Stuter: Credibility in Scary Times
NOTE: I am hearing from many people that INTERPOL is involved in illegal activities. This may be true; and if it were true, I would not be surprised. However, the claim of the e-mails making the rounds of the internet is that EO 13524 gives INTERPOL police state powers within the United States. This is blatantly false and not a conclusion that can be reached by examination of the documents involved: the International Organizations Immunities Act and the three executive orders involved, 12425 (Reagan), 12971 (Clinton) and 13524 (Obama). The International Organizations Immunities Act, in total, gives no foreign entity afforded diplomatic immunity, INTERPOL or any other, police state powers within the United States. Those making this claim do so erroneously. (L.S.)
Ronald Reagan once quipped, “trust but verify“—an axiom that serves us well.
Increasingly, since Also Known As (AKA) Obama was given the blessing of Congress to occupy the White House and act in the capacity of “president” (even though evidence indicates he is not a natural-born citizen as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, United States Constitution); as more and more Americans have come to the realization that the “different kind of politician” they voted for is a Marxist with the intent of enslaving them and turning the United States into a police state; commentaries have found validity on the e-waves that are anything but. The tendency is to look on anything put out about AKA with an eye that it certainly is possible in light of his Marxist agenda.
Possible, maybe, but whether it is true is what we need to consider and act on.
At the latter end of September, stories were flying around the internet about a detention facility in Hardin, Montana, how (sic) “AKA’s goons had taken over the town as a police state model that would be spread across the United States.” The stories were flying fast and hard, each one, it seemed, trying to outdo the last in the “police state” department.
People were lapping it up. The ripples of anger across the surface of the growing discontent were palpable.
According to one of the e-mails flying around the internet, put out by a supposedly Christian “intercessor”, but for which no one seemed to accept responsibility and on which no author was noted, the following claims were made:
1. AKA had signed a law privatizing all the police forces in the United States;
2. The Hardin city council had disbanded the Sheriff’s Office
3. A dozen “blacked out” Mercedes SUVs had rolled into town with the Hardin City colors and logos “painted” on them
4. A heavy duty gate was being constructed at the “entrance to Hardin”
5. The head of the government operation was a man who spoke with a thick Russian accent and his website “logo” was Russian
6. The security force would be made up, primarily, of foreign nationals
7. This new “police force”
a. was stopping people without cause
b. would be conducting forced H1N1 vaccinations; any who refused would be imprisoned
c. had told a local gun shop they had the serial numbers off all the guns in his shop, guns he owned, and that the people in the town owned.
It took a lot of time and a great deal of research to separate the fact from the fiction, sensationalism and hype. And when the truth was separated from the rest, the story came out a whole lot differently.
The truth was that a man, known as “Captain” Michael [Hilton] with a long criminal record of fraud of varying types, who had spent six years in a California prison, whose base of operations was in California, was attempting to lease a detention facility that the people of Hardin had been conned into building two years prior by a Texas-based group known for this; that the detention facility had since sat empty; that the bonds on the facility were in default; that officials in Hardin, Montana had jumped at the opportunity to lease the facility without thoroughly checking the background of the individual seeking to lease the facility. There had been several black Mercedes brought to town by Hilton with magnetic logos attached to them, said logos subsequently ordered removed by Hardin officials. While Michael Hilton was supposedly a naturalized American citizen, while he spoke with an accent, his country of origin was not Russia but either Montenegro or Serbia; the crest (the “logo”) on his website was of Serbian royalty. That crest, as it originally appeared, has now been altered as has several other aspects of the website, including the insinuation that American Private Police Force, Hilton’s company, was connected to Xe, formerly known as Blackwater.
What made me question the validity of this e-mail, initially, was the claim that AKA had signed a law privatizing all the police forces in the U.S. and the claim that the Hardin city council had disbanded the Sheriff’s Office. That the number of the bill AKA supposedly signed was not provided gave rise to the question of the validity of this claim. Likewise, that the Hardin city council has no authority to disband the Sheriff’s Office, a county agency over which the Hardin city council has no authority, was reason to question the validity of this claim.
When the truth of Michael Hilton’s extensive criminal record came to light, when he refused to disclose who was backing his operation, when pressure was applied by the Montana Attorney General’s office, Michael Hilton quietly left town.
