain then you would understand that you need to read the exposition that you reply to before you reveal your juvenile partisan ignorance about what opinions and stances are taken by the exposition that you didn’t even bother to read.

        I won’t bother to respond to your non apropos remarks because everyone that read my post knows that it has nothing to do with your comments which I agree with, with the exception of you stupidly attributing a viewpoint to me which I’ve never held. The actual truth that both you and the Vattelist fail to grasp is that you both are wrong about natural citizenship, and equally ignorant.

      • smrstrauss says:

        Not only is there no evidence that the writers of the US Constitution used Vattel, a natural law philosopher, but there is no evidence that they used ANY natural law philosophy that disagreed with the NATURAL LAW philosophy of Locke and their reading of it that said: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal….” If they had believed that they should make an exception to that NATURAL LAW philosophy and that the exception was that the US-born children of foreigners were not just as equal as the US-born children of US citizens, THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD US—and they didn’t.

      • arnash says:

        Actually, if you read more of what I’ve written, you would discover that what you say is absolutely correct. You need to read THE BRITISH ROOTS OF PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY. In it you’ll learn that all subjects were viewed as equal whether born of natural subjects or born of foreigners. That was the philosophical position of the doctrine of Citizenship Equality inherited from Britain where it applied in regard to subjects.

        By that fiction-of-law a foreigner becomes a natural citizen upon natural-ization. He is reborn with a new nationality and political character.

        But there were unseen instances when that doctrine was not followed, and they involved British national military secrets, and command of positions critical to national survival. For such positions, no alien-born subject was ever interviewed nor considered. Only true natural subjects who were natural subjects by blood, and not by a fiction of law, were chosen for those positions.
        Britain had no office of President so their exceptions could remain hidden, but not so in America. It had to be written into the Constitution itself.
        All citizens are equal, -except in this one instance, where only those born as natural citizens are eligible to appointment to the position of Command in Chief of the American Military power.
        “Natural citizens” created by the doctrine of Citizenship Equality were not eligible because of their direct foreign attachments via their foreign father. Dual citizenship was not allowed and thus those born with it could not serve as President.

        On the federal level, no one was born with dual citizenship since children of aliens were aliens also. That is the fact of the matter, so it doesn’t really matter what argument one offers to try to counter it. Wishes don’t alter the facts.

  4. smrstrauss says:

    IF Obama was born in Vancouver, there would be a record of his birth at a hospital in Vancouver, and you have not shown one. Moreover, as someone who remembers 1961, the Canadian government at the time had measures to prevent pregnant women, even American women, from visiting Canada because they did not want to have more Canadian citizens at birth. And yet, despite there being NO proof that Obama was born in Canada, and the official birth certificate of Hawaii, confirmed by the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii (and the Index Data file and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii papers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961) all showing that Obama was born in HAWAII, you would like people to think that Obama was born in Vancouver.

    Well, if you have a hospital record or government document saying that he was born in Vancouver, show it. But you do not have one because there ISN’T ONE.

    • arnash says:

      You need to think before you write. I gave no hint that Obama’s birth in Vancouver took place in a hospital, nor that even if it did, it generated a birth certificate if the mother was not around to fill one out and sign it. If he was born in the evening of the 4th, and his mother flew to Hawaii on the 6th, possibly with her own mother in attendance, then she was only in Vancouver after his birth for one full day. Hardly enough time to obtain a birth certificate.
      As for proof of anything, nothing that you listed is proof of any kind since if a conspiracy took place to alter the record, then it covered everything related to it. If you want to see real evidence, you have to see the original affidavit (half-written) from his mother to the HDoH submitted on Aug. 7th. Nothing less is untainted by the stench of highly partisan conspiracy to defraud the American people with an unconstitutional non-citizen as President.

      You want to shout from the roof-tops that Obama was born in Hawaii. I ask: “Who cares?” It makes no difference because he is not only not a natural citizen of the American nation but he is not a citizen at all. Not via his father, not via his mother, not via the 14th Amendment, not via Congressional statute, not via court ruling. His presumed citizenship is purely a thing of executive-branch policy and presumption. But even 14th Amendment citizenship doesn’t qualify him for the presidency since it provides only adoptive citizenship, -not natural citizenship. Is your adopted brother your natural brother, -or something else?

  5. smrstrauss says:

    RE: “In other words, the greatest philosophical minds in American history, the founders of the nation and framers of the Constitution, the men who believed in unalienable natural rights and not the rights of Kings looked to the rejected British system for how humans relate to their government, and decided that American citizens were not really citizens and the sovereigns of the 13 new nations, but the proposed central government was the new King and was sovereign over them and owned them if born within its borders, just like the King owned everyone born within his.”

    Answer. If the writers of the US Constitution, who were mainly lawyers and justices familiar with the common law, had intended to switch from the common law to some other rule, THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD US—and they didn’t.

    And, BTW, John Jay, who first used the term Natural Born Citizen in his letter to George Washington, was an expert in THE COMMON LAW, and so, if he had intended to use Natural Born Citizen differently from the Natural Born in the common law, he would have said so—AND HE DIDN’T.

    And we have the examples of American legal scholars at the time both of whom knew the writers of the US Constitution, and both of them use the term Natural Born Citizen exactly the way that Natural Born was used in the common law:

    “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

    “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, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

    • arnash says:

      ” had intended to switch from the common law to some other rule, THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD US—and they didn’t.” The reason is that natural citizenship has nothing whatsoever to do with law or rules. IT IS 100% NATURAL CITIZENSHIP!!! Human intervention is not needed. National membership was the extension of State membership. Only States controlled the immigration and naturalization process, each sovereign and free to adopt their own rules of citizenship as long as they didn’t conflict with the national rule of uniformity passed by Congress.

      Common law regarding “subjects” was irrelevant as an authority over the States and the State membership of American freemen, so talk of it is fallacious distraction.

      “we have the examples of American legal scholars at the time…” Look, we have examples of justices of the Supreme Court pulling rulings out of their ass on a 5-4 basis. Are not both sides respectable and infallible “legal scholars”?
      Spare me the appeal to ignorant authorities that didn’t understand the first thing about the principle of Natural Membership because their minds were stuffed full of legal-crap ideas inherited from Law colleges rooted in the monarchical legal system of the British despot.

