Natural Born Citizen

Sunday, May 29, 2011

Obama’s Enablers Put Forth Another Straw Man Argument: One’s Parents Do Not Have to Be Born in the U.S. to Be a “Natural Born Citizen”

Obama’s Enablers Put Forth Another Straw Man Argument: One’s Parents Do Not Have to Be Born in the U.S. to Be a “Natural Born Citizen”


                 By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                                              May 29, 2011

Putative President Barack Obama’s enablers are out and about making their straw man arguments in order to win the presidential eligibility issue. “A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To ‘attack a straw man’ is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the ‘straw man’), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man.

In arguing that putative President Barack Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen, his defenders maintain that the “birthers” are wrong in believing otherwise because there is no requirement that one’s parents must be born in the U.S. to be a "natural born Citizen." This is a straw man argument given that it suggests that this is the “birthers’” argument when in fact it is not. This is not the only straw man argument that we have seen Obama’s enablers advance. We have seen their effort to win the Obama eligibility issue by misrepresenting the constitutional argument (e.g., they argue that a “natural born citizen” is the same as a “citizen” and then they set out to show what historically a “citizen” is and publicly concentrate on the place of birth issue but suppress from the same public the constitutional argument on the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen”); they present for public display “birthers” who may defend the constitutional position poorly as best defenders of that position; they invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then ridiculed and criticized (they have invented the “birther” who they attack as being a racists and/or attached to nothing but conspiracy theories or in the words of Obama himself: "We're not going to solve our problems if we get distracted by carnival barkers and sideshows." [Barack Obama, April 27, 2011, in reference to Donald Trump]); and they oversimplify our constitutional position and attack that position (e.g. they mock the “birthers” for saying that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to citizen parents and add that a simple facial reading of the Constitution’s text contains no such requirement). They also use the slippery slope fallacy, saying that there is no reason for Obama to release any medical or other evidence proving his Hawaiian birth because the “birthers” will never be satisfied with no matter how much documentary evidence of his alleged Hawaiian birth Obama may present to the public. None of this is even to mention the unfounded charges of racism and other and various ad hominem attacks against anyone who would dare question Obama’s Article II constitutional eligibility to be President.

Now let us see how Obama’s enablers’ statement that the “birthers” put forth the argument that the President’s parents must be born in the United States is nothing but a straw man argument. First, we do not maintain that the parents need to be American born. Rather, we maintain that they must be "citizens of the United States," which status they can acquire by being "natural born Citizens" or naturalized at birth or after birth. The parents must be “citizens of the United States,” under any one of three scenarios: (1) “natural born Citizens” under Article II by being born in the U.S. or its jurisdictional equivalent to U.S. citizen parents; (2) naturalized at birth, under the 14th Amendment or 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a) by being born in the U.S. to one or two alien parents or other Congressional Acts by being born out of the U.S. to one or two U.S. citizen parents; or (3) naturalized after birth under some Congressional Act or treaty by being born out of the U.S. to two alien parents.

Second, these same individuals also confuse an Article II “natural born Citizen” with a "born citizen" under the 14th Amendment or 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a) which as currently interpreted do not require U.S. citizen parents in order to be declared a “citizen of the United States” at birth. This latter citizen, lacking the natural quality of being born to two U.S. citizen parents, is actually naturalized at birth by way of Congressional naturalization power at first questionably exercised by Congress through the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and then unquestionably exercised by it through the 14th Amendment. Today, we commonly refer to this citizen as a “native-born citizen,” not to be confused with a “native” under natural law and the law of nations which has the same meaning as a “natural born citizen.” On the contrary, to be an Article II "natural born citizen," one must be born in the U.S. (or its jurisdictional equivalent) to a U.S. citizen father and mother. Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Sections 212-217 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 167 (1875); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).  See also the many other legal and historical sources cited at this cite for support for this definition. The Founders and Framers wanted to make sure that no hereditary monarch could ever gain control of the new constitutional republic and to keep foreign influence out of the all-powerful and singular office of the Chief Executive and Commander of the military. These birth circumstances assure that the President and Commander of our military cannot be of royal parents (a U.S. citizen must renounce all titles of nobility) and has sole and undivided natural allegiance to the U.S. from the moment of birth by the child not inheriting any other foreign allegiance by jus soli (citizenship by right of the soil) or jus sanguinis (citizenship inherited by one’s parents). Only the President and Vice-President have to be an Article II "natural born Citizen." The great majority of Americans are “natural born Citizens.” For every other citizen in the U.S. who is not a “natural born Citizen,” the clause has no constitutional or other legal effect, for “citizens of the United States” all enjoy equality in rights, privileges, and immunities. Hence, the clause is in place only to protect the United States and its people by assuring that our representative constitutional republic will be lead by a President and Commander in Chief who from birth is attached to the best interests and only that of the United States.

