By Douglas J. Hagmann
“No one cares about the birther issue.” That’s what I am being told by nearly everyone I know, regardless of their political preference. What I hear, however, is no one cares about the U.S. Constitution, or about the rule of law. Seemingly, even fewer understand it. Fewer still are those who truly understand what’s at stake.
Eligibility requirements to hold the office of President of the United States are defined by the Constitution. The “natural born citizen” requirement was written in to the U.S. Constitution to protect our nation from foreign influence. It was written to protect our nation from being hijacked from within.
That seems like a pretty important legal requirement to me, considering that today, we’ve found ourselves in an epic battle between national and global (or arguably foreign) interests.
Isn’t this precisely what the 2016 election represents?
The “birther” issue is not just about where a person was born, although that’s what nearly everyone with an opinion and a microphone or a keyboard want you to believe. It’s much bigger. It’s about adhering to the Constitution and about allegiance to our nation and its citizens. It’s about making sure that the person holding the most powerful office in our nation has our best interests at heart.
Hardly anyone cares about the birther issue because they don’t understand it. They’ve been deceived by the intellectually dishonest or the intellectually deficient. The former consists of those whose agenda is to fold our nation into a system of global governance. The latter includes those who have fallen victim to the lies and deception of the former. Both have reduced a critically important issue to ridiculously misleading sound bites eagerly embraced by a tired public.
The “birtherism” battle is unwinnable as it currently exists, for the enemy within has been allowed to redefine the terms of the issue, much like a very deceitful Bill Clinton attempted to redefine the word “is” when asked a very simple and direct question. This painfully illustrated the epitome of hubris and lawlessness, yet most people seemed to laugh it off. Why? Because the main issue was redefined and the issue became about sex when it was really about perjury and contempt.
Words have not only been redefined, but equally important, they’ve been weaponized. They’ve been added to an arsenal of accusations for expedient use against anyone who truly cares about our nation and our Constitution. This is clearly evident by the pejorative terms that have been manufactured and made part of our current lexicon to describe the legal issue, such as “birther,” and “birtherism,” as well as the baseless accusations of racism that follow.
Many will argue that the entire issue is moot, for it only relates to the candidacy and tenure of Barack Hussein Obama II, and his days in the Oval Office are now in the double digits. I contend that it remains not only relevant, but is still critically important.
The matter of Constitutional eligibility might be focused on one man, but he did not ascend to power alone. There are layers of criminality here. Those who have perpetuated this criminal conspiracy will remain in power long after Obama has taken his leave. Perhaps their representative or a co-conspirator will be the next person to assume control of the Oval Office.
It’s not just about the man. We need to think bigger, to look at the larger picture. We must not allow the conversation to be hijacked any further. We must regain control of the conversation, and eliminate the use of manufactured pejoratives. Only then will we be able to regain control of our country.
I ask again: Isn’t this precisely what the 2016 election represents?
By Douglas J. Hagmann
What are the chances that the individual responsible for authenticating Barack Hussein Obama’s long-form birth certificate, Loretta Fuddy, just happened to be the sole fatality out of nine on board a small plane that was forced to make an emergency water landing off the coast of Hawaii?
What are the chances that the other passengers either walked away virtually unscathed (according to eyewitness reports) or had only minor injuries while Loretta Fuddy died?
What are the chances that the engine failure just happened to occur over the Alenuihaha channel, recognized as one of the most treacherous channels in the world because of strong winds and high seas?
What are the chances that the only incident to mar the otherwise stellar record of Makani Kai Air just happened to be the flight carrying Loretta Fuddy, a most controversial figure in the most controversial issue relating to Barack Hussein Obama’s Constitutional eligibility to hold office?
What are the chances that the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the federal agency in charge of investigating even the slightest incidents involving civil transportation, would not conduct a thorough, on-site investigation that involved a fatality, especially a fatality of a high-profile state employee?
What are the chances that a passenger seated in the rear of the plane, publicly identified as Ferdinand Puentes (seen wearing a United States Federal Marshal cap) would not only have a GoPro video at the ready but have the mental composure and clarity to record the “crash” and aftermath considering the unexpected, life-threatening circumstances?
What are the chances that this video, or at least portions of it, is suddenly released from nowhere, nearly a month to the day after the “crash” when its existence was never before referenced or acknowledged by crash investigators or survivors?
In my 25-plus years of experience as a career investigator, I’ve seen a lot of strange things that would give one pause and cry out for an explanation. Odd things that at first blush seem to defy logical explanation, only to be answered through investigation as mere coincidence (yes, ‘stuff’ does happen) or indicative of something more nefarious. In my professional opinion, the strange death of Loretta Fuddy falls squarely into the latter category.