      As for the quotes by St. George Tucker and William Rawle, they were from two of the four States which allowed jus soli “sons of the soil” citizenship for alien-born children of immigrants. Tucker was from Virginia, which was the namesake of the Virginia model of state governance, and Rawle was from Philadelphia which also followed it.
      Their perspective was one that was not accepted nor followed by the majority of the States nor the Federal government, so their narrow-perspective views did not reflect the view of any of the States except those four.
      1862: by order of Congress, all native-born sons of aliens are aliens also, and thus not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore exempt from military conscription as they are subject to a foreign power via blood inheritance of a foreign nationality. That was the United States policy from 1789 until 1898 and the Wong holding.

      • smrstrauss says:

        Re: ” The reason is that natural citizenship has nothing whatsoever to do with law or rules. IT IS 100% NATURAL CITIZENSHIP!!! Human intervention is not needed.”

        Ah! So you admit that the writers of the US Constitution disagreed with your “natural born” definition. Here is what the writers of the Constitution believed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal…”

        So, unless they told us to the contrary, they believed that the US-born children of foreigners are just as equal as the US-born children of US citizens. And they didn’t. Unless they told us that there was some reason why the US-born children of foreigners were not just as eligible to become president as the US-born children of US citizens, there is absolutely no reason (except maybe your nutty fear and prejudice) to believe that they are not eligible.

        [THEY DID TELL US, AS ANYONE WHO CAN READ KNOWS. THEY TOLD US THE PRESIDENT MUST BE A NATURAL CITIZEN, -NOT A NATURALIZED CITIZEN, NOR A NATIVE-BORN CITIZEN, NOR A NATIVE-BORN ALIEN, NOR A DERIVATIVE CITIZEN.
        ALTHOUGH ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, ALL CITIZENS AND ALL CHILDREN ARE NOT. SOME CITIZENS AND SOME CHILDREN ARE ADOPTED AND ARE NOT NATURAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR NATIONAL FAMILY.]
        YOU feel that somehow there is a higher law, one that the writers of the Constitution and the courts and the US electoral college and ten appeals courts and the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case did not recognize.

        [THAT WHICH NON-FOUNDERS FAIL TO RECOGNIZE DOES NOT DEFINE NOR LIMIT WHAT THE FOUNDERS DID IN FACT RECOGNIZE. AND STOP CONFLATING CITIZENSHIP WITH NATURAL CITIZENSHIP. THE FRAMERS DID NOT WRITE: “NO PERSON EXCEPT A NATIVE-BORN CITIZEN…”
        EVERYONE WITH A BRAIN KNOWS THAT NOT ALL NATURAL CITIZENS ARE NATIVE-BORN, AND NOT ALL NATIVE-BORN PERSONS ARE CITIZENS, AND NOT ALL NATIVE-BORN CITIZENS ARE NATURAL CITIZENS.]

        And you believe that that “higher law” that :”natural law” (and by the way, natural law philosophers disagree a lot on what “natural law” holds. Vattel, for example, held that it requires every state to have its own state religion) means that the US-born children of foreigners (such as many people’s grandfathers and great grandfathers) are not just as equal as the US-born children of US citizens. Well, you have the right to your nutty, prejudiced beliefs, but they do not hold water.

    • arnash says:

      ~Nationality by Blood, versus Nationality by Borders

      “If the writers of the US Constitution had intended to switch from the common law to some other rule, THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD US—and they didn’t.”

      Here’s one for you; the writers of the Constitution were well versed in the English language, and by their knowledge of the language they knew that a native-born person was not necessarily a citizen because nine States did not grant citizenship to alien-born children of foreigners.
      So if such children were not even citizens in the majority of States, they certainly were not natural citizens either.

      If the framers had intended to switch from the common language meaning of “natural” or “native-born” THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD US —and they didn’t. Nor did they use the word “natural” to mean anything other than by nature, by natural means, by blood, (NOT by borders!).

      Nothing prevented them from requiring merely that the President be native-born and yet THEY DID NOT WRITE THAT! The reason was because they knew that the population in America did not consist solely of Americans, but contained many foreigners and their children, and they didn’t want to take the risk of allowing any of them to hold the position of Command in Chief of the American Army.

      They clearly stated as much via the 1790 Naturalization Act. In it they declared what the Constitution over-looked, calling American children born outside of U.S. territory to be “natural born citizens”.

      That meant that all sons of American parents were equal by nature, -by blood, and recognized as such by the United States Congress, making all sons of American Ambassadors & Citizens serving abroad equally eligible to serve as President.

      • smrstrauss says:

        Re: ” by their knowledge of the language they knew that a native-born person was not necessarily a citizen because nine States did not grant citizenship to alien-born children of foreigners.”

        Baloney. ALL the 13 original states granted citizenship at birth to the US-born children of foreigners. [AND YOUR PROOF IS…..OH, NOTHING!. YOU ARE CONFUSING TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. THEY WERE BORN SUBJECTS OF THE KING IN THE COLONIES BUT NOT BORN CITIZENS IN ALL THE STATES]

        If Tucker had believed that US-born children of foreigners were not Natural Born because, as you CLAIM, some of the 13 states did not make the US-born children of foreigners US citizens at birth, he would have said so. [AND THE PROOF OF THAT STATEMENT IS….OH, NOTHING!]
        If the writers of the Constitution in their many writings and letters after the Constitution was written, had believed that the US-born children of foreigners were not eligible to become president, THEY WOULD HAVE SAID SO—and they didn’t.

        [THEY DIDN’T NEED TO BECAUSE THE MATTER WAS SETTLED BY THE WORD “NATURAL”. NO SON OF AN ALIEN IS A NATURAL AMERICAN. NOT BY ANY LOGIC OR PHILOSOPHY ON EARTH. BY NATURE HE IS A FOREIGNER JUST LIKE HIS FATHER WHOSE NATIONALITY HE INHERITS.
        IF THE FRAMERS HAD WRITTEN “NO PERSON EXCEPT A NATIVE-BORN CITIZEN…”THEN THERE WOULD BE AMBIGUITY WHICH WOULD NEED CLARIFICATION, AND YOUR POINT WOULD BE VALID, BUT THERE WAS NO AMBIGUITY BECAUSE THEY DID NOT USE THE WORD “NATIVE”.

        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…”

        [THAT IS TRUE, BUT NO ONE UNDERSTANDS, NOR UNDERSTOOD, WHAT BEING SUBJECT MEANS. I’VE EXPLAINED IT AGAIN AND AGAIN, AND NOW ONCE MORE IN A THUMBNAIL VERSION IN A NEW GRAPHIC-WITH-TEXT WHICH I POSTED TODAY, TITLED: “THE DUTY OF THE CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES” READ IT AND YOUR EYES WILL BE OPENED.]

        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.”