The problem was that, in the meantime, the wild stories circulating the internet showed up on websites otherwise considered credible. When I requested of Steve Quayle that he either remove the above e-mail from his website or post my rebuttal to the e-mail, he did neither. The e-mail still exists on his website today. It also exists on the Cutting Edge website website, as does the referenced e-mail below (this link may change).
More recently, another e-mail has been circulating the internet in which it is claimed that (sic) AKA has given INTERPOL (International Criminal Police Organization) policing powers within the United States via Executive Order. The e-mails are flying fast and furious regarding this claimed “police state” move by AKA.
Digressing for a moment, background information on INTERPOL is pertinent. INTERPOL, “Created in 1923, … facilitates cross-border police co-operation, and supports and assists all organizations, authorities and services whose mission is to prevent or combat international crime … Each INTERPOL member country maintains a National Central Bureau staffed by national law enforcement officers. The NCB is the designated contact point for the General Secretariat, regional offices and other member countries requiring assistance with overseas investigations and the location and apprehension of fugitives.”
The United States is a member country of INTERPOL. The NCB in the United States is located within the Justice Department.
Returning to the e-mail in question, spreading with lightning speed across the e-waves: the truth regarding this e-mail is something entirely different.
AKA has issued an executive order 13524 amending executive order 12425, written and signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1983. It pertains to the International Organizations Immunities Act which addresses diplomatic immunity afforded foreign entities. President Reagan, with stated exceptions, gave INTERPOL diplomatic immunity in the United States. In 1995, President Bill Clinton issued executive order 12971 amending Reagan’s executive order 12425. AKA’s executive order 13524 further amends Reagan’s original executive order and has the effect of completely removing all exceptions to the diplomatic immunity afforded INTERPOL.
The International Organizations Immunities Act addresses diplomatic immunity; it does not give any foreign entity, such as INTERPOL, police powers or legal powers within the United States.
Yet that is what is being claimed in e-mails flying about the internet and appearing on what are otherwise considered credible websites.
An article appearing at Rense.com was backtracked to a website with no apparent name other than Marion’s Blog; “Marion” being Marion Valentine, a “disabled Navy Cryptologist” out of Laurel, Mississippi. Whether the article, posted on his blog, was written and posted by him, is not clear. While the article presents the various Executive Orders involved and the pertinent sections of the International Organizations Immunities Act accurately, it then provides the following summation:
“INTERPOL, an international law enforcement agency, has just been granted complete and utter ‘diplomatic immunity’ within the borders of the United States, courtesy of Obama. They are not subject to any Constitutional limitations within the United States. Good luck filing for discovery, documents, witnesses or subpoenas against a police force that is operating outside of the Constitution in your own country! You can’t sue them. Their records can’t be searched. They are not subject to FOIA requests. You probably won’t even know the name of the agent prosecuting you if INTERPOL comes to visit. And they don’t have to tell you either.”
Is this true? Is this accurate? In a word, “NO.” INTERPOL is not an international law enforcement agency. As stated above, INTERPOL facilitates cross-border police co-operation regarding criminal acts that are international in scope. For instance, INTERPOL would have been contacted when the Nigerian national, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, tried to blow up Northwest/Delta flight 253 on approach to the Detroit, Michigan airport. INTERPOL would facilitate the exchange of information between foreign law enforcement agencies with information on Abdulmutallab and U.S. law enforcement agencies seeking that information; INTERPOL is not a law enforcement agency in and of itself; it has no police enforcement power in any of its member countries.
It is true that INTERPOL has been granted complete and utter diplomatic immunity within the borders of the United States. However, diplomatic immunity does not equate to giving INTERPOL police powers over American citizens; diplomatic immunity is only granted if INTERPOL is in good standing and abides by United States law concerning diplomats residing on American soil. If diplomatic immunity is rescinded, due to offenses against the United States or its citizens, the offending party has a choice to either leave the United States immediately or be arrested and prosecuted under American law. Diplomatic status can be revoked for any number of reasons including acts of war, spying, or criminal acts committed under American law. Over the years, diplomatic status has be revoked a number of times for diplomats in this country, resulting in their immediate expulsion from this country.