As I noted in my initial report dated December 13, 2013, Loretta Fuddy’s place in history was forever memorialized when she authorized the release of Barack Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) at his request. On April 25, 2011, the month following her appointment as Hawaii’s Director of Health, she certified that she witnessed the copying of the original COLB. The document that was certified as a true copy by Ms. Fuddy was handed to Judith Corely, Barack Obama’s personal attorney, when Corely made a special trip to personally pick up the document instead of sending the document by a private courier, such as Federal Express.
Given her role in the authentication of the controversial document, Ms. Fuddy was named in two affidavits (one public, one sealed) filed in the U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington on October 18, 2013, by Douglas Vogt, citing twenty points of forgery that comprise misprision of treason and misprision of felony. Vogt, with researcher and document expert Paul Irey, investigated the intricacies of the forgery. Mr. Vogt’s affidavit and Ms. Fuddy’s involvement gained national attention when he was interviewed on The Hagmann & Hagmann Report on December 4, 2013, exactly one week to the day before her tragic death on December 11, 2013. The detailed three-hour audio testimony of Douglas Vogt can be heard here, and the report detailing Ms. Fuddy’s possible role here.
Since her death, portions related to Loretta Fuddy in the sealed affidavit filed in U.S. Federal Court have been made public. Of particular interest are her financial reports detailing her income and expenses in 2011 and 2012. Each report is filed in January for the previous year.
According to Mr. Vogt, a large and as yet unanswered income disparity was found between the two reports. In short, during her first year as Hawaii’s Director of Health, which is also the time she authenticated Obama’s COLB, Ms. Fuddy’s gross income was reportedly less than $100,000. Nonetheless, her financials show that she apparently paid down her mortgage and decreased her liabilities by at least $50,000 and perhaps as much as $75,000 more than what she grossed that year. Where did that money come from? While there may well be a legitimate explanation for this disparity, it was not disclosed on the financial forms she filed with the Hawaii State Ethics Commission.
Loretta Fuddy was one of nine people aboard the Cessna 208B traveling between the islands of Hawaii on December 11, 2013. She was making a much-publicized, well-known, annual trip to Kalaupapa, where the state exiled leprosy patients until 1969. That area is accessible only by plane or mule. By plane, the travel would require travel over the Alenuihaha channel, also known as the “I’ll-end-you, ha-ha” channel. Out of all the places around the Hawaiian Islands for a water landing, it is the worst of all possible locations due to the “wind funnel” effect in the channel. The channel is more than a mile in depth at its deepest point and is generally regarded as one of the most treacherous channels in the world by the United States Coast Guard.
Were it not for another aircraft flying in the vicinity of the water landing, it is possible that the passengers of the plane would not have been found until they failed to arrive at their destination. Josh Lang and Jaimee Thomson witnessed the Cessna making the water landing and were able to call for help. Within 90 minutes, a C130, two U.S. Coastguard rescue helicopters, one U.S. navy rescue helicopter, and one fire department rescue helicopter were on the scene.
As I noted in my initial report, initial accounts of the crash were conflicting and inconsistent. Such inconsistencies remain, despite the investigation conducted by the NTSB. Based on a review of the NTSB report (ID #WPR14FA068), no on-scene investigation was performed. The NTSB report pertaining to this incident was one of the most incomplete and un-sourced reports published when compared to other reports. Why?
The NTSB admits as much by a disclaimer that prefaces the narrative. This begs the question of why, given that the crash resulted in a fatality, especially the fatality of a person at the center of a significant national controversy, investigators didn’t conduct a more thorough, on-site investigation.
The NTSB narrative also conflicts with eyewitness accounts. According to the NTSB investigative report, “[T]he airline transport pilot and two passengers were seriously injured, one passenger was fatally injured, and five passengers received minor injuries. [Emphasis mine]. This is inconsistent with initial and subsequent eyewitness and passenger reports, and now, the video.
During my investigation into this incident, I interviewed a veteran pilot familiar with the flight paths of the Hawaiian Islands. Speaking off the record, this source stated that he has flown this area for years and knows it well. He commended the pilot for the remarkable water landing and confirmed that the Alenuihaha channel is indeed treacherous. He added that “(I)f I was going to cause a plane like that to go down [into the ocean] in all of Hawaii, that’s exactly where I’d want it to go down. Recovery would be very difficult if attempted at all.”
What are the chances?