        [AND THE PRINCIPLE UPON WHICH HE BASED HIS BASELESS CONCLUSION IS….OH, NOTHING! SUCH AN IGNORANT PEDESTRIAN CONCLUSION IS ONLY POSSIBLE IF YOU KNOW NOTHING REGARDING THE REAL WORLD AND THE PRINCIPLES THAT DETERMINE BELONGING. LIKE I’VE SAID DOZENS OF TIME, THE WORDS “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” ARE NOT A TERM OF ART.

        YOU CANNOT “ASSIGN” A MEANING TO THEM BECAUSE THEY MEAN WHAT THE WORDS TOGETHER MEAN, NOT WHAT SELF-APPOINTED EXPERTS ASSERT BASED ON THEIR OWN BIAS.]

        Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.”

        [THAT IS ONE FANTASTIC EXAMPLE OF PURE OBFUSCATION! THANKS! WHAT ISSUE IS OBSCURED BY ALL OF THAT VERBIAGE? THE ONE ISSUE THAT IS CONTESTED, WHICH IS NOT WHAT MAKES A CITIZEN, BUT WHAT MAKES A NATURAL CITIZEN. WHY CONFLATE THE TWO? BECAUSE OF THE DECEITFUL LIE THAT “CITIZENS” ARE ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT. WHAT LAW DID THE FRAMERS LAY DOWN? THE REQUIREMENT THAT NO CITIZEN EXCEPT A NATURAL CITIZEN SHALL BE ELIGIBLE.]

        That makes about 13 courts that I can cite easily that have ruled that the US born children of foreigners are Natural Born Citizens.

        In addition, there are articles like this:

        http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/
        and this:
        http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012
        and this:
        http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+citizen%22+minor+happersett

        And the Congressional Research Service and Black’s Law Dictionary, and the opinions of two legal scholars who knew the writers of the US constitution:

        [I’VE DELETED ALL OF THE CASE QUOTES BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL DOGMATIC ASSERTIONS BASED ON NOTHING AT ALL OTHER THAN BIASED OPINIONS OF IGNORANT MEN WHO WERE UNABLE TO ELUCIDATE A SINGLE REASON FOR THEIR CONFLATION OF NATIVE-BIRTH NATIONALITY WITH NATURAL CITIZENSHIP.

        ITS TIME THAT YOU GROW UP AND STOP LIVING IN A POLLYANNA WORLD THAT VIEWS ADULTS AND JUDGES AS AUTHORITY FIGURES WHO NEVER GET ANYTHING WRONG AND CERTAINLY NEVER DO ANYTHING WRONG ON PURPOSE FOR INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST REASONS, -INCLUDING ANTI AMERICAN NATIONALISM & EXCEPTIONALISM REASONS.

        YOU WANT TO HOLD UP THE MEANINGLESS AUTHORITY OF BIASED MEN HIDING THEIR POLITICS BENEATH BLACK ROBES INSTEAD OF SEEKING THE TRUTH. WELL, OPINIONS ARE IRRELEVANT TO THE TRUTH, SO UNLESS THEY ARE BACKED BY IRREFUTABLE LOGIC AND PRINCIPLES, THEY ARE IRRELEVANT.]

  6. smrstrauss says:

    Re: “you need to think before you write. I gave no hint that Obama’s birth in Vancouver took place in a hospital, nor that even if it did, it generated a birth certificate if the mother was not around to fill one out and sign it. If he was born in the evening of the 4th, and his mother flew to Hawaii on the 6th, possibly with her own mother in attendance, then she was only in Vancouver after his birth for one full day. Hardly enough time to obtain a birth certificate.”

    Answer: The odds against that are about a zillion to one. [THE ODDS ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LOGIC I PRESENTED FOR HER BEING IN SEATTLE. IF SHE WAS IN SEATTLE, AND THERE IS ZERO REASON TO BELIEVE SHE WASN’T, THEN HER SON WAS BORN IN VANCOUVER BECAUSE HE HAS NO AMERICAN BIRTH CERTIFICATE THAT IS NOT A COUNTERFEIT]

    First, you have to assume that she did not go to a hospital to deliver her child. Then you have to assume that there was no doctor or midwife in attendance, because Canada has rules about them reporting the births of children on their soil.

    [I DIDN’T CLAIM THERE WAS NO RECORD ANYWHERE IN CANADA. YOU HAVE TO ASSUME THAT EVEN A BIRTH IN A HOSPITAL WOULD NOT HAVE GENERATED A BIRTH CERTIFICATE THAT SHE WOULD POSSESS SINCE SHE WAS NOT AROUND FOR ITS PROCESSING AND SIGNING. IN HAWAII, NEW MOTHERS STAYED IN THE MATERNITY WARD FOR MANY DAYS, PERHAPS A WEEK, AND DIDN’T FILL OUT THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE INFORMATION UNTIL ONE OR TWO OR THREE DAYS AFTER GIVING BIRTH.]

    Then you have to assume that Obama’s mother was able to get baby Obama on a plane from Vancouver to Hawaii without there being a record of it. [I EXPLAINED THAT QUITE CLEARLY]

    Then you still have to explain the teacher who stated that she had been told that a woman in Kapiolani Hospital named Stanley had given birth to a child—and she remembered this because she said that she had written home about it to her father, also named Stanley.

    [I EXPLAINED THAT QUITE CLEARLY ALSO; SHE WENT TO A HOSPITAL FOR A CHECK-UP FOR HERSELF AND HER BABY OR SHE CHECKED-INTO ONE DUE TO COMPLICATIONS OF HER FIRST DELIVERY (BLEEDING).]

    Then you have to explain the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers that were sent to the papers ONLY by the DOH of Hawaii (the section of the paper was called “Health Bureau Statistics” and the DOH in Hawaii was known as “the Health Bureau” at the time.
    [I’VE FULLY DEBUNKED THOSE BIRTH NOTICES IN PREVIOUS EXPOSITIONS. READ AND LEARN]

    Finally, you have to explain the birth certificate of Hawaii (and the fact that Hawaii issued one in 1961 is confirmed not only by the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers but by the Index Data and by the repeated confirmation of the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii).

    [NEITHER “CONFIRM” ANYTHING. WHAT DOCUMENTS ON EARTH, WHAT RECORDS, WHAT INDEX DATA CAN’T BE FAKED? I READ THAT NICARAGUA’S NEW PASSPORTS HAVE 80-SOMETHING ANTI-COUNTERFEITING MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THEM. THE INDEX DATA HAD ZERO.
    THE CONSPIRACY TO CREATE A COUNTERFEIT BIRTH HISTORY DID NOT END WITH THE FABRICATION OF THE DIGITAL IMAGES AND THE LATER PAPER VERSIONS. IT EXTENDED TO ALL ANCILLARY RECORDS AS WELL, OR ELSE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EXPOSED, -LIKE DAN RATHER AND THE FAKE NATIONAL GUARD RECORD HE TRIED TO USE TO SABOTAGE BUSH’S RE-ELECTION.]

