Obama’s “Nixonian” moment?


By Doug Hagmann & Joseph Hagmann

29 April 2011: We hope you’ve saved the duct tape you purchased at the urging of the DHS a few years ago, as it could come in handy to as a head wrap to keep your head from exploding from the curious events of this past week.  Should you find no need to do so, you might wish to send your extra rolls to the corporate media, Obama loyalists, operatives and progressives so they can use it to hold together their mosaic of lies and misrepresentations that have turned into blatant insults and a shameful mockery of anyone searching for the truth about the valid constitutional issue of presidential eligibility.

There are indeed legitimate questions regarding the authenticity of the purported certificate of birth based on the most cursory and preliminary examinations already performed. Let us not forget that this document was released by the White House with the imprimatur of Obama himself. Therefore, any anomalies with the document should be analyzed with the same vigor and with the same level of aggressiveness as the release of the now infamous Nixon tapes, complete with the equally infamous 18 minute gap attributed to the wayward foot of secretary Rosemary Woods.

Although the same standard of examination and investigation to which former President Richard M. Nixon was held need to be applied to the Obama sanctioned document. Note that Obama, much like Nixon with the tapes, initially fought against the release of his long form birth certificate through his use of lawyers and other diversionary roadblocks. When seemingly cornered, Nixon furnished the audio sans the 18 minutes, which resulted in his ultimate downfall.  Can it be the same today?

It is by design that the same people who called for the resignation of President Nixon, including the liberal press, are some of the very same individuals who are mocking those who are tenaciously attempting to protect the rule of law and the sanctity of our constitution.  It is by design that the ideology of Marxism has infiltrated and taken over, overtly or by less obvious means, virtually all aspects of our society, corporate media and current government.

The certificate of birth is merely one document that embodies a multitude of questions about the background and origins of a man who holds the keys to our nuclear arsenal, the ability to direct our armed forces to all corners of the world and by mandate, to the streets of the U.S. if he deems necessary. It does, however, represent the cornerstone of legitimacy for the highest office in the U.S. and should not be made into the sideshow that Obama has laughingly accused others of doing.

In addition to its authenticity, it is critical to ask why, after a nearly three year-long fight, that he would choose this time to make this purported official document public.  As succinctly reported Wednesday by Judi McLeod, editor of Canada Free Press, a looming question about the timing of its release remains; she notes that even the most powerful man on earth must know that keeping his certificate of birth and other vital documents away from the public is akin to attempting to clean a bloodstain left at a crime scene.

Like a crime scene, we must not be fooled by anyone wishing to cleanse the potential criminality being committed by this administration against the citizens of our country and hard work of our founding fathers. Regardless whether top republicans, elected conservatives or highly paid talk show hosts consider this a distraction, this issue must be pursued with the same vigor once possessed by Woodward and Berstein, and followed to its final conclusion, wherever the facts lead and despite any potential consequences for doing so. As citizens, we can handle the truth but are becoming increasingly impatient with lies and ambiguity.

It’s nothing less than a matter of our national security and survival.

NOTE: This will be the topic of the Hagmann & Hagmann Report radio broadcast scheduled for Saturday, April 30, 2011 at 8:00 p.m. ET as heard here.

Case closed? Not so fast

By Doug Hagmann & Joseph Hagmann

27 April 2011: That giant whooshing sound you hear of “birther” balloons popping with the purported release of the infamous Obama long form Certificate of Live Birth should be met with the level of skepticism it most definitely deserves. Already, there is well deserved controversy swirling about its authenticity, and legitimate questions are being raised about the timing of the release. You can bet that experts representing both camps pertaining to the certificate’s authenticity will have much to say about this document. Regardless, the newly released document does nothing to address the core constitutional issue of eligibility to hold the office of the President of the United States.

It is unfortunate that the entire debate ultimately evolved into a myopic gaze that became focused on Obama’s long form birth certificate, as that is merely one aspect of the question concerning eligibility. It is equally unfortunate that the corporate media, shills for Obama and those who fail to understand or deliberately misrepresent the issue will now consider the case “closed.” It is anything but closed.