By Douglas J. Hagmann
Loretta Fuddy, director of the Hawaii Department of Health, reportedly died due to injuries she received in the crash of a small commuter plane shortly before 4:00 p.m. local time Wednesday, December 11, 2013. Confirmation of her death occurred at approximately 8:00 p.m. local time (1:00 a.m. Eastern time The plane crash occurred about a half-mile offshore of the north shore of Molokai, shortly after taking off from Kalaupapa, Emergency officials responding to the crash site reported seeing eight people floating in the water wearing life vests.).
According to initial news reports, Fuddy was one of eight other people—including the pilot—in the plane and the only person to succumb to her injuries. Based on reports from EMS sources, three survivors were taken to Oahu, three to Molokai General Hospital and two members of the plane’s party declined treatment.
Fuddy was at the center of controversy in the birth certificate controversy as she was the person who reportedly granted “an exception” to Barack Obama, allegedly witnessing the copying of Obama’s birth certificate and attesting to its authenticity. Her involvement in the alleged fraudulent activity pertaining to the long-form birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama, was the discussion in The Hagmann Report, along with numerous others, as detailed in this report. (YouTube censored and deleted the show).
A more detailed report will follow.
By Douglas J. Hagmann
The article published yesterday by The Washington Times, written by Jeffrey T. Kuhner carries the following headline: KUHNER: Trump poll triumph built on doubting Obama’s birth, followed by [the] President should just release full birth documentation ending legitimacy questions.
We agree, although most people fail to realize that the veil of secrecy extends well beyond Obama’s refusal to release his birth records. As pointed out by Mr. Kuhner, candidate Obama promised transparency in his administration, yet the President has been the most secretive in U.S. history since Richard Nixon. The authenticated long-form birth certificate is but one of the numerous other documents that we call to be released, including the following:
“All passport records (both personal and diplomatic), Obama kindergarten records, Punahou School records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, University of Chicago scholarly articles, all financial aid documentation, Illinois State Bar Association records, Illinois State Senate records/schedules (said to be lost), Medical records, Obama/Dunham marriage license, Obama/Dunham divorce documents, Soetoro/Dunham marriage license, and adoption records.”
Then, and only then, will we begin to gain a clearer picture of the man who presently occupies the White House.
By Douglas J. Hagmann
There is something wrong when simply raising the topic of Obama’s Constitutional eligibility qualifies reasonable and well-researched conservatives the designation of “pinheads.”There is something wrong when presidential candidate McCain is made, by congressional mandate, to prove his eligibility as a candidate while Obama is not held to the same standard.
Now here’s an interesting lesson about the act of civil disobedience. Bomb the Pentagon, lead a domestic terrorist group that was responsible for 30 bombings, destruction of property, and deaths, and suggest that you cannot rule out committing additional bombings, you become a folk hero of the radical left, a close confidant of a sitting president, and hold a position as a professor in higher academia.
Alternatively, give your country nearly 18 years of unblemished military service as a high-ranking military officer until you request proof that the orders you are given are, in fact, made by someone with the ultimate authority to do so, you are stripped of your military rank, your liberties, your income, your pension, your freedom and are sentenced to Leavenworth.
Welcome to the new paradigm of civil disobedience, Chicago style, where self-proclaimed conservative warriors are more MIA than Lt. Col. Lakin on the issue of Obama’s Constitutional eligibility to hold office.
The Washington Examiner published a powerful article by columnist Diana West today about Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, the army surgeon who attempted to verify the Constitutional legitimacy of the deployment orders he received. For his efforts, however questionable in both tactic and venue, this highly decorated military leader was sentenced to serve time in Leavenworth. As Ms. West so eloquently concluded, the guilty verdict against Lt. Col. Lakin settles nothing, except, perhaps, that such challenges within the ranks will not be tolerated.
The most basic question of whether Barack Hussein Obama is Constitutionally eligible to hold office and issue orders to the most powerful military in the world remains unaddressed and unanswered. Accordingly, it remains a national security issue of the highest magnitude.
As I wrote last week, Lt. Col. Lakin chose a particular path to compel, once and for all, Barack Hussein Obama to provide authenticated proof that he is qualified to issue orders to the U.S. military as the Commander in Chief. It was arguably not the best path to choose in a system that was rigged from the start, but at least this man had the grit to put everything on the line for the sake of the U.S. Constitution and ultimately, every American citizen.
Now, Lt. Col Lakin will be paying the price for his actions. One positive although surely unintended consequence of the Lakin case, however, is that it has clearly exposed the wretched hypocrisy of the progressives and their corporate media mouthpieces as well as the duplicity and dissimulation of many so-called conservatives. So that Lt. Col. Lakin’s efforts are not entirely in vain, I believe closer examination into this aspect of the case is necessary.
