Donald Trump releases his long form Birth Certificate

Donald Trump released his long form Birth Certificate Link

Notice that is contains the vital stastics, parents information, and  required on the “standard Birth Certificate’ .

Here is the full long form Birth Certificate of Donald Trump

The image came with an accompanying memo from a member of Trump’s staff. 

“A ‘birth certificate’ and a ‘certificate of live birth’ are in no way the same thing, even though in some cases they use some of the same words,” wrote Trump staffer Thuy Colayco in a message to ABC News. “One officially confirms and records a newborn child’s identity and details of his or her birth, while the other only confirms that someone reported the birth of a child. Also, a ‘certificate of live birth’ is very easy to get because the standards are much lower, while a ‘birth certificate’ is only gotten through a long and detailed process wherein identity must be proved beyond any doubt. If you had only a certificate of live birth, you would not be able to get a proper passport from the Post Office or a driver’s license from the Department of Motor Vehicles. Therefore, there is very significant difference between a ‘certificate of live birth’ and a ‘birth certificate’ and one should never be confused with the other.”

Donald Trump is not intimidated or crazy

Via Obama release your records

Potential 2012 GOP presidential contender Donald Trump is doubling down on his call for President Barack Obama to produce a birth certificate, saying “facts are emerging” that have raised a “real question” as to whether Obama is constitutionally eligible to serve as president.

Trump said the president has spent “millions of dollars” in legal fees to “trying to get away from this issue.”

“That ad that was placed in the … paper, that was placed in the paper days after he was born,” Trump said. “So he could have come into the country, and they did it for social reasons they put it in. They did it for whatever reason, there are a lot of reasons they could have put an ad in, but he could have been born outside of this country.

“Why can’t he produce a birth certificate?” Trump asked. “And by the way, there’s one story that his family doesn’t even know what hospital he was born in.”

“Now this guy either has a birth certificate or he doesn’t,” Trump said. “And I didn’t think this was such a big deal, but I will tell you it’s turning out to be a very big deal. Because people now are calling me from all over saying, ‘Please don’t give up on this issue.’”

Trump replied. “And there’s a real question. And if this birth certificate exists — you know what I get a kick out of? The governor of Hawaii says, ‘Oh, I remember when he was born 50 years ago.’ I doubt it. I think this guy should be investigated. I doubt he remembers when Obama was born. Give me a break! He’s just trying to do something for his party

“And I’ll tell you what,” Trump added “I brought it up just routinely. And all of a sudden a lot of facts are emerging, and I’m starting to wonder myself whether or not he was born in this country.”

Letter to Sean Hannity – The great great great unAmerican and Traitor

 For the third night in a row, Sean Hannity, you the the great great great American traitor has broached on the Obama ‘birth certificate issue’.

 As a true un-American media mouth-piece that  knows little if anything about the United States Constitution, whereas Hannity repeatedly stated  that the United States Constitution requires you to be born in the United States to be eligible for the Presidency.

 In reality the United States Constitution Under Art 2 sec 1 – The President

 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.

 Where in the above Constitutional requirement, says that one has to be born in the country? It doesn’t. The requirement is a ‘Natural-Born Citizen’.

 Let’s educate Sean Hannity


 Benjamin Franklin’s (a signer of our Constitution) letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775
“I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own public library here, and send the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author”?

 The Law of Nations – Vattel in Bk 1 Sec 212, states the following. 

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

 The following statement was made by the author of the 14th Amendment.

I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen -Rep. John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment, before The US House of Representatives ((Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291, March 9, 1866 )

Or this statement by Supreme Court Chief Justice Waite

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)

The 14th Amendment states the following;

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Born in the United States but ‘JURISDICTION” is required.

Under Jus Soli, the following is written “The Supreme Court’s first holding on the sublect suggested that the court would give a restrictive reading to the phrase, potentially disqualifing significant number of persons born within the physical boundries of the nation. In Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94, 5 S.CT. 41, 28 L.ED. 643 (1884), the court ruled that native Indians were not U.S. citizens, even if they later severed their ties with their tribes. The words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” the court held, mean “not merely subjct in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiange.” Most Indians could not meet the test. “Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian Tribes, (an alien through dependent power,) although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more ‘born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’*** then the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government ***. Id. at 102.