The claim that “They are not subject to any Constitutional limitations within the United States”; that they can operate “outside of the Constitution” and American law is utterly false. If an INTERPOL agent showed up at your door, he/she would be risking expulsion or prosecution for breach of diplomatic immunity.
As I stated above, this article is unsigned with no author apparent, just like the e-mail that started the whole buzz about Hardin, Montana. Who is writing and who is putting out these disinformation e-mails, and why they are doing it, is something we need to be asking ourselves. One thing is very apparent, these people are not on our side. It would appear their motive is to muddy the waters regarding the eligibility issue and draw attention away from what is really happening with AKA and his Marxist minions.
These are scary times, that is true. We have a man in the Oval Office intent on burning the Constitution and Bill of Rights to the ground, intent on turning our nation into a police state with third-world status.
But knowledge is power.
We need to stay focused on the truth and not let the truth be obscured or sidelined by disinformation.
There isn’t one of us who hasn’t been suckered at some point by one of these wild stories; this is true. It is our obligation, however, to expose them when we find they aren’t true.
Trust but verify!
December 29, 2009
© 2009 Lynn M Stuter – All Rights Reserved.
Submitted for publication to the Federal Observer by the author.
~ About the Author ~
Mother and wife, Lynn M. Stuter has spent the past ten years researching systems theory with a particular emphasis on education. She home schooled two daughters, now grown and on their own. She has worked with legislators, both state and federal, on issues pertaining to systems governance and education reform. She networks nation-wide with other researchers and citizens concerned with the transformation of our nation. She has traveled the United States and lived overseas. Visit her WEB SITE.
Re: “The document circulated as AKA’s birth certificate is a modern, computer generated document. It could say anything.”
Hawaii, like several other states, have made their official birth certificate a short-form, computer generated document. When you ask for a birth certificate, you get the short-form Certification of Live Birth. EVERYONE does. There are no exceptions. Hawaii sends out the Certification to everyone, and it no longer sends out copies of the original document. (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html).
The Certification is the OFFICIAL birth certificate, and it is accepted as proof of birth in Hawaii by all the departments in Hawaii (Yes, including DHHL. I checked), and it is accepted as proof of birth in the USA by the US State Department and the branches of the US military.
There is an original in the file. In fact the officials in Hawaii (members of a Republican governor’s administration) have twice said that the original confirms the facts on the Certification. Why doesn’t Hawaii or Obama send that out? Obama cannot because he does not have it. He only has what Hawaii sent him in 2007, the Certification.
Then why doesn’t Hawaii send it out? I don’t know. It is under a Republican governor. Why don’t you suggest that she change the policy? However, the original will show exactly what the officials have said that it will show, that Obama was born in Hawaii.
The document circulated as AKA’s birth certificate is a modern, computer generated document. It could say anything. If there is one thing I know, courts love paperwork … and keep everything. I have a copy of my son’s 1988 birth certificate. Even though we were getting into the age of computers at that time, his birth certificate is a memeograph copy of the doctors report of live birth that was filed in 1988, with raised seal and purple ink with registrar signature to verify authenticity.
Granted, this computer generated document is dated November of 2001. It even states that it will serve as evidence in any court. But, computer products can also be copied and fraudulently created. For a clerk to print and issue this computer generated certificate, the original document would have been researched and the pertinent data extracted for this form.
If he is a citizen of these United States, then somewhere, in a court house file room, should be the original 1961 document, typed and/or handwritten. A “certified” copy of that certificate should be marked with special ink, signature and raised seal. That’s how it’s been done for decades.
Go to the hospital he was reported to have been born and find the forms they used to report live births in 1961. Compare that with others known to have been born at the same time, and then compare that to AKA. I think you would be hard pressed to find a match.
Hey Hippybiker!
Why not discuss the facts? The facts are that Obama has shown the official birth certificate of Hawaii, which clearly says on it that he was born in Hawaii, and that fact was twice confirmed by the officials in Hawaii, members of a Republican governor’s administration.
Hey smrstraus AKA Ann….Please go back to Obama Crimes and pester them. SCAT, RAT!
Re: “It also has his fathers race as African, also a term not used in 1962. It would have been Negro or Black. Please explain, but you can’t, can you? Because the document is BS. We know it and so do you.”
The officials in Hawaii have explained this. They said that the rule was that anyone could list their race the way that they wanted.