    In short you have no EVIDENCE, just speculation, of a birth in Vancouver, and there is considerable evidence of a birth in HAWAII. (And, BTW, perhaps you did not know but Kapiolani Hospital is now confirming that Obama was born there. It has done so publicly twice, want to see the references?????)

    [OH SURE, NOW AFTER YEARS HAVE PASSED AND NO SMOKING GUN HAS APPEARED TO DEMOLISH THE FRAUD THEY FIND THE COURAGE TO BACK THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFEND THEIR UNCONSTITUTIONAL SOCIALIST LEADER. THAT IS VERRRRRRY IMPRESSIVE. LIKE THE WORD OF ANGELS AND GODS]

    • smrstrauss says:

      Re: “[I DIDN’T CLAIM THERE WAS NO RECORD ANYWHERE IN CANADA. YOU HAVE TO ASSUME THAT EVEN A BIRTH IN A HOSPITAL WOULD NOT HAVE GENERATED A BIRTH CERTIFICATE THAT SHE WOULD POSSESS SINCE SHE WAS NOT AROUND FOR ITS PROCESSING AND SIGNING. IN HAWAII, NEW MOTHERS STAYED IN THE MATERNITY WARD FOR MANY DAYS, PERHAPS A WEEK, AND DIDN’T FILL OUT THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE INFORMATION UNTIL ONE OR TWO OR THREE DAYS AFTER GIVING BIRTH.]”

      So, if you claim that there was a birth record in Canada, show it. Find it and show it. Otherwise sensible people will know that you are making the whole thing up.

      Re: “[NEITHER “CONFIRM” ANYTHING. WHAT DOCUMENTS ON EARTH, WHAT RECORDS, WHAT INDEX DATA CAN’T BE FAKED..”

      And, if you had a Canadian document showing that Obama was born in Canada, that could be faked as well. However, it is difficult for Obama’s short-form BC to have been faked because a clerk in Hawaii found the information that generated the short-form BC in the files in Hawaii back in 2007, which is when Obama’s short form BC was sent to him. And at that time Obama was only a junior senator from Illinois. The idea that a junior senator could fake his BC and slip it into the Hawaii DOH files where a clerk could find it is extremely unlikely.

      The officials in Hawaii who confirmed the short form BC were REPUBLICAN officials, and they did that confirmation BEFORE THE ELECTION of 2008. It is improbable that a Republican official would have committed a crime and lied for Obama before the presidential election. Of course, it is remotely possible that the Republican officials and the subsequent Democrat officials and the birth notices and the Index Data are all forgeries or lies. But then the birthers have lied so many times there is no good reason to believe them, and there is no evidence (only your speculation) that Obama was born in a foreign country. And there isn’t even evidence that Obama’s mother had a passport in 1961 (which would have been needed for countries other than Canada), and there is good historical evidence that perhaps one in a hundred thousand women traveled outside of the USA while late in pregnancy—which is required for your theory to work—in1961 due to the high risk of stillbirths in those days.

      In short, the odds against Obama’s mother having made such a trip are ENORMOUS. Only if you showed EVIDENCE that Obama was born in Canada (or any other country than the USA) would anyone believe that she had been one of the extremely few women late in pregnancy to have made such a trip. And the birth certificate of Hawaii, the Index Data, the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers, the teacher who wrote home, and Kapiolani Hospital are all saying that Obama was born in HAWAII.

      • arnash says:

        “So, if you claim that there was a birth record in Canada, …”
        WHEN DID I CLAIM THERE WAS A BIRTH RECORD IN CANADA? OH YEAH, NEVER!

        “…back in 2007, which is when Obama’s short form BC was sent to him.”

        No it was not. It was never sent to him. It was fabricated a year later than the date stamped on the back of the security paper used as the background of the digital counterfeit. There was no hard-copy originally, just a digital .jpg image file release anonymously onto the internet. In time it was used to print a hard copy which they managed to stamp with some poor version of an embossing seal in order to make it appear more authentic than the internet image which lacked any official seal, was not certified in anyway, nor signed by any person. It was worthless as a certified document because it was not a document but merely a digital file.

        “In short, the odds against Obama’s mother having made such a trip are ENORMOUS.”

        What garbage. Pregnant women take trips in cars all the time. Sitting for two hours in a car or in a living room are no different. Her arrival in Vancouver would have been during the last two weeks of her pregnancy. The nine months of pregnancy are not subject to a lot of variability, but can be confidently and accurately counted on to be quite exact, in general. So nothing would have prevented her from going for such a drive, and you know it.

        As for “Republican officials” validating the short-form internet image, I noticed that you didn’t and couldn’t name a single one, and that is because there were none. More obamunist lies.

  7. smrstrauss says:

    Re: “No it was not. It was never sent to him…”

    The officials in Hawaii of both parties have said that they sent both the short-form and the long-form BCs to him.

    • arnash says:

      Like I already told you, you need to grow up. What is said by partisan party hacks serving their champion in the government positions they obtained thanks to their party loyalty and connections mean absolutely nothing, and even less than nothing, because unless you can read their minds, you must assume that they are automatically lying to protect the highest office holder on the planet. Truth not only does not matter at that level, it is likely to be the enemy and needs to be suppressed, which it has been, -big time.
      And don’t be so stupid as to think that anyone is dumb enough to believe the lie that “officials of both parties” have asserted that the counterfeits produced by Obama’s cronies were official documents produced by and sent by the HDoH. You quoted no source for your lying claim because there is no source.

      • smrstrauss says:

        Re: “And don’t be so stupid as to think that anyone is dumb enough to believe the lie that “officials of both parties” have asserted that the counterfeits produced by Obama’s cronies were official documents produced by and sent by the HDoH. You quoted no source for your lying claim because there is no source.”

        I have shown my sources repeatedly. Here they are again:

        http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm

        THOSE WERE REPUBLICAN OFFICIALS.

