The unraveling of Barry Soetoro – the sequel


By Doug Hagmann & Joseph Hagmann

11 April 2011: Following the publication of our article titled “The unraveling of Barry Soetoro, a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama“, we’ve been inundated with hundreds of e-mails pointing out two alleged errors in our report.  We’ll accept the fact that we need to be taken to the proverbial woodshed over one of those errors. Officer John McClane did not fire at the police car in the original “Die Hard” movie as we stated. It was one of the terrorists. We stand corrected, and stand even more amazed how many people are so astute in their movie trivia but have no idea what the actual eligibility issue is all about.

Therein lies the fallacy of the other “error,” which, of course, is not an error at all. It does, however, represent the very core of the entire eligibility issue that has yet to be adequately answered by Barry SOETORO, a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama. We thank those who have written, for it allows us the opportunity to illustrate exactly how and why the average person is so easily sucked into a vortex of confusion regarding this matter. It is our intent to clear up this confusion as concisely as possible, while identifying those who appear to be behind the charade of deceit that is finally catching up to the current occupant of the White House.

The hornet’s nest we stirred was by citing the U.S. Constitution, followed by the intent of our founding fathers based on their subsequent writings. It is the primary issue that lies behind the smokescreen of the elusive birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama, or perhaps to be more legally correct, Barry SOETORO.  Specifically, the we wrote the following paragraph that contains two highlighted sentences that appeared to cause confusion with some readers, while others deliberately exploited our intent:

I urge those reading this and those who are pursuing the truth to avoid “battlefield myopia” and not merely cling to the existence or lack thereof of the long form, authenticated birth certificate. The issue is much greater than the birth certificate or where Obama was physically born, as he could have been born in the Lincoln bedroom during the Kennedy administration and still be ineligible to hold the office of president under Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution. Our founders determined that future presidents must be born to two parents who are both U.S. citizens. Clearly then, the place of Obama’s birth is merely one concern, while the citizen aspect of his parents remains another.

The real issue simply explained

Despite what you’ve heard in the media, the real issue behind the controversy is whether Obama is legally and constitutionally eligible to hold the office of president of the U.S. It is not limited to the fact that Obama has legally fought all requests to release his long form of his birth certificate for the last three years or so, although that is the most tangible component most frequently cited by us so-called “birthers.” It is something with which all of us non-lawyers can easily relate. Because it is the most easily understood, it becomes the primary and a very effective weapon used by the enemies of the truth. We will address this aspect of the issue later in this report.

You become the detective

At this point, we ask you, the reader, to become the investigator. Put aside everything you’ve heard, read or seen about this issue, and start at the beginning. How would you verify the eligibility of a U.S. presidential candidate if it was your responsibility?  Allow us to walk you through the process, and feel free to check our work as you proceed.

First, you would look at what the U.S. Constitution, adopted into law on 17 September 1787 has to say about the matter. Your research would take you to Article II, Section I, Clause 5, which states that ” No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.[i]” [emphasis added].

At this point, you are faced with finding the legal definition of a natural born citizen, as the other qualifications as they pertain to Barack Hussein Obama appear to be unchallenged. So, what constitutes a natural born citizen?

Our research has found that United States Congress first defined a natural born citizen on 26 March 1790 by legislation titled “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.[ii]” The applicable portion of that law states in part, that the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States…” {emphasis added].

But wait, that act was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795[iii] which was passed on 29 January 1795 that states, in part: ” the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States.” [emphasis added]

Confused yet? If you are, you’re in good company. After all, we’re investigators and not lawyers, and just want a simple answer to our question, what is a natural born citizen?

Apparently, so did John Jay, a founding father of the United States and the first chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court under George Washington. John Jay was concerned by threats from within our republic, and to prevent foreign enemies from taking over as commander-in-chief. He turned to the writings of an international legal expert Emerich de Vattel, author of “The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns” (The Law of Nations was influenced by the writings of Christian Wolff, a German philosopher and advisor in government affairs).

In Book 1, Chapter XIX, Sec 212 of Vattel’s works, we finally find the following definition of a natural born citizen: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” From here, we find that this definition was accepted into law, at least for a while.

Further research has led us, and will lead you to a more recent interpretation of the definition of a natural born citizen. As it happens, we found a very well researched article written by Glen Gilliland here that cites the same case (and expedites us to this point beyond, for instance, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952) where we believe, establishes the legal definition we’ve been looking for. It is the 1971 case of Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815. Through this tedious and circuitous route, we find ourselves at the very same point as author and researcher Gilliland did in his article published on 10 April 2011, which we recommend highly as a terrific and valuable reference on this matter.

The key provision in this U.S. Supreme Court case, also highlighted by Mr. Gilliland, lies in the following statement: “the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States.” [emphasis added].

Additionally, information about who qualifies as a natural born citizen is laid out in chart form at The Obama File, which also references the various legal cases impacting the definition. Additionally, the fantastic research of “citizen researcher” Linda Melin of the web site Constitutionally Speaking at this link provides even more legal analysis and documentation on the natural born citizen definition.