Baracka Abdallah Husein Obama stated the following on his campaign web-site;

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children

However, Barack Obama has not proven his claim of being born in the United States. The Obama COLB is not a Birth Certificate. It is, instead, cursory information that a birth occurred. It is superficial, it is not thorough or detailed as the long form that it supports to represent. The fact that the Obama COLB has been proven to be questionable at best and a forgery at the least, and as there are no records per the current Hawaiian Governor backing it up. If there are no records backing up the document, how was the document produced in the first place?

Sean, stop lying to the American people. According to new poll & survey — 91% of Americans doubt Obama is constitutionally eligible! You are only fooling yourself and betraying your country. Learn the facts.

Your failure is the reason that an 18 year Army career LtCol. Sits in Leavenwoth Prision for standing up and demanding Obama prove his eligibility. Learn about Terry Lakin, and you’ll see why you don’t deserve to be in the same room as him. Or Charles Kerchner, Mario Appuzo,  Theresa Cao, Walter Fitzpatrick, and a host of other REAL GREAT AMERICAN PATRIOTS. Shame on you Sean, you should hang your head in disgrace.

A real American that has served this country.

Illinois State Senator Obama admits childhood in Kenya

In Sept 2006 Illinois State Senator Obama, while on an international trip was interviewed by Lynn Sweet of the Sun-Times.

Obama: Africa lessons; look ahead. En route back to U.S.
By Lynn Sweet on September 3, 2006 8:40 AM |

N’DJAMENA, Chad–Sen. Barack Obama departed this capital city Sunday morning, en route on an Army military aircraft to Frankfort, Germany to catch a commercial flight back to the United States.

He leaves wtih a “great urgency” to pressure the U.S. and other players to force Sudan to accept a United Nations peackeeping force in the Darfur region. Obama’s last stop was at a refugee camp near the Chad-Sudan border where some 15,333 people who fled Janjaweed violence live. Of those he talked to, they told him almost to a person they want to return-but cannot unless there are UN troops there to guarantee their safety.

After this major Africa swing–he left Washington on Aug. 18–the Illinois Democrat revs up a heavy political schedule in advance of the November elections, stumping in Iowa on Sept. 17, a stop in the early presidential caucus state that fuels speculation about whether the White House is in his future.

Obama launches his national book tour for his second book Oct. 17 in Chicago.

He reflected on his trip at the back of a plane on Saturday, talking above the roar of the engines to the three print reporters who have been covering his trip.

Obama’s next big international journey will be in 2007 –he’s looking at China, India and Indonesia, “where ironicall I actually have more of a childhood than I do in Kenya.”

Click for excerpts.


The instability in Sudan is greater than I realized. I think that the lack of a clear mandate for the African Union is more debilitating than I realized and that effectively they are not able to provide any type of security function in these areas.

It appears that there is a possible significant offensive by the Sudan forces against rebel forces once the rainy season (is) over and that is obviously a concern….My overarching sense is the great urgency to get a United Nations protective force on the ground. We can’t wait.

…If we wait much longer, i think it is fair to say the people we have seen today and the people in Darfur will be in an even worse situation than they are right now.

Better, but better is not good enough. (A protetctive force) is not going to happen without special effort on our part.

The visit to Kisumu (which included a stop at his fathers’ homestead) and actually the response when we took that AIDS test was fairly remarkable. (Obama and wife Michelle took it publically to reduce the stigma of testing)…a small gesture that could actually save some lives.

Coming here and seeing how isolated people are and really getting a sense I think in this region how ungoverned entire segments of the continent are.

…Trying to figure out how we can create structures that provide people with basic security, basic protection…a hugh problem and one that we are going to have to continue to grapple with I think for many years because it has a direct impact on our own security back home.

The fact that both appeared so cheerful, and hopeful indicates there is something about when people serve, somehow it enrichs them in all sorts of ways. They just seemed like happy, fulfilled people, even though they are not particularly wealthy.

Obama met former Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Kenyan environmentalist Wangari Maathai.