Ms. West wrote that Lakin’s actions ultimately fell “into the category of civil disobedience, breaking the law to uphold higher principle.” If history has taught us anything, it has shown that acts of civil disobedience and breaking the law to uphold a higher principle are the very tactics that are enthusiastically embraced and praised by the progressives. The activists themselves are held in high esteem, and their activities are often rewarded by academic positions at universities or positions in the Obama administration. Former Weathermen terrorist William Ayers is a perfect example of this progressive principle of legitimizing and even deifying an activist and his cause.
For the advancement of a higher principle, Ayers proudly proclaims that the Weathermen were responsible for 30 bombings aimed at destroying the security and defense infrastructure of the U.S. and that he personally participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, the Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972. During their period of “civil disobedience,” the actions of the Weathermen resulted in both death and destruction in the U.S., all for a “higher principle.”
Today, Ayers is hailed as a hero to many on the political left and quite the chum of Obama, despite the desperate denials of leftist, self-proclaimed arbiters of truth like Media Matters, FactCheck.org, and the brain-sharing freak show of Keith Olberman, Rachael Maddow and Chris Matthews. When not fundraising for Obama or shilling for Hugo Chavez, Ayers serves as a professor of education at the University of Illinois. Perhaps more disturbing is that Ayers has not ruled out the possibility of conducting future bombings, as he muses in his 2001 memoir Fugitive Days. But such is to be expected from the morally bankrupt lunatic left.
More troubling than the far left’s position on the Obama eligibility issue, however, is that of the conservative right. It is here, in my opinion, where the most dangerous duplicity exists and is allowed to metastasize. By design or default, this dissimulation is co-opting a strong and growing conservative base. These self-proclaimed, constitutional loving conservatives are more AWOL in legitimately reporting on the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama than Lt. Col. Lakin was for his last deployment.
There is something very wrong when those who have the eyes and ears of a vast national audience and the power to educate, inform and even influence millions of Americans choose to remain silent on perhaps the most important, or at least the most fundamental of all Constitutional issues.
There is something wrong when simply raising the topic of Obama’s Constitutional eligibility qualifies reasonable and well-researched conservatives the designation of “pinheads.”
There is something wrong when constitutional scholars are ignored or mocked by conservative pundits, or by talk show hosts who are insulted by the pejorative term “tea-baggers” yet accept and even advance the equally disparaging label of “birthers.”
There is something wrong when presidential candidate McCain is made, by congressional mandate, to prove his eligibility as a candidate while Obama is not held to the same standard.
This is something wrong when a 32-year-old baseball player states that he believes Obama is hiding something regarding his birth certificate (i.e., his eligibility) and gets more press than a highly decorated military veteran who expresses the same concerns under the threat of court-martial.
The corporate-fed conservative forces will be at their microphones and in front of the cameras, assured that their jobs are safe as long as they dare not step over the forbidden topic of Obama’s eligibility and pedigree. They will continue to enjoy their compassionate conservatism as long as they don’t ask for the release of Obama’s long form birth certificate, his passport records, kindergarten records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records and thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, University of Chicago scholarly articles, and a list of other documents that would provide proof of Constitutional eligibility and valuable insight into the current occupant of the house of the American people.
While the political favorites of the Tea Party, the conservative pundits who lecture relentlessly on the virtues of Republicans and conservatism, and the conservative bloggers whose articles appear in lockstep with the old guard lead the masses down the acceptable path of truth and liberty, Lt. Col. Lakin has been unceremoniously denied both.
Sadly, so has every American. Sadder still, most don’t even realize it, and most of those with the moral obligation and opportunity to make a difference are contemptibly silent.
By Doug Hagmann
In the first part of this investigative report, background was provided to identify the core legal and constitutional arguments in the matter of Barack Hussein OBAMA II’s eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States. Using my investigative experience, I performed this investigation in compliance with the same “industry standards” that apply to performing background investigations of individuals selected for corporate positions by Fortune 100 companies.
As noted in my initial report, the primary intent of this investigation has been to establish whether Barack Hussein OBAMA has indeed furnished the necessary proof to confirm his eligibility to assume the position of the President of the United States, and whether that proof has been properly authenticated. In other words, this investigation sought to determine whether there are any legitimate questions or concerns over the eligibility issue, or whether the matter has been sufficiently resolved. Or to put it yet another way, is there a legitimate reason to mock, belittle, marginalize, or otherwise consider the so-called “Birthers” as kooks living on the fringe of conspiracy?