As we reported in an article titled The unraveling of Barry Soetoro – the sequel, we point out that “[t]he 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. As for the definition of a “Natural Born Citizen” referenced in the constitution, we note that our founders determined that future presidents must be born to two parents who are both U.S. citizens as further defined by the legal reference The Law of Nations or the Principals of Natural Law.

The reasoning has to do with allegiance to one country – the United States of America. Given the current state of the U.S. as a world power and the problems we face today, can you not see what our founding fathers were warning against? Obama cannot simultaneously be a “citizen of the world,” an apologist for our great country, and the leader of our great nation.

Something sinister is indeed afoot, and the majority of people are falling for it. Don’t be one of them.

A Divine warning shot across Obama’s bow

By Doug Hagmann & Joseph Hagmann

Undoubtedly, you’ve already heard and read about the snubbing of Christians by Obama at Easter. We suspect, however, that others who have reported on this have not looked at the larger picture that is represented by this particular administration.

26 April 2011: Last Sunday was Easter, the most sacred holiday on the Christian calendar. Yet, you would never know it from the White House.  In contrast with his predecessors, the self-proclaimed Christian known as Barack Hussein Obama II, who has also been publicly anointed as a Christian by our corporate media, failed to release any statement or proclamation addressing the national observance of Easter, the most sacred day of the year for Christians worldwide.

Obama also failed to acknowledge or make any reference the Christian holy day of Good Friday, instead releasing a lengthy statement about the secularist, new-age “Earth Day,” which happened to fall on the same day as Good Friday this year. Earth Day sounds innocuous with noble intentions, but like most issues embraced by the “progressives,” it has a much darker side.

What does Earth Day have to do with the lack of an Easter proclamation? Please stay with us as we take a detour to briefly address its present relevance to Obama’s snubbing of Christians along with his slap-down of Jews and Israel.

Earth Day v. Easter & Passover

It is important to note that Earth Day was founded in 1970 by former U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson (now deceased) and can be considered, in part, as an outgrowth of the evolving eugenics movement. Nelson himself linked environmental problems to overpopulation of the planet, a concept peripherally embraced by hard-core Earth Day proponents.

Like the old adage that you can tell a lot about a person by the company he keeps, Earth Day 2011 is partnered with numerous organizations such as the Muslim Green Team, American University of Kuwait, Subol Forum for Development (Iraq), the Ministry of Education in Sultanate of Oman (MOE), and the Blue Green Alliance, which is a coalition of labor unions that includes the SEIU. Peel the organizational layers back further and one can see the ultimate call for “sustainable development” and other key elements used by the proponents of a “New World Order” that is being facilitated through the power structure of the UN and other NGOs.

Perhaps this explains why a carefully crafted eight-paragraph statement was released about the Earth Day initiative instead of the usual White House proclamation dedicated to the Christian holy day of Easter. It is apparent that this new-age secularism, embraced and promoted by globalists and Progressives and known as “spirituality without borders or confining dogmas,” has replaced inconvenient proclamations associated with certain religions. In sum and substance, that action alone explains a lot about the man and his administration. He is the great facilitator of interfaith dialogue that will ultimately lead to a one world religion, but not before he is done arranging the Islamic chess pieces – both globally and domestically. We are seeing that currently playing out in Libya, where such globalist luminaries as Henry Kissinger are now calling for the use of ground troops. The actions in Libya are a precursor to more aggressive plans in the Middle East where Israel will bear the brunt of the globalist agenda.

Judeo-Christian ideology at the White House: A laughing matter

As if the failure to issue a standard proclamation from the seat of U.S. power was not sufficiently insulting, perhaps Christians in the U.S. might be moved to irritation by watching the defiance oozing from Obama’s press secretary Jay Carney when he was asked about this omission during a press conference on Monday.  Carney appeared to laugh off the question, instead deflecting to Obama’s attendance at church on Easter. As noted in a one-minute video clip, Carney chuckled as he said he was uncertain whether any proclamation was released, as if such issues were below the level of his job. He stressed, however, that Obama celebrated the importance of this Christian holy day with his family in a very high profile manner. Apparently, that should settle the whole matter.