In any case, the Certification of Live Birth is the official birth certificate of Hawaii. The officials in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii. There is not a shred of evidence that Obama was born in Kenya or anywhere outside of Hawaii. His Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Hawaii (not in Kenya), and there is even a witness who recalls being told of his birth in Hawaii in 1961 (http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html)
I got my Birth Certificate out, and it has my parents races listed as WHITE. I looked at the fiction that we are told is AKAs (sic)Birth Certificate. It has his mother listed as Caucasion, a term not used in 1962. It also has his fathers race as African, also a term not used in 1962. It would have been Negro or Black. Please explain, but you can’t, can you? Because the document is BS. We know it and so do you.
Sorry, it should have been the former. Anyway, just go and drink your Kool Aid a be a good little Obama- Bot.
“The theory that Obama was born in Kenya, that he was smuggled into the U.S., and that his parents somehow hoodwinked Hawaiian authorities into falsely certifying his birth in Oahu, is crazy stuff.”
smrstrauss, you are either a very misguided fellow or an incredible BS artist. If the latter is the case, I have some excellent beach front property in Eastern AZ I would be interested in selling you. Haw! hb AARP 3%er!
To this party. smrstrauss, who professes to know that the fraud OCCUPYING our Oval Office is eligible to even be in America I offer up this quote – to the witless party and to those who fall for his line of BS…
smrstrauss is simply another of the AKA disinformation writers out here – that or he really has no connection to reality… having swallowed the cool-aid in the little cups all too many times.
“Finding the occasional straw of truth awash in a great ocean of confusion and bamboozle requires intelligence, vigilance, dedication and courage. But if we don’t practice these tough habits of thought, we cannot hope to solve the truly serious problems that face us — and we risk becoming a nation of suckers, up for grabs by the next charlatan who comes along.” [Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection]
Obama has posted the official birth certificate of Hawaii. There is not the slightest bit of evidence or credible information that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii. His Kenyan grandmother (or step grandmother) never said that he was born in Kenya; she said that he was born in Hawaii. The facts on the birth certificate were twice confirmed by the officials in Hawaii (members of a Republican governor’s administration). There are published notices of Obama’s birth in Hawaii, which were sent out by the government of Hawaii for births IN Hawaii at the time (and not for births outside of Hawaii)
.
And, at the very end, there is credible hearsay evidence that he was born in Hawaii, which tends to confirm the official document, the repeated statements by the officials (members of a Republican governor’s administration), the absence of proof or credible information that Obama was born outside of Hawaii, Etc.
To believe that the officials in Hawaii are lying or misleading implies that you think they are members of a vast conspiracy, along with the government of Kenya and the US State Department. For, if Obama was born in Kenya, there would have to be proof of that in the US State Department files, meaning the files for visas issued in Kenya or changes to US passports in Kenya in 1961. But the State Department was under the Republicans until January 20, 2009, and nothing was found. That is why the National Review wrote: “““The theory that Obama was born in Kenya, that he was smuggled into the U.S., and that his parents somehow hoodwinked Hawaiian authorities into falsely certifying his birth in Oahu, is crazy stuff.”
Interesting retort. But, it all falls apart in the last paragraph. “A witness who recalls being told about Obamas birth in Hawaii.” That, sir is what legal scholars refer to as hearsay. I rest my case….Scat!
Re: “I watched the Senatorial debates between AKA and Alan Keyes. Mr. Keyes asked him point blank about his Kenyan citizenship, and AKA replyed “I’m running for the uS Senate, not President.”
I did not watch that debate, but I have read the words of others who did. They say that Keyes did not say “born in Kenya.” They say that Keyes says “you are not a natural born citizen.” And they say that Obama replied “so what, I am not running for president. I am running for Senator, and you do not have to be Natural Born to be a Senator.”
The later is true. You do not have to be Natural Born to be a senator. You do have to be Natural Born to be President, but Obama was not running for president, so he did not have to be Natural Born at that time. Obama, a constitutional scholar, was scoring a point by making Keyes look like he did not know the Constitution. Moreover, it was unnecessary for him to have replied: “But I am a Natural Born Citizen, having been born in the USA.” That would have lead to a discussion of Vattel and other theories that a person born in the USA is not Natural Born (which are not true, but were not necessary to raise at the time.”