Obama is not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen.” He maintains that he was born in Kapi’olani Hospital in Hawaii in 1961. But he has yet to conclusively establish that fact with a valid long-form Certificate of Live Birth or with any medical evidence. Rather, on April 27, 2011, after refusing to do so for over 2 ½ years and spending or causing to be spent countless millions of dollars of public and private funds and resources and even the 6-month imprisonment of a decorated military officer, LTC Terry Lakin, he released on the internet a forged internet image of his alleged long-form Certificate of Live Birth. This computer image is a forgery, as it contains evidence of electronic manipulation. Even if the internet image is a true representation of the alleged underlying Certificate of Live Birth, that underlying paper birth certificate, which is supposed to be a document filled in with a typewriter in 1961, is a forgery, for it contains evidence of kerning (a technique of spacing letters next to each other for aesthetic purposes) which cannot possibly be done on a typewriter in 1961. Also, there exist significant questions regarding whether Obama is using a valid social security number and whether his selective service military registration was also forged.

In any event, assuming the released birth certificate image to be valid, it conclusively establishes that Obama’s legitimate father was Barack Obama Sr. So, even assuming that Obama was born in Hawaii, he can be a “born” “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment or 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a), but he cannot be a “natural born” “citizen of the United States” under Article II. Under the British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama was born in 1961 to Barack Obama Sr., a British citizen father who was born in 1934 or 1936 in the then-British colony of Kenya and by descent from his father he himself was born a British citizen. He was therefore born with conflicting and divided loyalties to the U.S. and Great Britain, which under the Kenya Independence Act of 1963, converted to citizenship and allegiance to Kenya at age 2 which lasted until at least age 23. Consequently, Obama, was naturalized at birth and, like a person who is naturalized after birth is not eligible to be President, was not born with sole and undivided allegiance to the U.S. Obama is thus not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Obama is therefore not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
May 29, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

Is Obama From Kenya?

Abercrombie is to discredit the anti-Obama birthers

The new Democrat governor of Hawaii is determined to "discredit the anti-Obama birthers."  Doubts about Obama's place of birth really annoy him.

The easiest way to "discredit the birthers" is to release the long form birth certificate.  Of course, that's not going to happen.  What do you do if you have something to hide about the nationality of Barack Hussein Obama?  You do the following:

1.  Denounce those who want to see the long form birth certificate as "extremists" or "conspiracy theorists"
2.  Pass house resolutions stating that Obama was born in Hawaii
3.  Claim that requiring Obama to prove his citizenship is "self-evisceration" of politics that will lead to our downfall
4.  Claim that the release of the long form birth certificate will only fuel greater speculation and greater conspiracy theories and do more harm than good
5.  Claim that the release of the long form birth certificate will impinge "citizen privacy rights to appease 'extreme' views"
6.  Claim that doubts about Obama's birthplace is bias against Hawaiians and a feeling that they are not as American as mainlanders
7.  Shuck and jive, do the old soft-shoe, tap dance around the issue and moonwalk off the stage

‘Birthers’ get a new backer

Georgia hopped on the birther bandwagon — again — by introducing legislation last week that requires presidential and vice presidential candidates to produce certified copies of their birth certificates.

Rep. Mark Hatfield, R-Waycross, who introduced a similar bill in 2010, is the primary sponsor of House Bill 401, according to the Associated Press, and denies he is a “birther” — a person who believes President Barack Obama was not born in the United States. But he said that he hasn’t “personally seen any real proof” of Obama’s legitimacy to serve as president.

“Most people feel it’s an issue to a significant enough portion of our population that it needs to be addressed by the state,” Hatfield said. “It is, in a sense, a response … to the sitting president and his inability or unwillingness to release his original birth certificate.”

Since the “birther” questions started in 2008, this particular conspiracy theory has been discussed, disputed, delivered with stern expressions by talking heads and eventually debunked so many times that another wingnut theory sprung up about where it all began: with Hillary Clinton. Apparently Clinton was so desperate to win the primary, her only recourse was to cast doubt on Obama’s citizenship. Who comes up with this stuff?