Finally, it is important to review two of the premier, no-nonsense information and legal sites on the Internet pertaining to this issue: Natural Born Citizen – a place to ask questions, founded and maintained by Attorney Mario Apuzzo, and Protect our Liberty, founded and maintained by retired U.S. military commander Charles F. Kerchner. Messrs. Kerchner and Apuzzo were guests on CFP Radio for a two-hour interview on 12 March 2011. The podcast can be downloaded at this link.

If you’ve reached this point in your detective work without your eyes bleeding or suffering a debilitating migraine, commend yourself on a great job!

Summary of Findings

In sum and substance, one can reasonably conclude that to be legally considered a natural born citizen, and thus legally and constitutionally eligible to hold the office of the President of the United States, both parents must be citizens of the United States at the time of the birth of the candidate. It has been well documented that Barack Hussein Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen, but a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Obama’s birth. This aspect has been the subject of numerous legal suits since 2008, all of which have failed to progress within the courts.

As Barry SOETORO a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama has blocked every attempt to release his long form birth certificate, spending and estimated two million dollars during the last three years to keep secret a one-page document that would verify parentage and place of birth, even the most hardened skeptics must be curious with regard to his reasoning.

We would be remiss not to mention that Mr. SOETORO a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama has also blocked the release of numerous other records of his past, including but not limited to the following list:  “Passport records, 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, 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.” (Source:

Lastly, it is noted that we have constantly referred to Barack Hussein Obama as Barry SOETORO throughout this report. It is not for the sake of hyperbole, but out of the necessity for accuracy. We have found no evidence to document that Barry SOETORO ever legally changed his name to Barack Hussein Obama II. None.

Detractors & distracters: the “Usual Suspects”

It is interesting that following the involvement of Donald Trump in his quest for answers, however limited in scope it might be at this stage, numerous people have been citing various web sites to counter his claims. wrote a lengthy response to refute his mere questioning or the issue, stating that he is “repeating false claims about Obama’s birthplace.” The entire refutation consists of that sole matter, and insists that Obama’s birthplace was officially verified through a purportedly authenticated document called a “Certification of Live Birth,” or COLB.

Additionally, the text points to a 1 November 2008 posting by Fact Check as follows: “Of all the nutty rumors, baseless conspiracy theories and sheer disinformation that we’ve dealt with at during campaign 2008, perhaps the goofiest is the claim that Barack Obama is not a ‘natural-born citizen’ and therefore not eligible to be president under the constitution.”

Interesting, as FactCheck fails to address the constitutional definition of a natural born citizen. As we’ve previously reported, can hardly be considered a legitimate independent arbiter of truth. The Fact Check website is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. It receives its primary funding from the Annenberg Foundation. It is relevant to note that Barack Hussein OBAMA II was a founding member, chairman, and past president of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was also funded by the Annenberg Foundation. Accordingly, it is reasonable to challenge the neutrality of the information provided by that site.

Yet another website, the “Fight the Smears” website, published the Certification of Live Birth here.  While many believe “Fight the Smears” website is an independent organization dedicated to separating fact from fiction, it is actually owned and operated by “Organizing for America,” the successor organization to “Obama for America.” Clearly, it is far from independent.

Then of course there’s, a website operated by run by California couple Barbara and David Mikkelson, who claim to run the definitive Internet reference source for urban legends, folklore, myths, rumors, and misinformation. There is an entire section devoted to debunking Obama rumors, including the issue of Obama being remembered attending at Columbia University. While neither of investigating author of this article intends to address the documented oddities surrounding his reported enrollment, we find it extremely interesting that it was reviewed the Mikkelson’s site and found it to be free of political bias.

Other detractors appear to be less educated on the topic of the rule of law as it applies to the eligibility issue, including the collective intellect of members of the view. Other pundits and politicians on the conservative side, including Karl Rove, who called the matter a distraction, and Michele Bachman (R-MN), who said “we should take Obama at his word,” seem to have little regard for the application of constitutional law as it would apply to Obama.

In any case, it’s not just about the birth certificate. It’s about the rule of law, something that can not nor should be reduced to a mere sound bite or treated with indifference by any U.S. lawmaker, military official, or even the media.

To us mere investigators, it seems that there is more outrage over an ineligible player in a sports game than a potentially ineligible person holding the highest office in the U.S., especially considering that he has the ability, and has used it, to dramatically change the course of our country.

RELATED: Obama’s Eligibility: The Big Con


[i] Cornell University Law School 

[ii] SOURCE: 1 Stat. 103-104. edited version: De Pauw, Linda Grant, et al., eds. Documentary History of the First Federal Congress of the United States of America, March 4, 1789 – March 3, 1791. 14 vols. to date. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972-1995. 6:1516-1522.

[iii] SOURCE: 1 Stat. 414-415.