IF at any time during a public speech or a public TV debate Obama had said “I was born in Kenya,” you would have heard about it. He did not say it, nor did his Kenyan grandmother.
And, it would be near to impossible to happen without proof of it happening. After all, a child born in Kenya is Kenyan (or British at the time. We do not, and did not at the time allow someone who is Kenyan or British into the USA without a US visa on his foreign passport. In the highly unlikely event that a child born in Kenya would be considered a US citizen due to the citizenship of his mother, then that child would have required his own US passport issued while he was in Kenya, or the change to his mother’s passport while she was in Kenya to include him. Without one of the three happening, how does the child get from Kenya to Hawaii?
And an application for any of those three documents would be filed and kept in the records of the State Department (which was under the Republican party’s control until January 20, 1009) and would have been found by now. In addition to the absence of this documentation, there is no Kenya documents showing that Obama’s mother ever entered Kenya. This is explained by birthers as caused by Kenya being part of a vast conspiracy and sealing those files, but there is no confirmation that Kenya sealed files or even had them.
In contrast, the files in Hawaii show that Obama was born in Hawaii, and the officials in Hawaii (who are members of a Republican governor’s administration) have said twice that the original documents show that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Most recently, the statement was:
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago….” (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm)
Notice the words “verifying that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii.” The statement said in short that the document in the files shows that Obama was born in Hawaii. This is confirmation of the facts on the Certification of Live Birth which also says that he was born in Hawaii.
There is also this statement by the spokeswoman for the department:
Quotes:
Does this mean Obama was born in Hawaii?
“Yes,” said Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo, in both email and telephone interviews with the Tribune. “That’s what Dr. Fukino is saying.” (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html)
In addition to these two confirmations, there are the notices in the newspapers, which were sent out by the government of Hawaii at the time, and they were only sent out for births IN Hawaii, and there is this witness, who recalls being told of Obama’s birth in Hawaii in 1961. (http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html)
smrstruass, everything you say may or may not be true. However as an citizen of the State of IL. and residing near Chicago, I watched the Senatorial debates between AKA and Alan Keyes. Mr. Keyes asked him point blank about his Kenyan citizenship, and AKA replyed “I’m running for the uS Senate, not President.” These were the exact words HE spoke not hearsay, but his words! I know, because I was watching the debate on WTTW Television in Chicago. No one can ever convince me that what I heard was not what I heard. So go somewhere else where there are stupid, ignorant people and stop wasting our time. hb AARP 3%er!
Re: “what Obama has produced is not his original birth certificate, which, BTW, he admits to having.
NO. He said that he HAD seen it, a long time ago when he was a child. Since then he probably lost it. Many people lose their birth certificates, and this happens particularly when people move a lot. I read somewhere that Obama said that he found the birth certificate in an old book. Most likely he left it in the old book. In any case, he did not have an original birth certificate in 2007. That is why he asked for a copy, and the Sate of Hawaii issues only the short form Certification.
Re: “The document he is waving about is a CertificaTION of Live Birth which the Department of Health, Hawaii, refuses to acknowledge they issued; they also refuse to authenticate it.”
Your are kidding, aren’t you? Despite the name, a Certification fallls under the category Birth Certificate. And the Certification is, according to Hawaii, the official birth certificate of the state and the only one that it currently issues. (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html)
The officials in Hawaii (members of a Republican governor’s administration) have TWICE authenticated and verified the facts on the Certification that Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961.
In the most recent statement, the head of the DoH said:
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago….”
Notice the words VERIFYING BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA WAS BORN IN HAWAII.
In the statement prior to that, the spokeswoman for the department said:
Does this mean Obama was born in Hawaii?
“Yes,” said Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo, in both email and telephone interviews with the Tribune. “That’s what Dr. Fukino is saying.” (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html)
Re: “And you still have not circumvented the hurdle of the law in effect in Hawaii in 1961 that allowed for the birth registration of foreign-born children.”
That law was not passed until 1982, more than twenty years after Obama’s birth, and it still does not allow the document to lie. It allows the state to issue a Hawaii BC, but if the child was born in say, New Jersey, it has to say something like: “Hawaii Certification. Place of Birth: New Jersey.” Obama’s says very clearly that Obama was born in Honolulu.