During the presidential campaign, Obama released a “certificate of live birth,” an official state document confirming that he was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu. Over the last few years, Hawaiian officials have been deluged with requests from people who want a copy of the document — the same document, except from the state. Citing the state’s privacy laws, officials could not comply. So Hawaii lawmakers have proposed a bill revising the law that would make a copy of the document available to anyone who asks — for $100. “All these people are still doubting it because they don’t want the birth certificate from Obama,” Rep. Rida Cabanilla told AP. “They want it from our state office.”

Hatfield said his bill wasn’t specifically for an Obama candidacy and would apply to anyone seeking the office — but he specified that documentation as provided by the state of Hawaii attesting to Obama’s birth there “would not suffice,” according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. What will? According to the language of the bill: “Evidence of eligibility… (including) a certified exact copy of the candidate’s first original long-form birth certificate that includes the candidate’s name, time and place of birth; the name of the specific hospital or other location at which the candidate was born; the attending physician at the candidate’s birth; the names of the candidate’s birth parents and their respective birthplaces and places of residence; and signatures of the witness or witnesses in attendance at the candidate’s birth.”

According to the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control’s Vital Records division, a computer-generated long-form in our state includes much of that information but does not provide (or require) witness signatures, the time of birth, a specific hospital (only the city) or the name of the attending physician. Thus, if Georgia’s legislation passes,no South Carolina natives need apply to run on the Georgia ballot for president or vice president.

“It could be that this individual really does doubt that Barack Obama was born in this country, despite evidence to the contrary,” said University of Georgia political scientist Charles Bullock. “There are also people who think we have never sent astronauts to the moon.”

Originally, 92 Republicans and one Democrat signed on as co-sponsors of the legislation. As of Monday, 28 had removed their names from the measure.

Arizona, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Connecticut, Indiana, Nebraska, Tennessee and Maine have bills pending. A proposal failed earlier this year in Montana.

Let’s hope it makes a resounding thud in Georgia, too. The South already has enough unfair image problems.

Obama Should Produce Original Birth Certificate

David Hahn, "Publisher, StatePaper.com "

Publisher: Obama Should Produce Original Birth Certificate

At StatePaper.com, we know by making this statement we will be instantly tagged as "racist," "birther," or other pejorative terms by those who defend the President of the United States. We often defend the President and the job he is doing and are regularly lambasted for being "too liberal" or an "Obama lover" by some of our most prolific critics.

But, here is the issue:

The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of our country. Article II of the Constitution requires the President to be a natural born citizen. Without reciting them here, there appears to be some serious questions raised about whether President Obama was born in the United States or Kenya. We have not checked sources, but there are reports that some witnessed his birth in Kenya.

The President's campaign staff and then his administration have released and placed on the internet a "Certificate of Live Birth." We do not dispute the validity or correctness of that document as others have tried to do, suggesting the use of computers to alter seals and names. By releasing this document the President agrees that the claims about his status as a natural born citizen is an open, important, public issue.

But, this "Certificate of Live Birth" is simply not the best evidence that the President and his administration could offer to lay to rest any doubt about his status as a natural born citizen.

Barack Obama is a lawyer and a graduate of Harvard Law School. All law students study the body of law we call "Evidence." One of the core tenets of American law is the "best evidence rule" which requires the production of original, or certified copies, of original document to prove a fact. Abstracts and summaries are not original documents.

The President has offered an abstract (Certificate) of his birth, but not an original birth certificate which would be the best evidence of his birth. We need the best evidence so that it can do what the best evidence is meant to do; dispel the doubts about a fact. We need to see the Birth Certificate. That's the one that is often handwritten and signed by the doctor.

Lawyers and legal thinkers will, obviously, argue the finer points of the "Best Evidence Rule" and its applicability to this matter. But, that misses the point. The notion of "Best Evidence" is solidly-grounded in law. This is an important public matter and it seems now that the President has started down the path of offering some evidence (Certificate of Live Birth), he should offer the "best evidence" (Original Birth Certificate) which is the source document for his birth. The document behind the document which has been released. This is what is needed now in the court of public knowledge.

The fact in question here is the constitutional qualification of the President of the United States to hold office. With a simple nod, the President could offer the American people the best evidence, the source document(s), as he learned about at Harvard, and dispel those who question his birth as a natural born citizen. His failure to provide this best evidence, when it could be so easily done, raises only more questions, which fuels an ugly public debate.