        [[[CLEARLY, YOU ARE AS MENTALLY DEFICIENT As YOU SEEM. FIRST, I DID NOT ASK YOU TO SUPPLY SOURCES, I ASKED TO TO QUOTE SOURCES, WHICH YOU DIDN’T DO BECAUSE THERE ARE NONE OTHER THAN THE OBAMA-LOVING FORMER GOVERNOR WHO RAN AS AND SERVED AS A MEMBER OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. SHE, LIKE YOU, NAIVELY BELIEVED HER LYING OBAMA-SUPPORTING HEALTH DEPT. DIRECTOR. THAT MEANS THAT SHE HAD NO FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE OF ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE LIE SHE WAS TOLD.

        Fukino’s partisan position in total, bend-over-backward favor of Obama’s legitimacy even went to where no Supreme Court has ever gone and proclaimed in effect a definition of “natural born citizen” which in fact does not exist in our system of government. No official at any level of government has the authority to construe the meaning of what the label “a natural born citizen” means, yet she went where she had no authority to go by attaching place-of-birth to those words and claiming that Obama is something she had no right to opine on (an eligible candidate) since he was supposedly born in Hawaii.

        But the truth is that he is ineligible even if born in the Lincoln bedroom because he was an alien-born person, -not a natural born citizen. Even worse than merely being an alien-born citizen, he is not a United States citizen at all by our laws. He is merely presumed to be a citizen, just as mankind previously presumed that the world was flat.]]]

        And here is the confirmation by the former governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican, that says that Obama was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital
        http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html

        [[[NEWS FLASH!! THE OBAMA-CAMPAIGN-QUOTING FORMER GOVERNOR (its such a distraction and we have more important things to focus on…blah, blah, blah) CONFIRMED NOTHING. GROW UP, PULL YOUR FOOLISH HEAD OUT OF THE SAND AND GRASP THE FACT THAT IN POLITICS, NOTHING IS CONFIRMED BY MERE WORDS ALONE.
        ALL THE GOVERNOR DID WAS REITERATE WHAT HER LYING DOH DIRECTOR HAD CONVEYED TO HER, NEVER SUSPECTING HER OF LYING TO HER FACE. AND EVEN FUKINO’S “STATEMENT” “NEWS RELEASE” CONFIRMED NOTHING SINCE ITS THREE PARAGRAPHS ARE ALL LEGALLY SHIELDED BY QUOTATION MARKS.
        WHY??? WAS SHE QUOTING HERSELF? WHERE DID THOSE QUOTES COME FROM AND WHO ATTESTED TO THEIR ORIGIN??? OH YEAH…NO ONE!!! THEY ARE UNSIGNED AND UNCERTIFIED BY ANYTHING OR ANYONE.]]]

        In addition to those officials, there are the Democrat officials who confirmed that they sent the long form birth certificate to Obama: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/01/heres-the-birth-certificate/
        [[[AGAIN, WITH THE INAPPROPRIATE USE OF THE WORD “CONFIRMED”. PARTISAN POLITICAL-HACK LIARS CANNOT CONFIRM ANYTHING.]]]

        And here is a statement of a witness who stated that she had been told by a doctor at KAPIOLANI HOSPITAL that a child had been born to a woman named Stanley (Obama’s mother’s first name), and that she had written home about it to her father, also named Stanley:

        http://web.archive.org/web/20110722055908/http://mysite.ncnetwork.net/res10o2yg/obama/Teacher%20from%20Kenmore%20recalls%20Obama%20was%20a%20focused%20student%20%20Don%27t%20Miss%20%20The%20Buffalo%20News.htm

        [[[ACCEPTING THE CREDIBILITY OF THAT FORMER OBAMA TEACHER IS NOT A PROBLEM EXCEPT FOR YOU SINCE THERE IS THE PROBLEM THAT SHE DID NOT IN ANY WAY SAY WHAT YOU NEED TO HEAR; -THAT THE NEWBORN WAS IN FACT BORN IN HAWAII. LIKE I SUGGEST, HE WAS BORN A FEW DAYS EARLIER IN VANCOUVER BUT SPENT TIME IN A HAWAIIAN HOSPITAL FOR COMPLICATIONS AFFLICTING HIM OR HIS MOTHER, OR BOTH.

        FURTHERMORE, HER RECALLED QUOTE; “STANLEY HAD A BABY” IS MISSING THE WORD “a” BEFORE STANLEY, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN USED SINCE NEITHER PARTY KNEW ANN DUNHAM, BUT THEY BOTH KNEW THAT NO ONE EVER HEARD OF A STANLEY HAVING A BABY.]]]

        And here is one of two statements from Kapiolani Hospital, that say that Obama was born there:

        http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/04/kapiol

        [[[AND HERE’S THE TRANSCRIPT THAT YOU ARE STUPID ENOUGH TO REFER TO:
        Peter Boyles, of radio station KHOW in Denver. Here’s the transcript:

        RING…
        HOSPITAL: Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children. Can I help you.

        BOYLES: Hi, it’s Peter Boyles, a radio guy in Denver, Colorado, and you’re with us. I want to bring my family and go to where President Obama was born. Is this the right hospital?

        HOSPITAL: That’s correct.

        BOYLES: OK, so there’s, he was born there in Kapi’olani?

        HOSPITAL: Yes

        [[[LET’S SEE….I’VE NEVER MET ANYONE NAMED “HOSPITAL”, AND I’M FAIRLY CERTAIN THAT MS. HOSPITAL WAS NOT AN OFFICIAL SPOKESPERSON FOR THE HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATION, AND YET IF SUCH A SPOKESPERSON MADE SUCH A CLAIM, I’M PRETTY SURE SHE WOULD BE A DEVOTED OBAMA-SUPPORTING DEMOCRAT WHO MIGHT THINK TWICE BEFORE ASSERTING THE SAME BASELESS CLAIM BEFORE CONGRESS OR A FEDERAL JUDGE INVESTIGATING OBAMA’S ORIGIN.
        TALK IS CHEAP, CHEAP, CHEAP, AND COSTS NOTHING TO DISH OUT. NOW SUBSTITUTE THE WORD “LIES” FOR “TALK” AND YOU GET AN EQUALLY TRUE STATEMENT.]]]

        In contrast, you have not shown even a shred of evidence that Obama was born in Vancouver.