(noted that on last big international swing, was under the wing of Sen. Richard Lugar, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee)

(On the Africa trip, tis time)
I was responsible, I think, for carrying the message to the countries we visited. But it was a good growth experience for me.

 Link and Link to Lynn Sweet’s Posted article

The Obama nativity story is that Barack Abdallah  Husein Obama was born in Hawaii [a claim that has never been proven], and that the first time he was in Kenya was in the early 1980’s. Remember this was the same trip that Michelle stated that Kenya was Barack’s ‘Home Country’. and referenced again, when Michelle again stated that Barack was a ‘Kenyan‘.

How does one have a childhood in a country that he never was there as a child?

click on image for larger version

Additional Points to ponder;

In May 2010, Mama Sarah Obama received an honorary doctorate from the Great Lakes University of Kisumu.  During her acceptance, she stated the following “This is a show of blessing from God, since I have always dedicated my time to tend to the orphans. Even the US president passed through my hands.”

How does one pass through hands unless they were physically there, and if Obama did in fact pass through Granny’s hands, when was this? Where did this happen?

Why does Obama’s words about a childhood in Kenya now appear to be true?

In 2006, Obama’s next big international journey will be in 2007 –he’s looking at China, India and Indonesia, “where ironicall I actually have more of a childhood than I do in Kenya.”

Or why was there a reference to Obama during a discussion in the Kenyan Parliment rename the hospital?


Mr. Outa: Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, I want to alert the Assistant Minister, who is my friend, that, because of the great need to have a theatre in order to reduce the strain on Nyanza Provincial General Hospital, the Ahero Sub-district Hospital has acquired a modern theatre from our friends. Could the Assistant Minister, who is my friend, avail a certain amount of money to enable us to build and complete the theatre in Ahero Sub-district Hospital as soon as he can?
Mr. Mungatana: Yes, Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, I want to assure hon. Outa,who is my friend, that we shall do everything possible. In fact, I laud his initiative, because those hon. Members who are putting money in health, we want to support them to the full. If you could see me after this, I will make sure that, that happens.
Thank you, Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker.
The Temporary Deputy Speaker (Prof. Kamar): Last question, Mr. Olago!
Mr. Aluoch: Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, that hospital was sponsored by the USSR Government, and for a long time, up to now, it has been popularly known as “Russia Hospital”. I would like to have a detailed breakdown of the Medium-Term-Expenditure Framework, so that I can interrogate it more deeply. In the meantime, has the Ministry considered that Russia Hospital could attract funding and sponsorship from our friends out of the country if we were to consider re-naming it “Jaramogi Oginga Odinga Memorial Hospital”?
An hon. Member: Or Obama!

Barack Hussein Obama – was NOT ‘born among us’

 “An American Citizen” was the pseudonym of Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania, a member of the Annapolis Convention and the Continental Congress, and author of a number of pamphlets on the finances and commerce of the United States. The four letters written over that signature were among the first to appear in favor of the Constitution, and were reprinted in many of the newspapers of the day.

I have seen three copies with “Tench Coxe, Esq.,” interlined on the title page in his own handwriting below “By an American Citizen.”

Tench Coxe (May 22, 1755 – July 17, 1824) was an American political economist and a delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress in 1788-1789. He wrote under the pseudonym “A Pennsylvanian”.

An Examination of the Constitution for the United States of America, Submitted to the People by the General Convention, At Philadelphia, the 17th Day of September, 1787, and since adopted and ratified by the Conventions of Eleven States, chosen for the purpose of considering it, being all that have yet decided on the subject. By an American Citizen. To which is added, A Speech of the  Honorable James Wilson, Esquire, on the same subject. Philadelphia: Printed by Zachariah Poulson, Junr. in Fourth-Street, between Market and Arch-Street. M. DCC. LXXXVIII.


Every person, who desires to know the true situation of the United States of America, in regard to the freedom and powers of their governments, must carefully consider together the constitution of the state in which he lives and the new constitution of fœderal or general government. The latter alone is treated of in the following pages. The former, it is presumed, are sufficiently understood by the citizens who live under them.


On the Federal Government, and first on the safety of the people, from the restraints imposed on the President.