And now we've got a "Liberal" Nebraska newspaper advising Barry to cough up his birth certificate.

If he can. Anybody ready yet to watch our TelePrompTer-in-Chief taking the Fifth?

Oops! Obama mama passport 'destroyed'

Responding to a Freedom of Information Act request, the State Department has released passport records of Stanley Ann Dunham, President Obama's mother – but records for the years surrounding Obama's 1961 birth are missing.


The State Department claims a 1980s General Services Administration directive resulted in the destruction of many passport applications and other "nonvital" passport records, including Dunham's 1965 passport application and any other passports she may have applied for or held prior to 1965.


Destroyed, then, would also be any records shedding light on whether Dunham did or did not travel out of the country around the time of Barack Obama's birth.


The claim made in the Freedom of Information response letter that many passport records were destroyed during the 1980s comes despite a statement on the State Department website that Passport Services maintains U.S. passport records for passports issued from 1925 to the present.


The records released, however, contain interesting tidbits of new information about Obama's mother, including the odd listing of two different dates and locations for her marriage to Obama's Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro.


In the released documents Dunham listed both March 15, 1965, in Molokai, Hawaii, and March 5, 1964, in Maui, Hawaii, as the dates and places of her marriage.


Dunham later divorced Lolo Soetoro in Hawaii. The divorce decree took effect Nov. 5, 1980, but the divorce papers do not list the date of the marriage.


No marriage certificate between Dunham and Soetoro has yet publicly surfaced, but a released application to amend Dunham's 1965 passport to her married name Stanley Ann Soetoro includes a checked box indicating a passport officer had seen the marriage certificate.


The released records also document that on Aug. 13, 1968, Dunham applied to have her 1965-issued passport renewed for two years, until July 18, 1970.


Under 22 USC Sec. 217a, from 1959 through 1968, passports were initially issued for three years, but they could be renewed for an additional two years.


Obama, by any other name


Also revealed by the released records is a heretofore unknown, alternative name for Barack Obama.


In the 1968 application to renew her 1965 passport, Dunham listed as her son Barack Hussein Obama, including in parenthesis below the name, "Soebarkah," in what appears to be a variation of an Indonesian surname not previously associated in the public record with the president.


For some unexplained reason, the designation of "Barack Hussein 
Obama (Soebarkah)" is crossed off the 1968 application by five handwritten, diagonal hash marks.
Read more: Oops! Obama mama passport 'destroyed' http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=186677#ixzz1GAdwE0vA

Boy oh Boy so many Birther so little time

 BIRTHER CASE LIST (PDF)

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/BIRTHER%20CASE%20LIST.pdf

White House Passport Fraud

by WhiteHouseFraud

The White House issued a video showing the Presidents passport in response to a question . It can be seen at the link at the top of this page ( starts about 1:20 in ). Watch the video then read my analysis. What will be shown in the analysis is that they used 2 separate passports in the video ( but trying to pass it off as one ).

They pulled a little bait and switch with the passport. I have provided screenshots of the video.The first view of the passport is of a closeup of the passport page with his picture on it. They then cut to a different shot of them opening a passport to show the stamps on it.They never showed the cover of the passport from which they showed his picture ( which is significant since it would show if it was a diplomatic one or not ). Now about the screenshots.

This is the page with his picture. They blur out the date of issue and the date of expiration. Why do that ? It is obvious his presidential passport was issued shortly after his taking office. There is no need to redact that info. Even if for some reason there was, can there be a reason why the year is redacted ? I think it is pretty well known that he became president in 2009.

ANALYSIS OF THE OBAMA PASSPORT

Date of Issue

Throughout the video of the closeup of the photopage of the passport,both the Date of Issue and the Date of Expiration are blurred out. However, in a few frames, the blurring drops a bit and we are able to see one line of the Date of Issue. It is from this line that I can determine the date of issue to being the month of March or May ( Let us take the earlier of the two, March, because any of the subsequent analysis that would apply to March would certainly apply for May ) and the day of 10, 12,13,18, or 19. The year is not revealed.

Below, you can see the video frame where they revealed a line of the Date of Issue:

Now, how did I determine the day and month ? I found an exemplar of a passport. It can be seen below :

Notice under Date of birth, we have 24 Mar:. I will use that as the comparison field. Although the header is Date of birth, the only section we are interested in is the Date of. The spacing for that is exactly the same for the Date of Issue.