Despite assertions by politicians, media pundits and others, this issue is far from having been resolved. Investigation found that those who will not discuss this issue or mock the questions and those asking the questions either do not fully understand the issue, or have agendas that conflict with the truth being disclosed. This part of the investigation will provide detailed information outlining how that conclusion has been reached, and will offer additional information of relevance pertaining to the narrow scope of the issue of eligibility itself. Additional investigative results in the form of supplemental reports will address the methods being presently employed – and identify those who are employing them – to keep the truth from being made known to the American people.
It is the conclusion of this investigator that Barack Hussein OBAMA II has not only failed to provide proof of eligibility, but has and continues to fight efforts to release the proof necessary to confirm that he is legally eligible to occupy his current position as the president of the United States.
To be clear, it is important to understand that there is a vast and significant difference between the meaning of the words evidence and proof, although most people use the terms synonymously. While Black’s Law Dictionary offers the legal definition of both terms, they can be easily summarized for the purpose of this investigation as follows: Evidence is something that offers the basis for belief or disbelief, or knowledge on which to base belief, while proof is the establishment of facts by evidence.
Clearly, the United States Constitution requires the higher standard of proof and not merely evidence of eligibility to hold the office of President. Contrary to the assertions of representatives speaking on behalf of OBAMA, media accounts and numerous reports on various Internet sites, OBAMA has provided absolutely no proof that he meets the eligibility requirements as of the date of this investigation.
Before proceeding, it’s important to understand that the distinction between evidence of proof is neither petty nor is it “mere semantics,” as the legal definitions between evidence and proof are exceptionally clear, especially in a court of law and especially when considering someone to assume the highest position in U.S. government. In fact, it is this distinction that is being methodically exploited to misrepresent the facts of this case, and to pejoratively label anyone who continues to demand proof as a “birther.”
Clearly, the image of the Certification of Live Birth is a large part of the eligibility question. Much debate and discussion has taken place over the image’s authenticity and provenance. As noted, that document first appeared in JPEG image format on or about 12 July 2008 on the political website DailyKos, and was subsequently published on the OBAMA-backed website “Fight the Smears” and also on www.FactCheck.org.
Controversy became rampant as numerous analyses of the image at each site suggested that in certain cases, alterations to the image were made. The controversy became exacerbated by the obvious revisions made to that image that appeared on various web sites to such an extent that the accusations distracted from the most basic of issues: The Certification of Live Birth, even if authenticated, is not legally sufficient to be considered proof of citizenship and therefore, is legally insufficient to be prove the eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA II. Accordingly, the “long form,” or “vault copy” of the actual birth certificate needs to be released for the legal burden of proof to be satisfied.
The release of the authenticated “long form” of OBAMA’s birth certificate will identify the parents, the exact location of birth, as well as the source of the information provided on that form. By virtue of the legal definition and standards of proof, it is the only document suitable to meet the legal definition of proof, and the only document that will contain all of the necessary information to prove or disprove his eligibility to hold office.
While investigation of possible alterations of the JPEG of the COLB posted and presented as “genuine” on a site sanctioned by OBAMA or those representing him could become relevant in a separate criminal investigation, the topic is subordinate to and detracts from the primary issue of OBAMA’s eligibility. Analysis of the JPEG image purported to be that of OBAMA’s Certification of Live Birth is beyond the scope of this investigation, especially since the document itself (and not a JPEG image of the document) has not been made accessible for review. Nonetheless, allegations of alteration must be properly investigated as any evidence of alterations with the intent to deceive, done by an individual or group acting in an official capacity, can be used to illustrate a course of conduct that might later prove useful in the venue of a criminal investigation.
The authenticity of the Certification of Live Birth notwithstanding, it is the conclusion of this investigator that OBAMA has not only failed to produce the appropriate form necessary to prove eligibility (the vault copy or long form birth certificate), but has gone to significant lengths to keep that form from being released.
Investigation into this area has produced sufficient evidence to indicate that representatives of Barack Hussein OBAMA II, either at his direction or with his knowledge and consent, posted or caused to be posted the Certification of Live Birth at the Fight the Smears website, claiming the document is incontrovertible proof of his citizenship status and thus, his eligibility to hold the office of President. At that site, the Certification of Live Birth is improperly labeled and presented to the visitors as “Barack Obama’s Official Birth Certificate.” It is, in fact and reality, no such document.
When one considers the text above the image as shown above, it is reasonable to question the intent of the site operators with regard to improperly representing that the document is something it is not, and to allege that those “claiming Barack Obama doesn’t have a birth certificate aren’t actually about that piece of paper — they’re about manipulating people into thinking Barack is not an American citizen.” It would appear that the actual manipulation is not originating from anyone asking reasonable, fact-based questions but by those who deceitfully represent that the image of the COLB is an actual birth certificate.