It is impossible for an honest and feeling mind, of any nation or country whatever, to be insensible to the present circumstances of America. Were I an East Indian, or a Turk, I should consider this singular situation of a part of my fellow creatures as the most curious and interesting. Intimately connected with the country, as a citizen of the union, I confess it entirely engrosses my mind and feelings.

To take a proper view of the ground on which we stand, it may be necessary to recollect the manner in which the United States were originally settled and [4] established. Want of charity in the religious systems of Europe, and of justice in their political governments, were the principal moving causes, which drove the emigrants of various countries to the American continent. The Congregationalists, Quakers, Presbyterians and other British dissenters, the Catholics of England and Ireland, the Hugonots of France, the German Lutherans, Calvinists and Moravians, with several other societies, established themselves in the different colonies, thereby laying the ground of that liberality in ecclesiastical affairs, which has been observable since the late revolution. Religious liberty naturally promotes corresponding dispositions in matters of government. The constitution of England as it stood on paper, was one of the freest, at that time, in the world, and the American colonies considered themselves as entitled to the fullest enjoyment of it. Thus, when the ill-judged discussions of late times in England brought into question the rights of this country, as it stood connected with the British crown, we were found more strongly impressed with their importance, and accurately acquainted with their extent, than the wisest and most learned of our brethren beyond the Atlantic. When the greatest names in parliament insisted on the power of that body over the commerce of the colonies, and even the right to bind us in all cases whatsoever, America, seeing that it was only another form of tyranny, insisted upon the immutable truth, that taxation and representation are inseparable; and, while a desire of harmony and other considerations induced her into an acquiescence in the commercial relations of Great Britain, it was done from the declared necessity of the case, and with a cautious, full, and absolute saving of our voluntarily-suspended rights. The parliament was persevering, and America continued firm, till hostilities and open war commenced, and finally the late revolution closed the contest forever.

[5] It is evident, from this short detail, and the reflections which arise from it, that the quarrel between the United States and the parliament of Great Britain did not arise so much from objections to the form of government, though undoubtedly a better one by far is now within our reach, as from a difference concerning certain important rights, resulting from the essential principles of liberty, which their constitution actually preserved to all the subjects residing within the realm. It was not asserted by America, that the people of the island of Great Britain were slaves, but that we, though possessed absolutely of the same rights, were not admitted to enjoy an equal degree of freedom.

When the declaration of independence compleated the separation between the two countries, new governments were necessarily established. Many circumstances led to the adoption of the republican form, among which was the predilection of the people. In devising the frames of government, it may have been difficult to avoid extremes opposite to the vices of that we had just rejected; nevertheless, many of the state constitutions we have chosen are truly excellent. Our misfortunes have been, that in the first instance we adopted no national government at all; but were kept together by common danger only; and that in the confusions of a civil war, we framed a fœderal constitution, now universally admitted to be inadequate to the preservation of liberty, property, and the union. The question is not, then, how far our state constitutions are good, or otherwise—the object of our wishes is, to amend and supply the evident and allowed errors and defects of the fœderal government. Let us consider awhile, that which is now proposed to us—let us compare it with the so much boasted British form of government, and see how much more it favours the people, and how completely it secures their rights, remembering, at the same time, that we did not dissolve our connection [6] with that country so much on account of its constitution, as the perversion and maladministration of it.

In the first place, let us look at the nature and powers of the head of that country, and those of the ostensible head of ours.

The British king is the great bishop or supreme head of an established church, with an immense patronage annexed. In this capacity he commands a number of votes in the house of lords, by creating bishops, who, besides their great incomes, have votes in that assembly, and are judges in the last resort. These prelates have also many honorable and lucrative places to bestow, and thus from their wealth, learning, dignities, powers, and patronage, give a great lustre and an enormous influence to the crown.