While Christians were slighted this Easter, the Jews had it much worse. For this year’s Jewish holiday of Passover which corresponds with the Christian feast of Easter, Obama actually had plenty to say. Anyone with any level of intellectual and spiritual discernment should be able to read between the lines of Obama’s statement when he used the feast of Passover to take a swipe at Jews and the nation of Israel. In his statement, he sparked controversy by linking the Jewish holiday of Passover with the current uprisings in the Muslim world. His Passover remarks combined “social transformation” and “liberation” in the Middle East, which were rightfully viewed as an insult to Jews and to the nation of Israel. Anyone with any knowledge of history should be upset at his obvious disdain for Israel, and those with the intellectual and spiritual discernment will see this as another step toward the isolation of – and turning against – Israel as its existence does not fit into the globalist agenda.

Why it matters

Through the use of sound bites and amid the snide snickers of deflection, one might be led to believe that the absence of an Easter proclamation represents a move to a more secular role of government, or one that does not put the value of one religion over another. That might be true if Obama remained silent on all religious holidays, but he has not. In fact, Obama’s refusal to make the customary Easter proclamation while making an insulting reference to Passover starkly contrasts his other “religious” statements when he has openly acknowledged and praised various Muslim holidays such as Ramadan and Eid-ul-Fitr.

From an evidentiary perspective and despite the Carney dog and pony show, it is growing more evident that “Obama the secularist” has an affinity to Islam and bias against Israel and the Jews, contrary to traditional Judeo-Christian values in America. The reason is quite simple, but we must not be myopic in the final analysis.

Islam that is being used to facilitate the erosion of our core values through the perversion of our constitution. Ironically, it is the intolerance inherent in Islam that is being used as a catalyst for calls for religious tolerance in America. It’s a brilliant plan that is actually a convoluted extension of the Bush Islamic outreach program in America.

While it is at work here in the U.S., we can see the same plan at work throughout the Middle East. In a broader worldview, facts support that Obama’s foreign policy regarding the Middle East significantly favors the Muslim-Arab countries while turning his back on the nation of Israel.

It all fits within the framework of a one-world, one religion global agenda. Perhaps that’s why a divine warning shot was reportedly captured on camera by Eddie Gehman Kohan on Easter Sunday.


The Hagmann & Hagmann Report

By Kate Evans-Taylor

23 April 2011: The Northeast Intelligence Network is proud to announce that The Hagmann & Hagmann Report, heard every Saturday from 8:00-10:00 p.m., is now part of the Red State Talk Radio Network of programming. The change is effective immediately.

Doug Hagmann, founder and director of the Northeast Intelligence Network, stated that he is excited about the change and proud to be affiliated with America’s premier conservative talk radio network and humbled to be associated with some of the finest ‘truly conservative’ talk show hosts in America. “As articulated in their mission statement, the values set forth by the network represent the values that are consistent with our founding fathers,” stated Hagmann, who added that the relationship should be a “glove fit.”  The Red State Talk Radio Network states that “[t]he mission of our talk show hosts is to be on the front lines of the crusade to bring these values back into the American consciousness and restore the American republic to what it once was as envisioned by our founding fathers.”

Mr. Hagmann stated that “we also believe that we are on the front lines of investigating and reporting threats to our nation, and many of the same threats facing us exist from within.” Many of the same threats we faced before, on and after 9/11 not only continue to exist, but are actually being enabled by the Progressive agenda. That such conditions are permitted to  exist, and are frequently glossed over by numerous talking head and media pundits demonstrate the need for the Red State Talk Radio Network.”

The Hagmann & Hagmann Report has grown every week since it initially debuted last month, and was listed as one of the top most popular shows on the Internet Blog Talk Radio platform.