To be sure, there are numerous individuals and groups who claim that the presentation of the Certification of Live Birth is sufficient to prove Obama’s Constitutional eligibility. In January 2009, Janice OKUBO, director of communications for the Hawaii Department of Health, stated that the COLB provides sufficient information to answer all of the questions surrounding OBAMA’s eligibility. To illustrate her assertion, she noted that the COLB lists OBAMA’s location of birth as Honolulu, Hawaii:
“If you were born in Bali, for example, you could get a certificate from the state of Hawaii saying you were born in Bali. You could not get a certificate saying you were born in Honolulu. The state has to verify a fact like that for it to appear on the certificate.”
As noted in the previous section of this report, it is important to understand that the COLB does not provide the critical information pertaining to OBAMA’s parents, the exact location of birth, or the source of information provided. Only one document (of current relevance) will provide that information: an authenticated copy of the long form or vault copy of the birth certificate of Barack Hussein OBAMA II.
In an article titled “Born in the U.S.A originally published on 21 August 2008 and updated on 1 November 2008, FactCheck.org also attempted to quell further questions of OBAMA’s eligibility by commenting on the Certification of Live Birth:
“FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as “supporting documents” to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.”
This assertion is a bit more misleading, as the author refers to the Certification of Live Birth as a “birth certificate.” In other words, the “staffers” examined the COLB, not the long form or vault copy of the birth certificate of Barack Hussein OBAMA II. The affirmation that the COLB is genuine notwithstanding, only one document (of current relevance) will provide that information: an authenticated copy of the long form or vault copy of the birth certificate of Barack Hussein OBAMA II.
In summary, arguments over the authenticity of the COLB are nothing more than a distraction from the primary issue: the Certification of Live Birth, even if authenticated, is not legally sufficient to be considered proof of citizenship and therefore, is legally insufficient to be prove the eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA II. Accordingly, the “long form,” or “vault copy” of the actual birth certificate needs to be released for the legal burden of proof to be satisfied. And THAT is the document that Barack Hussein OBAMA II continues to fight against being released.
It is reasonable to ask how any individual could successfully secure the nomination of their respective party if they did not furnish the necessary proof of eligibility as required by the U.S. Constitution. This question is especially relevant considering the intense examination of Senator John McCAIN as candidate for the Republican Party. A follow-up and equally reasonable question is who would allow such an event to occur absent of such proof, and who would have had to know about the potential controversy in advance? A prevailing, yet erroneous, theory is that for one to believe that Barack Hussein OBAMA II is not constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President of the United States, there must be a massive conspiracy that involves numerous individuals and multiple levels of government.
Although one would reasonably suspect that there had to have been a large number of “co-conspirators” involved in such an act, the opposite is actually true.
An investigation into this issue found that only the chairperson of each party (the party’s national convention that nominates the candidate) has to sign an “Official Certification of Nomination,” which is the recognized legal instrument that affirms that the party’s candidate meets all of the eligibility requirements to hold the office of President. In the case of Barack Hussein OBAMA II, that responsibility fell with Ms. Nancy PELOSI. It is a surprisingly simple process that is completed following the official nomination of the candidate for office, and is usually filed immediately after the close of the party’s convention.
In the case of Barack Hussein OBAMA, PELOSI signed the affirmation of eligibility in her capacity as Chair of the Democratic National Convention along with Alice GERMOND, the Secretary of the Democratic National Convention. Her signature, affixed and notarized to this legal instrument, was viewed as “sufficient documentation” by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) “that both OBAMA and BIDEN were duly nominated and met the Constitutional eligibility requirements,” according to an official interviewed by this investigator at the FEC in Washington, DC. According to this FEC official, “no further verification was required or performed at any level [within the FEC].”
Unsurprisingly, repeated attempts by this investigator to secure information from Ms. PELOSI’s Washington, DC office for information about the eligibility and background verification process were not answered as of the date of this report. Meanwhile, one Washington insider with ties to the FEC told this investigator that the process of filing the Official Certification of Nomination is “easier than getting a DC driver’s license. No one asks any questions and the process is nothing more than a mere formality,” stated this source.
One very suspicious circumstance verified during the course of this investigation involves the production and filing of the “Official Certification of Nomination” forms. Numerous web sites and open sources have furnished two images of the same affidavit as best illustrated at the web site operated by Reverend James David MANNING (at this link). Under the heading of “Exhibit 6” at this location are two nomination documents, each with different wording as to the certification of the candidates.