The date format is DD-MMM-YYYY, where the month is the first 3 letters of the month. All we are concerned about is the first letter. That leaves us with the letters J,F,M,A,S,O,N,D.

Now let us look at a close up of the comparison field :

The only letter that makes those two points ( under the red dots ) and line up under the o and the f , is the letter M. Therefore, the month of issue can only be March or May. Similarly with the date, the first number can only be 0, 1, 2, or 3. Since 0, 2, and 3 all have rounded tops and the number in the image doesn’t, it is obvious it is a 1. The second number has a rounded top. That corresponds to a 0, 2, 3, 8, or 9 ( though the angle of the curve seems a little big for a 9 ) Therefore, the Date of Issue is most probably March 10, 12, 13, or 18.

VISA

When they show the view of the stamp page, you get a glimpse of the top of a visa that was issued to him. It is a SCHENGEN visa. ( It has the words Etats Schengen across the top ) That is a visa that can be used in all the countries that are Schengen members. All of the European countries that he visited are members ( with the exception of the United Kingdom ).Thus, he only needed one visa for all of those countries.. Below is an actual Schengen visa. Notice right under the Etats Schengen is the Date Valid From in the format DD-MM-YY. (dashes included ):

Here is the screenshot of the Obama visa:

Now some enhanced close-ups of the Date Valid From:

The day looks like the 4th, or the 24th ( , the base of the number is a little wide to be a 1 ), followed by a dash. The important field to look at though is the month. The first number of the field is definitely a 0. The second digit is definitely a 1. This is proven as follows. The only month numbers we need to be concerned with are 1, 2,and 3, since he has an entry stamp for the United Kingdom in March . Now the pixel length of the base of the number 3 is the same as that of 0. If the second number in the month field were 3 ( indicating that it was issued in the same month the passport was issued ), its base length will be equal to that of 0.

Here is an enlargement of the numbers with the base length of each number underlined in red:

Obviously, the base length of the second number is much shorter than the 0, Therefore, the number cannot be 3 or even 2 ( since the base length of 2 is the same size as 3 ). The base length confirms what is obvious on a visual inspection- that number is a 1. Since the Date Valid From cannot be earlier than the Date of Issue, the date of issue was sometime in January.

Questions

How can a visa that was issued in January be affixed to a passport that wasn’t even issued until the following March ?

The answer is it can’t. It is impossible. In order to get a visa, you have to surrender the passport to the embassy and they affix the visa to your passport and enter your passport number on the visa. Heads of State are probably handled differently.Most likely someone from the State Department brings the passport over ( and it is not just his, but his families and staff ) and the visa is issued and affixed in their presence – WITH THAT DAY OF ISSUE WRITTEN ON THE VISA. So the diplomatic passport with the attached visa ( with visa issue date of January ) had to have been issued in January, not March.

How was the visa applied for and issued in January ?

They needed a passport number in order to issue the visa (passport number on the visa has to match the passport to which it is attached) and that wasn’t available until March, Line 14 of the Schengen visa application requests the passport number. The link to the form can be seen at the top of this page.

Also, on the full Schengen visa you see right next to the Date of Issue ( under the place of issue ) a space for the passport number. Obviously, the passport number on the visa has to match the passport number of the passport to which it is attached.

When a new passport is issued ( and his secretary filed for a new passport, not a renewal ), a new passport number is assigned. Therefore, they couldn’t just use the passport number from his Senate passport.See (Step 1 Part A ) at Passport Info link at top of this page.

Why was the passport issued in March ?

His personal secretary said one of the first jobs she had was to fill out his passport application. That would have been one of the top priorities since he had a scheduled trip to Canada on Feb 19 (This was his first trip as Head of State. He would have needed his “Presidential” passport for diplomatic reasons. He certainly could not have traveled in February on a passport that wasn’t issued until March. He had to have traveled on one that was issued in January or early February ). It took 7 to 8 weeks to get it issued. Maybe they waited a few weeks before filling out the form. That would bring it down to 4 to 6 weeks. That is the normal time anybody waits. According to the State Department, you can get one issued in under 2 weeks if an appointment is made at the local regional office (See Processing link at top of page ). There are even private companies that can get one issued in less than 10 days ( 1 day in an emergency ) (see Passport Services link at top of this page ). For diplomatic passports, the State Department even has a separate office to handle those requests. Since there is less volume to process, requests through this office are handled quicker. (see State Department link at top of this page) I am sure a request for a passport for thePresident would go to the top of the list and be handled in a matter of days.So why was this one issued in the middle March ? Especially since his trip to Europe was at the end of March. The Schengen visa was issued on or before January 24. The earliest they could have applied wasJanuary 21. So a foreign embassy took at the most 3 days to approve the visa, but our ownState Department takes close to 2 months to issue a passport for the President ? I find that hard to believe.