        [YOU ARE SO CLUELESS. YOU HAVE SHOWN NO REASON WHY HE WASN’T. WHERE IS YOUR LOGIC TO REFUTE THE SCENARIO I LAID OUT??? THERE IS NONE OR YOU WOULD HAVE HAMMERED IT HOME AS STRONGLY AS POSSIBLE. AND YET, WHAT DO WE HEAR IN THAT REGARD? SILENCE.
        THAT IS BECAUSE THERE ARE NO ACTUAL FACTS TO SUPPORT YOUR JUVENILE FAITH THAT YOUR SOCIALIST MESSIAH WAS BORN IN HAWAII, IS A U.S. CITIZEN, IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, AND IS ELIGIBLE TO COMMAND THE GREATEST POWER ON EARTH.
        HE IS MERELY A DOPE-SMOKING, COCAINE-SNORTING, HOMEWORK SHIRKING SELF-ADMITTED LAZY LAID-BACK FORMER HAWAIIAN WHO WAS RAISED AND MENTORED BY SOCIALISTS AND MARXISTS RADICALS WHO LIVE TO SEE THE DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES REPLACED WITH ONE-PARTY SOCIALIST RULE THAT TAKES FROM THE MAKERS AND GIVES TO THE TAKERS, -AND WHEN THE MAKERS AREN’T SUPPLYING ENOUGH FOR THE TAKERS THEN SIMPLY CREATE MONEY OUT OF THIN AIR AND THEREBY DESTROY THE SOLVENCY OR YOUR COUNTRY’S FUTURE, ALONG WITH YOUR OWN.]]]

  8. smrstrauss says:

    Re: “FURTHERMORE, HER RECALLED QUOTE; “STANLEY HAD A BABY” IS MISSING THE WORD “a” BEFORE STANLEY, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN USED SINCE NEITHER PARTY KNEW ANN DUNHAM, BUT THEY BOTH KNEW THAT NO ONE EVER HEARD OF A STANLEY HAVING A BABY.]]]”

    She recalls that Dr. West told her “Stanley had a baby” but he might have said “We had a woman with an unusual first name at the hospital, and it was Stanley, and today (or yesterday or two days ago, or whatever) she had a baby.” In any case, She recalls that a doctor, who really was a doctor at Kapiolani told her that a woman named Stanley had a baby. And she recalls this because her father’s name happens to be Stanley, and she wrote home to him about it.

    [[[“A WOMAN NAMED “STANLEY” HAD A BABY” -THAT STATEMENT WAS NOT ABOUT SOMEONE HAVING A BABY BUT ABOUT THE FACT THAT A STANLEY BECAME A MOTHER, WHICH NEVER HAPPENS BECAUSE STANLEY IS ALWAYS A MAN, SO THE FOCUS OF THE STATEMENT IS NOT RELATED TO A BIRTH TAKING PLACE, NOR WHERE IT TOOK PLACE, BUT TO WHOM IT TOOK PLACE. IT CONTAINS NO HINT THAT STANLEY BECAME A MOTHER IN HAWAII, OR ANY PLACE IN PARTICULAR, SO OBAMA FANATICS SHOULD NOT READ THAT ASSUMPTION INTO IT. IT’S NOT THERE.
    “A STANLEY BECAME A MOTHER.” “A STANLEY GAVE BIRTH” “A STANLEY HAD A BABY.” “STANLEY WAS A SHE AND SHE WAS A PATIENT WHO VISITED THE HOSPITAL, (-OR CHECKED-INTO THE HOSPITAL).”]]]

    Yes she could have gone by car to Vancouver IF she were in Seattle at the time.

    There is evidence that Obama’s mother actually was in the state of Washington, and perhaps even before the birth of Obama, and certainly no evidence that she didn’t go to Vancouver, Canada, nor give birth there. There is no evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii, which happens to be where his birth certificate falsely says he was born.

  9. David Farrar says:

    Have you seen the latest: Mark Halperin and John Heilemann’s new book: Double Down: ‘Double Down’: How Obama beat the birthers in 2012, wherein Obama finds his actual natal ‘hospital’ birth record, with his footprint?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • arnash says:

      Their account is not a journalist’s factual account of what is known but is simply a fiction-writer’s fantasy intended to attract folks curious about the subject to buy the book, as well as to legitimize Obama’s U.S. citizenship, -which is non-existent, and his eligibility to be President, which is likewise.

      They attempt to play on the ignorance of the American public which believes that native-birth qualifies one to be President, while also implying that since an unexplained souvenir birth certificate “exists” therefore a real one must exist also, and therefore Obama must have been born in Hawaii and is not guilty of birth certificate fraud but instead is constitutionally qualified to be President as “a natural born citizen”. Every single stage of their scenario perpetrates a greater fraud than their false account. It is 100% politically motivated (aside from any financial motive).

  10. davidfarrar says:

    Actually, Ann Durham could have legally given birth to Obama Jr., in Canada since her husband was a British subject, is an interesting fact. But as to the missing documentation; I haven’t an answer.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  11. arnash says:

    http://www.colony14.net/id41.html

    Dunham’s acquaintances recall that they often had difficulties knowing when she was telling the truth. One remarked, “She would make you believe anything while you were face-to-face but, a few minutes after she’d leave, you’d realize what she said wasn’t very… realistic or true,”.

    Another friend recalls joining Dunham for dinner with her parents. Dunham tells an incredible story about a car accident. Her mother, knowing the tale was fabricated, lets her finish… and then states, “That never happened.” [Anne was a highly imaginative pathological liar. Her son inherited her imagination, seeing himself as a future Prince or King, and telling others that it was so, and convincingly for many.]]

    T800 wrote:
    Hawaiian state law allows children born OUTSIDE Hawaii to get valid Hawaiian birth certificates (S. 338-17.8)[301, 583]

    [§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

    (b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.

    (c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]

    Those who argue that a Hawaiian birth certificate undeniably proves a birth was in Hawaii have to reconcile their argument with Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8.

    Some suggest that the Hawaiian statute was intended to increase the number of Hawaiian citizens in order to get additional federal money. Welfare benefits were not then provided to illegal immigrants, and Hawaii was overburdened with immigrants—most in poverty and many involved in crime. The Hawaiian practice of issuing birth certificates to children born somewhere else allowed it to improperly boost the official population numbers of citizens, thus increasing the amount of welfare money it received from Washington, D.C. (In other words, the State of Hawaii may have been engaged in massive welfare fraud to obtain federal tax dollars.)

    Some have also argued that Hawaii’s status as the nation’s 50th state is questionable because the proposition voted on by its citizens only asked the question, “Should Hawaii immediately be admitted into the Union as a State?” and did not also offer the option of total independence. The legal choice should therefore have been not solely between statehood and remaining a territory of the United States, but between statehood, remaining a territory, and independence. Further, the statehood vote (on June 27, 1959) was open to any U.S. citizen who had resided in Hawaii for at least one year, including members of the military and their families—non-Hawaiians who should perhaps have had no say in the matter. The argument persists in the minds of many island residents that Hawaii has never legally been a state. [1589]

    The Obama Timeline… and thoughts on restoring American liberties
    feel free to contact the author at colony14@gmail.com

  12. arnash says:

    Boston Globe reporter withholds Obama file
    President’s official birth narrative doesn’t match up with INS reports
    Published: 11/08/2011
    Jerome R. Corsi
    http://www.wnd.com/2011/11/365749/

    Close examination of the unredacted page obtained by WND, which Jacobs obviously used to write her biography, shows it contained key information relevant to the Obama nativity story that was whited out in the copy sent to Smathers.