This investigator took steps to verify the authenticity of the original documents and not the Internet copies. Using a federal index system of certified election documents, the authenticity of both documents was established and it was verified that both exist on file. Additionally, this investigator and Judi McLeod, founder and editor of Canada Free Press, interviewed Reverend MANNING in February 2010 about this and other matters, in a further attempt to secure bona fide documentation about OBAMA’s background and the authentication of documents. Reverend MANNING noted the discrepancies in the wording, and has since conducted his own inquiries of these documents.
Interestingly, the wording within the certifications is significantly different; one contains the Constitutional certification clause within the body of the document, while the other does not. The different wording of these two separate documents is detailed as follows:
“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado, on August 25 through 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”
“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado, on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively.”
During the course of this investigation, attempts were made by this investigator to have the differences between documents explained by various government officials within the Federal Elections Commission (FEC). Despite numerous attempts, no explanations were obtained. The absence of the “constitutionality clause” remains of significant concern to this investigator and is an area that requires further exploration.
This discrepancy was also addressed in an article written by Canada Free Press columnist JB Williams on 24 April 2010. In that article, Mr. Williams accurately described the difference in documents:
“Note that the language which certifies that Barack Hussein Obama meets all constitutional qualifications is missing in the DNC documents filed in 49 of the 50 states. The certification of constitutional qualification for the office of president was filed only in Hawaii. That text is missing in the DNC certification filings for all other states.”
“Whereas the RNC filed the exact same certification document, including the constitutional text for John McCain in all 50 states, Obama was technically certified in only one state, Hawaii.”
That the process of filing the “Official Certification of Nomination” is indeed a simple one and rests on the sworn statements of two individuals, it is not intended to mean that others did not possess prior knowledge of OBAMA’s failure to provide sufficient proof of eligibility. In fact, as early as 2005, some individuals presently serving in his administration appear to have known that the eligibility issue relative to his citizenship might become a future problem.
A twenty-six page article written by Sarah P. HERLIHY was published in the Chicago-Kent Law Review, Volume 81:275 titled “Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle.” The date of publication is 22 February 2006, although the article appears to have been written by HERLIHY in late 2005. As the title implies, the author argues that Article II of the U.S. Constitution inhibits “globalization” of the U.S. She further opines that the provision is discriminatory, outdated, and undemocratic. On page fifteen of her article, HERLIHY references several hypothetical arguments that bear an eerie likeness to the not-so hypothetical implementation of policies we are witnessing under the OBAMA administration.
The “HERLIHY BRIEF,” as I have labeled it, is interesting on several levels, but relevant on one level in particular: HERLIHY was employed as an associate by Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, a Chicago, Illinois based law firm with offices worldwide. Further investigation found that a senior partner of that same firm, Bruce I. ETTELSON, was a former member on the finance committee of Barack Hussein OBAMA II when he was a Senator in Illinois. Could this be a mere coincidence, or perhaps an attempt to break psychological barriers while grooming a future President?
That, combined with legislative efforts during the 2008 campaign involving McCAIN’s eligibility (as documented in Part I of this report), appear to suggest a broader level of knowledge among individuals that the issue of eligibility as it relates to the U.S. Constitution, might present a future problem.
John O. BRENNAN is currently the assistant to President OBAMA and Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. Until he began working for OBAMA, BRENNAN was the CEO of a firm called the Analysis Corporation, a government subcontractor whose work involved providing intelligence-related consulting services to federal agencies. In 2008, a contract employee of BRENNAN’s firm was caught inappropriately accessing certain passport files in the State Department’s passport office. BRENNAN’s firm was “cited” in March, 2008 for breaching sensitive files, including the passport files of Hillary Rodham CLINTON, John McCAIN and Barack Hussein OBAMA.
On 21 March 2008, U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack confirmed that the contractor from BRENNAN’s company had accessed the passport files of the presidential candidates that included OBAMA. It is significant to note that the passport files include a virtual treasure trove of personal information, including an applicant’s name, social security number, date and place of birth. The files would likely contain additional information including original or authenticated copies of birth certificates, naturalization certificates, or oaths of allegiance for U.S.-born persons who adopted the citizenship of a foreign country as minors.
It should be noted that at the time of the incident, BRENNAN was working as an unpaid adviser to the Obama campaign and was said to have virtually unfettered access to the candidate. BRENNAN, of course, denounced the actions of the employee.
The nature of the “breach,” according to intelligence sources close to this investigator, confirmed that the target of the unlawful access was the file containing documents related to Barack Hussein OBAMA (a fact that was originally reported in an article written by Ken Timmerman for NewsMax.com). This is significant, of course, as OBAMA has not permitted the release of his passport records or the documentation contained in that file.