Added Mr. Hagmann, “we intend to address head-on what is important for the safety, security and survival of our country, and get answers to important questions regardless of where such answers might take us. If you are on the wrong side of history or are knowingly involved in the deliberate convolution of the truth in matters pertaining to our great nation, we want you to know we intend to expose you and your agenda. You are – or will be in our investigative cross hairs. We also want our listeners to know that we are investigators with a talk radio show, and not talk show hosts pretending to be investigative journalists. People are hungry for the truth, however unpalatable it might be. It is our intention to provide our listeners with the truth. They deserve it, and the survival of the America as established by our forefathers depends on it.”

How to listen

Listen live via the Internet via this link. You may also join our live chat room during the program, or call in with your comments or questions during the live show at (661) 244-9839.

Listen via The Red State Talk Radio Network (consult their broadcast schedule here).

You may also download the show to your computer, MP3 player or other device.

Tonight: The Hagmann & Hagmann Report


8:00-10:00 p.m. ET

16 April 2011: During the first hour of tonight’s show, Douglas J. Hagmann and Joseph Hagmann will be discussing additional information related to to the selection of Barack Hussein Obama as U.S. president, how and why he rose to power so quickly without any track record of success, and more about who is behind him. We’ll also be addressing the media’s role, including the O’Reilly “factor” on this issue, and the unusual stance by Glenn Beck.

During the second hour, we’ll be talking about the near criminal treatment by the TSA of anyone who dares to criticize them.

Listen live via the Internet HERE. We will also be taking your calls during the live broadcast tonight (8:00-10:00 p.m. ET, 5-7:00 p.m. Pacific) at 661-244-9839. Also, please feel feel to join the online chat during the program HERE.

The Hagmann & Hagmann Report is the fastest growing radio program on the Internet!

No spin zone?

15 April 2011: Thanks to Denver talk radio show host Peter Boyles during an interview with Dr. Jerome Corsi, the portion of Bill O’Reilly’s show that was apparently “scrubbed” by Fox News that addressed the purported Connecticut issuance of Barack Hussein Obama’s social security number was found. Listen to – and watch – the following video that shows exactly what was allegedly removed from the Fox site and the O’Reilly program.

Why was it scrubbed? We believe the reasons are obvious. And appalling.

We will continue to seek the truth, turn over every rock, look in every dark crevice, and dog those who have the gall to hide the truth from the American public, no matter who you are.

You have our word.

Obama deception indicators “off the charts” during Stephanopoulos interview

By Douglas J. Hagmann

15 April 2011: If you watch and listen carefully to the 20 minute 14 April 2011 interview[i] of Barack Hussein Obama by George Stephanopoulos, you will notice something very telling that takes place during that interview when the discussion shifts to the issue of Donald Trump and ultimately, the “birther conspiracy.” Veteran investigators who are experienced in interviewing and interrogating suspects, witnesses, criminals and non-criminals have undoubtedly identified numerous big red flags of deception precisely when expected, and in textbook fashion. To observe this in action, begin watching the video at about the 13:25 minute mark, when Stephanopoulos lobs the following softball, leading question to Obama and receives his answer[ii]:

George Stephanopoulos: I wonder how you size up your potential opponents?  I mean all of us have been struck by Donald Trump rising to the top of the Republican field by feeding fantasies about your background.  What do you make of that?

First, note that Stephanopoulos sets an amicable tone for easy rebuttal by Obama to anyone believing that anything might be amiss with regard to Obama’s eligibility. He asks a leading question that automatically suggests that any reference to the “birther issue” as raised by Donald Trump is “fantasy.” Accordingly, Obama should be able to handle the question without any obvious stress or difficulty. But here’s exactly where the difficult-to-control verbal and non-verbal clues of deception take over. First, read his response:

President Obama: Well you know, I think that over the last two and a half years there’s been an effort to go at me in a way that is politically expedient in the short-term for Republicans.  But creates, I think a problem for them when they want to actually run in a general election where most people feel pretty confident the President was born where he says he was, in Hawaii.  (LAUGHS) He– he doesn’t have horns. We may disagree with him on some issues and we may wish that you know, the unemployment rate was coming down faster and we want him to know his plan on gas prices.  But we’re not really worrying about conspiracy theories or– or birth certificates.  And so– I– I think it presents a problem for them.  But, look I right now have such a big day job that I am not yet focused on what’s happening on the other side.  There’ll be a time where I’m– I’m very focused on it. [emphasis added]