In America, our president will not only be without these influencing advantages, but they will be in the possession of the people at large, to strengthen their hands in the event of a contest with him. All religious funds, honors and powers, are in the gift of numberless unconnected, disunited and contending corporations, wherein the principle of perfect equality universally prevails. In short, danger from ecclesiastical tyranny, that long standing and still remaining curse of the people—that sacreligious engine of royal power in some countries—can be feared by no man in the United States. In Britain their king is for life—in America, our President will always be one of the people at the end of four years. In that country, the king is hereditary, and may be an ideot, a knave, or a tyrant by nature, or ignorant from neglect of his education, yet cannot be removed, for “he can do no wrong.” This is a favorite maxim of their constitution. In America, as the President is to be one of the people at the end of his short term, so will he and his fellow citizens remember, that he was originally one of the people; and he is created by their breath. Further, he cannot be [7] an ideot, probably not a knave or tyrant, for those whom nature makes so discover it before the age of thirty-five, until which period he cannot be elected. It appears, we have not admitted that he can do no wrong, but have rather pre-supposed he may, and sometimes will do wrong, by providing for his impeachment, his trial, and his peaceable and complete removal.

In England the king has a power to create members of the upper house, who are judges in the highest court, as well as legislators. Our President not only cannot make members of the Senate, but their creation, like his own, is by the people, through their representatives: and a member of Assembly may and will be as certainly dismissed at the end of his year, for electing a weak or wicked Senator, as for any other blunder or misconduct.

The king of England has complete legislative power, while our President can only use it when the other servants of the people are divided. But in all great cases affecting the national interests or safety, his modified and restrained power must give way to the sense of two-thirds of the legislature. In fact it amounts to no more, than a serious duty imposed upon him to request both houses to re-consider any matter on which he entertains doubts or feels apprehensions; and here the people have a strong hold upon him from his sole and personal responsibility.

The President of the upper-house (or the chancellor) in in England, is appointed by their king, while our Vice-President, who is chosen by the people, through the electors and the Senate, is not at all dependant on the President, but may exercise equal powers on some occasions. In all royal governments, an helpless infant or an inexperienced youth may wear the crown. Our President must be matured by the experience of years, and being born among us, his character at thirty-five must be fully understood. Wisdom, virtue and active [8] qualities of mind and body can alone make him the first servant of a free and enlightened people.

Our President will fall very much short indeed of any prince in his annual income, which will not be hereditary, but the absolute allowance of the people, passing through the hands of their other servants from year to year, as it becomes necessary. There will be no burdens on the nation, to provide for his heir, or other branches of his family. It is probable, from the state of property in America, and other circumstances, that many citizens will exceed him in show and expense,—those dazzling trappings of kingly rank and power. He will have no authority to make a treaty, without two-thirds of the senate, nor can he appoint ambassadors or other great officers without their approbation, which will remove the idea of patronage and influence, and of personal obligation and dependence. The appointment of even the inferior officers may be taken out of his hands by an act of congress at any time; he can create no nobility or titles of honor, nor take away offices during good behaviour. His person is not so much protected as that of a member of the house of representatives; for he may be proceeded against like any other man in the ordinary course of law. He appoints no officer of the separate states. He will have no influence from placemen in the legislature, nor can he prorogue or dissolve it. He will have no power over the treasures of the state; and, lastly, as he is created through the electors, by the people at large, he must ever look up to the support of his creators. From such a servant, with powers so limited and transitory, there can be no danger, especially when we consider the solid foundations on which our national liberties are immoveably fixed, by the other provisions of this excellent constitution. Whatever of dignity or authority he possesses, is a delegated part of their majesty and their political omnipotence, transiently vested in him by the people themselves, for their own happiness.

An American Citizen.

The above is a small section of the original article and was trimmed for subject matter.

What does this mean?

1. This was written in 1787, during the time that the United States Constitution was being discussed by the People. Just like the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers were written during this time.

During this time, the United States was under the Articles of Confederation and under the Constitutions of the individual States and were no longer under British Law and as such were Americans and no longer British subjects.

2. The people, were the citizens of the States. This did not include foreigners. Citizenship was a right for the decendants of citizen fathers, as stated in the Naturalization Act of 1790, and did not include  indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and later Asians. While women were included in the act, the right of citizenship did “not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States….”
Citizenship was inherited exclusively through the father. This was the only statute that ever purported to grant the status of natural born citizen.

3. So being born of us, equates to being born of the citizens, of the body politic. Which ‘excluded’ foreigners and children born of foreigners [like Barack Abdullah Hussein Obama, spawn of a ‘FOREIGN national].

As again, per the Law of Nations; I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

Not his country, not a citizen.