Re: “Nor have you circumvented the hurdle that Obama admits dual citizenship at birth which makes him ineligible under the definition of natural born as recently confirmed by SR 511 co-sponsored by Obama.”
Dual Nationality does not take away Natural Born Citizen status. To think that it does is to think that foreign law can affect the basic capabilities of US-born children. If a child born in the USA can become president, no foreign law can take that away.
Re: “After you get all done with that, there is the issue of his Indonesian citizenship and who paid for his college at Occidental and why he was listed as a dependent of Lolo Soetoro for the purposes of education in the Soetoro divorce papers. ”
He was never an Indonesian citizen as both the US State Department and the Indonesian government have said.
The Wall Street Journal commented: “The hypothesis–based on thin evidence and fat speculation–is that Obama was adopted by his stepfather and therefore became an Indonesian citizen.
Even if that were true, however, it would not deprive him of his status as a natural-born citizen of America. As the State Department Web site notes:
Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered . . ., a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship.
It is outlandish to suggest that a boy under 10 could persuade a diplomat of all that. It is only a tiny bit less outlandish to think that Obama came back to the U.S., spent eight or more years here, and then decided to renounce his citizenship.
Besides, the oath of renunciation is administered in writing. What are we to conclude about someone who refuses to accept an official state birth certificate as proof of birth but expects us to accept utterly preposterous theories with no documentary evidence whatever?”
smrstrauss, what Obama has produced is not his original birth certificate, which, BTW, he admits to having.
The document he is waving about is a CertificaTION of Live Birth which the Department of Health, Hawaii, refuses to acknowledge they issued; they also refuse to authenticate it.
And you still have not circumvented the hurdle of the law in effect in Hawaii in 1961 that allowed for the birth registration of foreign-born children.
Nor have you circumvented the hurdle that Obama admits dual citizenship at birth which makes him ineligible under the definition of natural born as recently confirmed by SR 511 co-sponsored by Obama.
After you get all done with that, there is the issue of his Indonesian citizenship and who paid for his college at Occidental and why he was listed as a dependent of Lolo Soetoro for the purposes of education in the Soetoro divorce papers.
There is no legal proof that Obama is eligible to the office of president; there is no proof that he is a legal U.S. citizen. You can quote all the websites you want but the facts still don’t change.
Sir,
You have to be either an idiot or you are employed by the LIARS in Obama’s gang to spread the lies about his birth certificate.
Either way – it is a waste of time to further exchange words with you.
Bad analogy. Obama was the first, and so far is the only US president to show his birth certificate. It is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and the only one that Hawaii currently sends out, and it was repeatedly confirmed by the officials in Hawaii.
Obama was elected 69 million votes to 59 million for McCain. He received 365 electoral votes, a clear majority, and although birthers tried to get the Electors to change their votes, not one of the 365 did. ALL members of Congress confirmed the election, not one voted against.
The birth certificate posted and shown to BOTH FactCheck and Politifact, is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and the facts on it have been repeatedly confirmed by the officials in Hawaii. (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html), and there is even a witness who recalls being told of his birth in Hawaii in 1961 (http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html).
Conversely, there is no evidence or credible report that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii.
His Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Hawaii, not in Kenya. You can hear this if you listen to the complete tape. You can hear her say “America, Hawaii” in response to the question: “Whereabouts was he born?’
Listen to the complete tape. Listen to the complete tape, until after the question “Whereabouts was he born?” http://www.obamacrimes.info/Telephone_Interview_with_Sarah_Hussein_Obama_10-16-
Mr dear smrstrauss,
Since you seem to believe that that document that has been produced to be the legitimate birth certificate of the Liar n Thief – I have a stack of $3.00 bills with Bill Clinton’s picture on them that I would like to trade with you for your one dollar bills.
Based on your acceptance of *documents* if you accept my offer you would be making a $2.00 profit on each bill.
Whatcha say, fella? Wanna trade?
Re: “(even though evidence indicates he is not a natural-born citizen as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5…)”
Obama is Natural Born because he was born in Hawaii, as his official birth certificate shows. The original meaning of Natural Born was simply “born in the country.”
The Wall Street Journal commented:
“Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn.”