Sheriff Joe Arpaio presented his case to the American people and stated that Barack Obama's long form birth certificate was forged. He called upon Congress to investigate. Should Congress investigate the alleged forgery?

You do know, those are all Fakes, and the lady who supposedly signed obamas birth record says her name is forged ....you do know that dont you ?....no you just \know what the left tells you to know, the lefts talking points, the lefts propaganda, the lefts BS....and the rest of us....we aint buying it....

Former Hawaii elections clerk Tim Adams has now signed an affidavit swearing he was told by his supervisors in Hawaii that no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Barack Obama Jr. in Hawaii and that neither Queens Medical Center nor Kapi’olani Medical Center in Honolulu had any record of Obama having been born in their medical facilities.


Notary seal on Timothy Adams’ affidavit
Adams was employed at the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division from May 2008 through September 2008.


His position was senior elections clerk, overseeing a group of 50 to 60 employees responsible for verifying the identity of voters at the Absentee Ballot Office. It was in this capacity that Adams became aware of the search for Obama’s birth-certificate records.

See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential-eligibility mystery!

“During the course of my employment,” Adams swears in the affidavit (viewable in full as part 1 and part 2), “I became aware that many requests were being made to the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division, the Hawaii Office of Elections, and the Hawaii Department of Health from around the country to obtain a copy of then-Senator Barack Obama’s long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate.”

As he inquired about the birth certificate, he says, his supervisors told him that the records were not on file at the Hawaii Department of Health.

“Senior officers in the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division told me on multiple occasions that no Hawaii long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Senator Obama in the Hawaii Department of Health,” Adams’ affidavit reads, “and there was no record that any such document had ever been on file in the Hawaii Department of Health or any other branch or department of the Hawaii government.”


Case still OPEN....genius

All of what is stated in Milo's reply is false.
Minor DID define and thus encode the term Natural Born Citizen. And Wong Kim Ark answered the question of the citizenship status of children born of RESIDENT or DOMICILED aliens--they are "citizens of the United States."

The Constitution of the United States in Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 mandates that a person must be a "Natural Born Citizen" among other things such as age and length of residency to be eligible for the office of president of the United States.

However, the Constitution does NOT define "Natural Born Citizen."

But Vattel in Law of Nations published in 1758, does. From Book I , Section 212: "The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens...

Vattel goes on to say, "...those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights...the country of the fathers is therefore that of the children..."

All of the Framers, indeed most of the modern world at that time, accepted Vatel's definition of "Natural Born Citizen."

Further, in 1875, the United States Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett, acknowledged that the Constitution did not provide an explicit definition of "Natural Born Citizen" though it was certainly implied and assumed since it is known from correspondence and notes of the Constitutional Convention, (e.g. John Jay's letter to George Washington concerning the matter, notes and letters of Alexander Hamilton and Benjamin Franklin among many others). The Framers knew well the widely accepted definition of the term having been informed by Vatel, study of political philosophers such as Locke, Cicero and others and exhaustive debate during the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

Acknowledging the lack of an explicit definition of Natural Born Citizen in the Constitution , the Supreme Court, in Minor v Happersett, cited and stated the widely held definition from Vattel's Law of Nations, Book 1, Section 212 as well as the need for it.

The Court in the opinion by Chief Justice, C.J. Waite, stated:

"For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to th[e] membership [of a nation]. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words "subject," "inhabitant," and "citizen" have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more..."

"...Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that "no person except a natural-born citizen...shall be eligible to the office of President," [n7]..."

and continuing on in Minor:

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens..."

(This entire decision is available at any website citing Supreme Court decisions. I used Cornell Law.
Be aware that Justia.com posted the decision yet scrubbed the sections of it defining "Natural Born Citizen.". And Wikipedia might also be compromised at any given moment. Just make sure you use a reliable site and compare it against others.)

It is openly stated that Barack Obama's father Barack Hussein Obama, Sr was a Kenyan National and therefore also British Subject and not a citizen of the United States.

So, to be a "Natural Born Citizen" of the United States, though it is Necessary to be born IN the United States, that condition alone is not Sufficient, nor is being born in the United States of a citizen mother sufficient, though necessary.

In the case of Barack Hussein Obama (Jr), what is Necessary is that his father be a United States citizen, which clearly he was NOT.

Accordingly, this fact is Sufficient to establish BHO Jr. Is NOT eligible for the office of President, and, indeed, is illegitimately and illegally occupying the office.

So the birth certificate is not relevant. Since BHO Jr. was never eligible to be President of the United States of America the actual place of his birth is rendered superfluous.
L.Todd House, M.D.

I am not a "birther."

I am a Constitutionalist. The Constitution either means what it says or is relegated to "advisory" status, just as some have done with the Bible.

I am not a religious person which emphasizes that this is an intellectual, legal and historical argument but very pertinent to us today. The US Supreme Court has the imperative duty to resolve the issue of "Natural Born Citizen" once and for all since the issue is not going away. (e.g. Jindal and Rubio as finalists for Romney VP.)

Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the US Constitution states that only a "natural born citizen" is eligible for the office of the presidency. Unfortunately, there is no definition of the term in that document. But the reasons for this unique requirement were and still are well understood.

And, that is the rub for it requires some study of the the history of the Founding, the political philosophy of the era, what influenced the Founders, subsequent precedent(see Minor v Happerset 1875, among others) and plain, old, regular US and world history to understand the seriousness of the issue and, only then, arrive at an informed opinion.

Regrettably, few seem to have done their homework. But even those that do, disagree. And that's ok. But for an ultimate resolution I look to the US Supreme Court to decide it. Ergo, my suit filed in Kentucky questioning Obama's eligibility and therefore his name on the ballot. Since I, too, am a presidential candidate, I should not be required to compete for votes with someone running but not constitutionally eligible for the office I seek, president of The United States.

L.Todd House, MD
Don't Tread on Me