Verbal deception indicator 1

In this answer alone, notice how Obama shifts from speaking in the first person to suddenly referring to himself in the third person, or as “the President.”  Naysayers, apologists and supporters of all types will undoubtedly refute or even mock this investigator’s observations and premise that switching from talking in the first person (i.e. using “I”) to the third person is meaningless. Alone, it might very well be, but now watch the entire interview or consult the transcript, and note the number of times Obama answers a question by referring to himself in the first person. Now compare your findings with the above paragraph.

Recently, pundits at Fox News actually counted the number of times Barack Obama used the word “I” in a recent speech about Libya. It was excessive, they opined, and typical of Obama. The number of times Obama referred to himself in the first person in this interview appeared consistent with the subject matter and the questions asked, until the issue of his birth certificate was raised.

Verbal deception indicator 2

One of the best indicators of deception is one’s evasiveness of answers, or to simply not fully address the crux of the matter or answer the question posed. Obama knows very well that the issue in this instance, “bracketed” by this question, is his refusal to release his long form birth certificate for which Trump is known for demanding. Admittedly, Stephanopoulos did not directly ask Obama about his birth certificate and used the general term “background” instead.

Nonetheless, instead of addressing that issue head-on, even in this friendly environment, Obama reverts to the use of a non-sequitur by adding that “…he doesn’t have horns.”  He then reverts back to addressing the entire issue as a “conspiracy theory,” specifically mentioning his birth certificate out of the context of the question. His evasiveness is smooth but obvious. Now note that Obama continues to refer to himself as “he” or in the third person for the remainder of the question.

Non-verbal deception indicators

Image courtesy ABC News (still capture)

Notice when Obama answers the above question, there is excessive eye blinking, which is an involuntary stress indicator. When answering this question, one is able to count over sixty-(60) eye blinks during his short answer on this specific topic.

Additionally, note that Obama laughs directly in the middle of his answer and at a very critical point in delivering his response, which is also a non-verbal sign of deception. Further analysis of his facial expression, including micro-expressions, indicate a false or forced laugh, or one that is not genuine and does not involve all of his facial muscles.

What it means

As I’ve previously indicated in various CFP radio segments[iii] and on the nationally syndicated “The Roth Show,” I’ve interviewed a wide range of individuals, from prisoners in Attica State Penitentiary to the residents of some of the most expensive homes in the country during my 26 year career as a professional investigator. I also  hold multiple law-enforcement related certifications including those involving interviewing and interrogation techniques, the identification of verbal and non-verbal deception, and certifications in numerous other related  subjects related to behavioral analysis and the identification of micro-expressions in lie and stress detection.

As the title of this article indicates, it is my professional analysis that the verbal and non-verbal indicators of deception are not only present in this interview, but are “off the charts” and offer a classic textbook example of the same. Obviously, Obama did not take this opportunity to clear up this matter when provided the opportunity, even in this non-hostile venue. Clearly then, we should expect nothing different should he ever be compelled to prove his constitutional eligibility in a not-so-friendly venue.

Note to the reader: The basis of my conclusions arise from a complete review of the entire 19 minute, 25 second video, isolating the clips where the camera was pointed directly at Obama and not at the interviewer. Additionally, various clips from Obama’s campaign speeches and candid interviews about general matters were used as a baseline for this analysis.

[i] Video accessible at http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2011/04/exclusive-interview-with-president-barack-obama-transcript-part-one.html

[ii] Transcript credit ABC News, “George’s Bottom Line”, page two

[iii] CFP Radio, The Hagmann & Hagmann Report, http://www.blogtalkradio.com/cfp-radio

Washington Times columnist calls for release of Obama birth certificate

Long form birth record is only part of the story

By Doug Hagmann


13 April 2011:  An 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.

Continue reading

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: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/)

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. FactCheck.org 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 FactCheck.org 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, FactCheck.org 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 Snopes.com, 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 FactCheck.org 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 http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii#section1 

[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.