Conclusion

Something does not seem right about the whole scenario.

1 ) A presidential passport that takes 2 months to be issued

2 ) A visa that was approved for a passport 2 months prior to that passport being issued.

3 ) The visa is affixed to a diplomatic passport.That visa must have the same number of that passport to which it is affixed written on the visa ( as shown in the visa photo above ). If the passport issued in March was the passport the visa was attached to, it would be impossible.The visa was issued in January. The passport number for the March issued passport wasn’t available until 2 months later.

The only logical conclusion to this is that the passport to which the Schengen visa is attached is a valid diplomatic passport issued to the President before the 24th of January ( which is what you would expect – the passport being applied for and received within a few days of taking office.) That is the only way you could have that valid visa. It had to have been attached to a passport that was issued before the visa was issued. The passport used for the closeup is a different passportissued in March ( year unknown ). Therefore, 2 passports were used in the video – thus explaining the separate video shots ( needed if using 2 passports ) instead of one long continuous shot. The question that remains is WHY ? What is on the second passport that he doesn’t want to be seen that necessitated using a different passport for the close up ?

Even if unavailability of a passport number needed for the visa could be explained away, whatCAN’T be explained away is the date of issue of the passport used in the closeup.THERE IS NO WAY ON THIS EARTH THAT IT WOULD TAKE CLOSE TO 2 MONTHS TO GET A PASSPORT ISSUED FOR THE PRESIDENT. ESPECIALLY SINCE THERE IS A SEPARATE OFFICE IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT SET ASIDE FOR DIPLOMATIC PASSPORTS AND A PRIVATE CITIZEN CAN GET AN EXPEDITED ONE ISSUED IN LESS THAN 10 DAYS. Thus the blurring of the date of issue. They would not be able to explain that away.

So we have the following situation :

1) A valid new diplomatic passport ( the one shown with the Schengen visa and the entry stamps ) issued sometime in January 2009 used to show the port of entry stamps. This is consistent with a passport being applied for the President in January and being issued within a few days. Just as one would expect.

2) A passport that was issued in March or May ( year unknown ) used to show the photo and info page. This is inconsistent with a passport being applied for the President in January. It would not take close to 2 months to have one issued to the President.

3) The White House editing the video to make it seem like they are showing one passport , when in fact they are showing two separate ones .

4) As was shown, there is no way that the passport that shows his photo and info (passport 1 ) can be the same passport as the one with the entry stamps (passport 2). Passport 1 was issued in March or May.Passport 2 had to have been issued in January in order to have the visa that was issued in January attached to it.

Note: A holder of a diplomatic passport can retain his personal passport. Actually he must . see State Department link above -under Applying For And Traveling With Your No-Fee Passport

One Other Comment:

They do some very selective editing in the video. When he opens the diplomatic passport and flips to the stamp entry page, it seems to speed up a bit. Actually, it only looks that way. The reason is that they cut out about 1 to 2 seconds of video between the flipping and the arrival on that page. Look at the following screen captures. They are taken at approximately 1/30th of a second apart :

Frame 1

Frame 2

Frame 3

Notice that it takes a huge leap from Frame 2 to Frame 3. Too much of a leap to be done in1/30th of a second. There were obviously frames cut out between Frame 2 and Frame 3. Why do that ? But that is not the interesting thing about the missing 1 to 2 seconds. If you recall when you viewed the video, they made it seem like someone was there with a camera and they taped him as he opened the passport and flipped through it. All the while , he was talking through it. Just someone standing with a camera as he went through “showing” the passport. However, it was much more complicated than that. We know from the screen captures, that frames were deleted. However, at the point where those frames were deleted, the audio is smooth and continuous. There is only one way that could be. They overlaid the audio track on the video track AFTER it was edited ( you never see him talking during the closeups of the passport ). Why go through all that subterfuge in displaying the passport unless there is something on his current diplomatic passport that they don’t want revealed ?

ONCE AGAIN, THE WHITE HOUSE HAS COMMITTED A FRAUD ON THE AMERICAN PUBLIC