It is important to note that this was not the first breach, nor the only one. At least two other incidents that resulted in the termination or other disciplinary action took place in the several months around this same time period. This breach, however, was different, and the difference between this incident and the others must not be dismissed as it is directly related to the potential disclosure of personal information of Barack Hussein OBAMA II, including his original, “long form” birth certificate. This incident involved more than a curious subcontractor worker; it involved other co-conspirators, including an unidentified contact within the U.S. State Department itself.
Research into the three separate incidents was performed, noting that two of those incidents were somewhat limited in terms of what was accessed. The breach that involved HARRIS, however, as often happens with “the use of unmanageable criminal assets,” went dangerously awry.
Following this incident, federal investigators identified a cooperative witness with direct information about the breach of the passport records – allegedly by accident. That individual, identified as Lieutenant Harris Junior, 24, was stopped for a minor traffic infraction on 25 March 2008, and was found to be in possession of stolen credit cards and documents that were traced back to the breach of the passport records. (Copy of arrest record here in PDF format) HARRIS, known to DC police, began working with federal authorities to strike a deal as they expanded their investigation into the passport incident. According to a review of the arrest record, HARRIS admitted to investigating officers that he obtained the documents from (an unnamed) co-conspirator “who works for the U.S. Department of State” [emphasis added by this author].
Less than a month later, HARRIS was found with a single bullet wound to his head on Thursday, 17 April 2008, inside of his car that was parked in front of the Judah House Praise Baptist Church in Washington, DC. HARRIS was described as “an important witness in the breach of the passport records.” While his death was attributed to an increase in violence in the city, at least one detective interviewed by this investigator is not too sure. “It’s an awfully big coincidence, and you know how I feel about coincidences,” stated this homicide detective. “I’ve considered that it was someone tying up loose ends,” he added. The murder of HARRIS remains unsolved.
From an investigative perspective, the reluctance of Barack Hussein OBAMA to release an authenticated copy of his actual long form birth certificate is as revealing as it is troubling. The exact number of lawsuits filed within the last two years to legally compel Barack Hussein OBAMA to release a copy of his authenticated, long form birth certificate is unknown. According to Canada Free Press columnist JB Williams in an article he wrote on 24 April 2010 discloses that OBAMA has spent “in excess of $2 million in legal fees” [to prevent the release of that document]. Mr. Williams stated “nobody spends $2 million in legal fees to hide an authentic birth certificate. At least no one who is not hell bent on hiding information of significance.”
Mr. Williams also notes that “n every instance, the lawsuits were dismissed prior to discovery, or the legal process that in these cases, permit the petitioning party to review evidence relevant to the lawsuit.”
From an investigative perspective, the most obvious and nagging question is why Barack Hussein OBAMA II has refused and continues to refuse to authorize the release of that document for review. Consistent with the background investigations I have conducted on behalf of Fortune 500 and 100 companies, such a refusal would be sufficient cause to automatically dismiss the individual seeking the high-level executive position from such consideration. By comparison to the 150 or so investigations of this type I have performed over the last 25 years, I have yet to find anyone under consideration for such a position to refuse this most routine and basic request. Moreover, I have never experienced anyone who has not only refused to do so, but spent extraordinary sums of money in legal fees to fight against such disclosure.
The authenticated long form birth certificate is not the only document of interest that OBAMA refused to provide, but it is the most salient and direct method of furnishing proof to answer the eligibility issue once and for all.
Barack Hussein OBAMA II promised transparency to the American people during his campaign and if elected, during his time in office of President. Yet, that promise of transparency has been replaced with walls of lawyers and an administration of individuals who have mounted an unprecedented campaign of opacity. In addition to his actual birth certificate, OBAMA has refused to release the following records that would provide insight into the individual currently occupying the highest office in the United States:
Each of the above records would be considered relevant to his position as President, and most previous presidents have authorized the release of such information for public review. Requesting the release of the above records is certainly reasonable and is consistent with the requests of previous administrations.
Of course, cursory research of various web sites will provide lists of other documents undisclosed by OBAMA, including but not limited to his natural parent’s marriage license, records from overseas primary schools, and even his Baptismal certificate, if one even exists. Also included by some sites are his adoption records, various grade school and high school transcripts, and published articles that he would have authored while enrolled in college. While the release of such records would indeed prove enlightening, they are not necessarily intrinsic to the issue of his Constitutional eligibility.
The production of a single document could put this entire controversy to rest: the long-form birth certificate. As noted in this investigative segment, it is that single document that OBAMA has not only refused to release or authorize to be released but has spent an estimated $2 million to keep under wraps.