    On page 122 of her biography, “The Other Barack: The Bold and Reckless Life of President Obama’s Father,” Jacobs revealed that Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham had considered giving up their son for adoption:

    According to the INS memo concerning her April conversation with Dahling, the INS administrator, ‘Subject [Obama] got his USC [United Sates citizen] wife ‘Hapai’ [pidgin for pregnant] and although they were married they do not live together and Miss Dunham is making arrangements with the Salvation Army to give the baby away.

    Exhibit 1 shows the unredacted INS file from which Jacobs worked to obtain the information.
    Clearly, the redaction was designed to eliminate the information that Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham considered putting baby Barack Obama Jr. up for adoption with the Salvation Army.

    Furthermore, the unredacted version of the memo documents that the INS was aware of the adoption possibility as early as April 10, 1961, four months before the baby was born.

    A familiar face or MIA?

    The information in Jacobs’ version of the document is consistent with other documentation that contradicts President Obama’s narrative of his early life. He has claimed that Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham lived together with him as a family in Hawaii until September 1962, when Barack Obama Sr. left Hawaii to go to Harvard University to begin graduate studies in economics.

    As recently as April 20, only a week before Obama released from the White House what he claimed was a scan of his original long-form 1961 birth certificate, Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie was insisting to Fox News that he was in Hawaii when Obama was born.

    Abercrombie personal testimony was an attempt to verify that Honolulu was the place of Obama’s birth, even though under questioning he admitted he was not literally at the hospital to witness the birth.

    Abercrombie’s revised story was that he “first laid eyes on baby Obama a few days after he was born,” supposedly when Obama’s parents introduced the newborn to friends at the University of Hawaii, where Abercrombie and Obama Sr. were students.

    “We not only saw him and were with them, but were introduced to him of course at our gatherings, our student gatherings,” Abercrombie said on April 20. “And of course over the years then as he was raised by his mother and his grandparents we of course saw him frequently because he was with his grandfather all the time.”

    By these statements, Abercrombie claimed to know the Obama family quite well.

    Abercrombie’s point apparently was to affirm Barack Obama Sr., Ann Dunham and the baby were seen and introduced commonly at the University of Hawaii.

    But the document cited in Jacobs’ biography published some three months later, in July, contradict Abercrombie’s claims about the Obama family.

    Jacobs wrote on page 118 that Obama Sr. “said nothing of his new girl friend [Stanley Ann Dunham] to most of his friends on campus.”

    Still, on the same page, Jacobs quotes Abercrombie, who insists Obama Sr. brought Dunham with him to parties at the university.

    But, as if to explain why university students didn’t consider them to be married, Jacobs quotes Abercrombie as saying that Dunham tended to sit quietly beside Obama Sr., as she spoke little and “instead listened closely as the men – and it was mostly men at their gatherings – argued and laughed.”

    Jacobs documents no incident in which Dunham brought baby Obama to the university to engage in social events with her husband and the baby’s father.

    WND has separately documented that Dunham left Hawaii within a few weeks of the baby’s birth to attend on-campus evening classes at the University of Washington in Seattle. She did not return to Hawaii until after Barack Obama Sr. left the islands in September 1962.

    Jacobs first revealed that Obama Sr. and Dunham had considered putting the baby up for adoption with the Salvation Army when she wrote an article in the Boston Globe titled “Father spoke of having Obama adopted,” published July 7.

    Jacob recounts in her book how she found the INS file for Obama, Sr.: “In a storage facility in Lee’s Summit, Missouri, where the paper records of what was once called the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service are stored, there is a folder bearing the name Barack H. Obama, alien registration number A11938537, which contained memos stretching from the time he arrived in Honolulu in 1959 until he was forced to leave Cambridge, Massachusetts, against his will in 1964.”

  13. arnash says:

    Reality Check wrote: Nash started right out of the gate with claims that are not supported by the evidence. He is misreading the date on the transcript for Ann Dunham to be 8-19-61 when it was actually 9-19-61. Sharon Rondeau at the Post & Email blog called the University of Washington and confirmed that the classes started in September They were on the quarter system in 1961 and the dates for the fall quarter were 9-19-61 to 12-12-61. Universities on the quarter schedule typically started fall quarter in mid September with exams in early December.

    In addition the grades for Dunham’s classes for the fall 1961 and winter 1962 quarters are listed as “Extension & Correspondence Courses”. The most likely scenario is that she took correspondence classes from Honolulu fall quarter and then after the marriage with Barack Sr. went south she moved back to Seattle and attended classes on campus beginning in March 1962.

    Here is the transcript: http://www.theobamafile.com/_images/AnnaObamaUnivofWashingtonTranscript.jpg

    Foggy wrote:

    ~the form says “EXTENSION & CORRESPONDENCE COURSES”

    That means SHE WASN’T IN SEATTLE TO ATTEND THE CLASSES.

    reply:
    It means no such thing.

    Before you can presume that she took correspondence courses from Hawaii, you first need to show why she would want or need to do that. And you also have to explain why you grab onto correspondence and not extension as the explanation.
    We know that with a newborn, her ability of following a regular schedule would be impaired, but if she took correspondence courses then why did she not also take extension courses in Hawaii?

    Better still, why, with her parents’ resources, did she not take full or even part-time courses in Hawaii? They were too poor or too cheap to spring for a baby-sitter? How stupid is that scenario? SHE WAS NOT IN HAWAII!
    And here’s a news flash; the date is not “9 19 61”, it is perceivable as being an “8” that is notably different in the right side curve of the “9” from the right-side non-curve of the “8”. The quality is horrible, but it can be discerned nevertheless.
    I’d say you either need a clean copy or you need to assume that the date is the date of registration, -or that the information given to Sharon was incorrect.
    Either way, as I asked, who has a real explanation for her to leave Hawaii other than that perhaps her bi-racial child would be a rather large embarrassment to Ann’s parents? That is possible but not likely since they were willing to raise him.

    If she is claimed to have returned for the great friendships she had there, who were the friends? No one knows that she had any or many. Besides, she was not the dependent girly type that would be leaning on her BFFs considering how much of an individual she was, -and way beyond the psychological maturity of her peers.
    As for her marriage going south, -what marriage? First you have to establish that there was one, -an actual one, not a paper one. Please share her love letters, romantic-couple pictures, sweet wedding photos, pregnancy and birth photos, and happy family photos. Mere sex partners do not have such photos.
    And thus, they are ALL NON-EXISTENT! No marriage. No co-habitation. Polygamy. No paternal income. No job.

    If she resided at home in Hawaii, where’s the evidence?
    If she resided at an established residence in Seattle, it can be presumed it was established before delivery, -not immediately after, -and for the purpose of searching Seattle and Washington for an adoptive couple to spare her the ball-and-chain of a newborn when she was just beginning to be free as a new adult.
    You know that that is what she was wanting, just like the tens of millions of other young women who have since had access to abortion service.
    It seems that nothing much can be proven to fit Obama’s lying scenario of a united family for two years. More sound-good fantasy to sell his book and himself.
    Please explain where my logic has gone wrong. Good luck.

  14. arnash says:

    Pat replied: “You keep making claims that President Obama was born in Vancouver BC, and offer no proof to back it up.”

    The only “proof” is a proof of logic. Why don’t you get that? Why is your thinking on such a juvenile level?

    Since Hawaii never issued his mother a birth certificate and he has never presented one from any other States, he had to have been born at home without witness willing or able to swear to that fact, or he was born outside of the United States.
    Vancouver is the only possible location near Seattle. Seattle is the only possible location where Ann would have moved to in order to find an adoptive couple which didn’t exist in Hawaii.
    It’s nothing more or less than one logical assumption built on top of another, -waiting for you to present facts that destroy any of the assumptions.
    The conclusion is that non-existent “facts” can’t prove nor disprove the scenario. So your characterization of what I’ve written is off-base. You pretend I’m dogmatically insisting on some fantastical scenario, and yet no one can present any flaw in its logic or facts.

    “You keep claiming that Stanley Ann Dunham was in Seattle, when her transcripts from UW clearly state the classes were correspondence and distance learning classes.”

    “distance learning classes” means remote campus locations, within the area of Seattle, -not within the area of another States. So again, we have two possibilities and neither one can be proven as to where the heck she was, leaving the Vancouver scenario intact.

    [em]You make claims that SAD and Barack Obama, Sr. weren’t married, when the marriage and divorce records state otherwise. [/em]

    No, I claim that they were not partners in a real marriage. I made it absolutely clear that a paper marriage is what they had, -a shotgun wedding if you will, for the sake of avoiding the stigma of “bastard” attaching to the up-coming child.

    But I also point out that that is the only conclusion possible because of the total absence of anything resembling a relationship between them, much less a real wedding and marriage.
    As for the divorce, you should read the exposition I wrote about it: [url=https://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2014/03/12/why-obamas-mother-needed-a-fake-divorce/]Why Obama’s Mother Needed A Fake Divorce[/url]

    It suggests that SAD finally obtain proof of legal custody of her son via the divorce and the consent of the father, since she lacked a birth certificate for her son.
    Having custody, she, with Lolo, could apply for Indonesian adoption and obtain Indonesian ID, and sooner or later a Passport.

    Your claims of the “shame of a mixed race child” fail to take into account that Hawaii has been for well over 150 years an ethnic mixing pot, and mixed race children there are simply no big deal.

    You fail to take into account the fact that there were essentially no Blacks, or “Negros” in Hawaii in its entire history until some settled following exposure to the islands as sailors or soldiers in WWII. Within white society, it may have been an embarrassing thing to have an underage daughter being pregnant with a Negro’s baby [em]outside[/i] of wedlock, which [i]was[/em] a big deal everywhere back then.

    [em]In short, you have offered no credible evidence to back up your supposed “irrefutable” claims.[/em]

    In short, I’ve never once claimed that there was any known evidence to support the logic of the scenarios that have occurred to me.
    Imagine if in 2006, new Senator Obama was presented with the Vancouver scenario as speculation as to his true birth history, -about which he might have known nothing.

    Imagine if someone presenting such a scenario claimed to know that it was all true.
    Would Obama respond with no response, or would he want to know if there were any plausibility to it, since if it were true, the ignorant American public would assume that he wasn’t eligible to be President, ever.
    Now suppose that it was presented to him [em]after[/em] he had been set-up to run for the presidency. Would his attitude merely be one of curiosity, or one of antipathy and even hostility?

    Why in the world would he want anyone to know the truth since it might destroy his qualification to be President in the eyes of the ignorant public?

    Why would those who backed him and pushed him to the front of the pack not want to clear a path for him, which might have to include faking a few documents, including a birth certificate that Obama believed he should rightfully have anyway since he was born in Hawaii?

    And don’t think for a second that he would never, ever consider doing something dishonest like going along with a fake birth certification, when his whole youth was rife with pretense, deception and lying about his illegal use of pot and cocaine. His whole mental-framework included lying as a routine behavior. And he still has that same mind-set today.

    As for questions as to why I’m doing this; it’s for the sake of the truth, the sake of history and posterity, and because some of you might be honestly holding a false outlook regarding the truth about the nature of citizenship, and might still be teachable.

    Honest people are worth attempting to save from their delusions. Dishonest people are unsalvageable. But no one will ever find their way out of the massively broad and deep citizenship delusion if they are never made aware of the facts, and it seems that that job has fallen into my lap since I’ve had the time and interest. Being single makes a world of difference.

    Saul of Tarsus knew for certain that his view of God and his given laws were unquestionable, and yet one day something very extraordinary happened to him on the road to Damascus, and it turned his whole world upside down. It turned out that reality was more than he thought it was.

  15. arnash says:

    Reality Check » Mon Jun 16, 2014
    Adrien
    Have you ever considred and listed the number of individuals that have to have been “in on it” over the last 52 years for your completely absurd and unsupported nonsense theory that Barack Obama was born in Canada to be true?

    Dear RC. Why don’t you learn how to think? Why did you not calculate your number from about 2006 following Barry’s election to the U.S. Senate? So… from 1961 to 2006 there were exactly zero people involved in the conspiracy. Yes, ZERO!!!!

    It follows that with a conspiracy of the magnitude needed to elect a President, the Hawaiian newspaper pages listing his birth in library archives, were replaced with altered ones, -as is exposed by the fact that they are on completely different reels from all of the other dozens of reels in the archives.
    Even Barry himself no doubt believes he was born in Hawaii. You need to read my treatment on The Secret Obama’s Mother Couldn’t Tell Him

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: