Video: Donald Trump Takes On Fox News' The Five Over Obama's Birth Certificate

BirtherReport.com ^ | December 16, 2011 | Trump interview

[Seizethecarp]

Gutfeld: So, um, do you feel that you have settled that question about the origins of, ah, ah, President Obama's birth certificate?

Trump: Well, yeah, look, look, very simple, and you know I was on Barbara Walters yesterday she asked the question. Unfortunately, she cut the hell out of my answer and left like the last three words and people don't know what it, what it meant. Although I was honored to be on, but, you know, she cut that in, but she asked the same thing. Look, his mother, to the best of everybodies knowledge, was never in that hospital. OK. The document may have been tampered with according to many, many people. OK. You've got grandmothers and you have people in his family who say he wasn't born in this country. OK. Forgetting all of that, do I think he was born here? I have no Idea. I personally cannot say one way or the other. You know that the mother, there are no records. There are no records that the mother was ever in the hospital. With all of that being said, folks, I'd rather focus on the economy and jobs and how to get the country back. But, ah, If you ask me was he born (here?) I really can't tell you.

[jonrick46]

My answer to the question is keep it simple: Stanley Ann was in Seattle. It has been corroborated by two witnesses: The video of Susan Blake and by Mary Toutonghi:

Babysitting Barack Obama on Seattle's Capitol Hill by Charlette LeFevre and Philip Lipson - Special to the SGN

A simple act of kindness confirms President Barack Obama's residence as an infant in 1962 on Seattle's Capitol Hill.

As we were researching the residence of the Capitol Hill apartment that Ann Dunham and her son Barack Obama had lived in 1961 to 1962 - a residence that certainly wasn't Abraham Lincoln's log cabin, but nonetheless historical - we were also able to find one of the former apartment residents, Mary Toutonghi, listed in a directory. Much to our delight, it turned out Mary actually knew Ann Dunham and had babysat baby Barack for two months, giving insight on his first year and what it must have been like for Ann Dunham as a single parent.

Mary Toutonghi, who now lives in Soldatna, Alaska, recalls Barack as "a really alert baby, very happy and a good size." She does not remember him ever crying (although she adds she is sure he likely did but does not remember any undue fussing). She recalls as best she can the dates she babysat Barack as her daughter was 18 months old and was born in July of 1959 and that would have placed the months of babysitting Barack in January and February of 1962.

During our first interview, Mary referred to Stanley Ann Dunham as "Anna," not knowing that it was the same name as what was listed in the Seattle City Directory. This verified for us that indeed Mary had known Ann Dunham. Anna was obviously confident enough with Mary to have her babysit her son Barack and confide in her about her future plans.

Mary strains to remember the days back over 45 years ago and relates that she did not know why Anna was in Seattle but remembers she was "anxious to get back to her husband."

"She told me they would be going to Kenya when she finished her education which she had promised her parents when she had married, but because her husband had an obligation to his tribe she realized he would have to take another wife that was a full-blooded Kenyan." Mary commented that, "I don't think I could have been that brave."

Mary explained most of the people in the apartment house were seniors and were retired so it was most likely she was the only one in the house able to babysit Barack. Mary was a stay-at-home mother while her husband was taking classes at the nearby Seattle University. She lived directly below Anna and Barack in the level she calls the basement. She remembers the windows in their basement apartment being at chin level and she had a great view of the yard and trees. One day, she recalled with laughter, a squirrel had fallen through the one of the ground-level windows and after quickly scampering up its tree scolded the family for a good hour.

Mary goes on to relate how the apartment Anna and Barack lived in was on the first main floor and the windows looked out over the street. Anna and baby Barack's apartment in the photo from the Washington State Archives were the three paned windows on the far right corner of the building above the garage.

The main floor had been divided into four studio apartments about 500 square feet each - indeed, a tiny apartment compared to the White House.

The first house of Barack Obama no longer exists, having been torn down in 1985. An apartment complex now is on the block along with twin residential towers, "Capitol Park," owned by Seattle Housing Authority.

Mary also laughed when asked for pictures, explaining "We were in survival mode and not taking pictures."

Mary remembers Anna as a "very mature" woman "who never complained and met her obligations." Anna was taking night classes at the University of Washington and according to the University of Washington's registrar's office her major was listed as history. She was enrolled at the University of Washington in the fall of 1961, took a full course load in the spring of 1962 and had her transcript transferred to the University of Hawaii in the fall of 1962.

Along with the Seattle Polk Directory, Marc Leavipp of the University of Washington Registrar's office confirms the address Ann Dunham gave upon registering at the University.

Today, when one looks back to the small apartment in 1962 in which a kind neighbor helped care for our nation's leader and a struggling mother strived to get an education, its inspiring to know that even small gestures in the most difficult of situations can help a baby rise from humble beginnings to achieve greatness.

Ann Dunham later received a Ph.D. in Anthropology from the University of Hawaii.

Mary Toutonghi now lives in Soldatna, Alaska, and was 2001 president of the Alaska Speech-Language-Hearing Association. And one little baby grew up to achieve the audacity of hope.

Courtesy of the Seattle Museum of the Mysteries

Also, the primary witness, the University of Washington (notice Stanley was using the name "Ann"):

[raygun]

This post is nothing but foolishnes; it has NEVER gotten any traction EVER and anybody bringing it up is a fool; anybody that countenences this in some official capacity is a fool enabler.

The truth of the matter is immaterial.

How many of you y'all are goint to charge the mahine gun-nest? What? Until they run out of bullets and then it becomes more true?

Alright, you charge up the hill against the machine gun-nest first. When I see a good break against your bullet riddled-body, I'll move to back you...

[jonrick46]

Be specific. What post is foolish?

[Fred Nerks]

...Mary Toutonghi, who now lives in Soldatna, Alaska, recalls Barack as "a really alert baby, very happy and a good size." She does not remember him ever crying (although she adds she is sure he likely did but does not remember any undue fussing). She recalls as best she can the dates she babysat Barack as her daughter was 18 months old and was born in July of 1959 and that would have placed the months of babysitting Barack in January and February of 1962.

And I have lost count of the number of times I have pointed out that if you add 18 months to July 1959 THAT COMES TO JANUARY OR FEBRUARY 1961

NOT 1962!

So, what Mary said, before Charlette Le Fevre convinced her otherwise ( or she later lied) was that SHE BABYSAT FOR ANNA IN JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1961.

[jonrick46]

Maybe Mary Toutonghi can’t add. I say it was January or February of 1961.

[GregNH]

Which makes the bassinet in 60 a real possibility. Something happened to Anna and SAD was chosen or volunteered to become the nanny.

[melancholy]

It's a common misconception to identify ANNA OBAMA as Stanley Ann Dunham, but there is really nothing documented that confirms Anna Obama and Stanley Ann Dunham as the same person.

You know, Fred, I just find it a great coincidence that a very rare name like "Obama" has a S. Ann, Anne and Anna tied to it, in the same period and same places where S. Ann Dunham is known to have lived.

What I'm trying to say is that the name "Obama" couldn't be thought of as Smith, Jones, etc.

First time I’m forced to write "Obama" instead of the usual 0b0z0, 0h0m0, 0kaka, 0h0m0allah, etc.

See? You’re corrupting me! LOL!

[ml/nj]

Arguing about the place of birth is an Obama generated and promoted red herring to redirect attention from the underlying issue of his ineligibility due to divided loyality parentage.

Your stating such things with complete certainty does a disservice to others reading here at FR. There is obviously divided opinion about what the phrase natural born citizen means. Consider William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States (1829) quoted in The Founders' Constitution:

Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.

I'm not suggesting that this proves that your view is wrong, but rather that it is not certainly correct. If it went to the Supreme Court they could rule one way or the other, or even that a single US citizen parent makes one natural born, and no one could suggest that however they chose to rule was absurd.

On the other hand, the birth certificate images released by the White House on April 27, 2011 are definitely fraudulent.

ML/NJ

[ml/nj]

We now know that newspaper birth announcements were altered by film being spliced.

We do?

Would you please provide more information.

ML/NJ

[DiogenesLamp]

The part about the month being "corrected" from August to September was a little fishy too. As soon as something was found conlficting with the official story, suddenly it was a mistake and had to be corrected. How many details from Obama's backstory have been "corrected." It's like Miss Tickly says ... the odds are 'racist.'

I originally thought it was peculiar as well, but the articles I read which covered the story make the mistake seem reasonable. It actually showed photos of the original documents, and it included proof that the University did not start classes in August, but did start classes in September.

If we are going to accept the notion that Stanley Ann DID attend classes, she must have attended them when they were being conducted. That much cannot be disputed or faked. As much as I dislike it, that leaves only the testimony of Susan Blake (as far as I know) placing Stanley Ann in Washington in August.

As for that, I recall reading a phone interview with Susan Blake in which she said that she distinctly remembers the time, because it was just after she returned from her vacation in Santa Monica, which she had to leave because of the massive fires occurring there in August of 1961.

(I actually looked up accounts of fires in California during that period to verify that there actually were fires in Santa Monica during this time period. It seemed to be true, but wasn't completely conclusive. )

[DiogenesLamp]

How do you (and the mysterious “we” you refer to) personally know what names a girl named “Stanley Ann” might have experimented with at age 18-19??

I know lots of folks who used multiple names at that age and older, some for very short, unpredictable periods of time. This fact of human behavior refutes the “she never used Anna” declarations which attempt to claim that the Polk directory couldn’t have referred to SADO because SADO “never” used “Anna.”

All of this focus on the name "anna" is nothing but a distraction from more serious efforts to discover the truth. According to Aunt Goeldner in Arkansas, Stanley Ann Dunham ALWAYS used the name "Ann".

"Virginia said her niece, who was called Ann, was actually named after her father because he wanted a boy so badly he named her Stanley before she was born. She said that throughout her life she went by her middle name of Ann. "

Now bear in mind, the linked article has errors in it.(Bill Lawson lists Stanley Ann as having died in 1970) The Same writer of that article wrote another article the same day without the errors in it. Unfortunately, his error riddled article has spawned another wave of "conspiracy" mongering on the part of those who want to hypothesize a dead Stanley Ann, and a different mother for Barack. (Who in my opinion looks exactly like Stanley Armour Dunham, thereby establishing the gene line.)

Also, if I remember correctly, isn't there a passage from Barack's book that refers to her as "Anna"?

The variations on her name are a non-issue in my opinion unless stronger evidence than I have seen is brought forward. Lord knows that a girl named "Stanley" cannot be blamed for wanting to fudge her name.

[mojitojoe]

ping #70

[mojitojoe]

The only proof needed for that is actual old newspapers from that date which prove it’s on the microfilm BUT was never in the papers. tick tock....

[mojitojoe]

Which picture? Post the picture please.

[mojitojoe]

This photo? You see a bassinet?

[bluecat6]

Because of the descriptive wording in these INS documents, I suspect Stanley Ann attended Univ. Hawaii for that 1961 fall semester, but that when she turned up pregnant she was hustled back to Washington - hence the INS referring to her as “from Seattle”. I also suspect that Barry was born somewhere in Washington state [or across the border in Canada]; that he won’t reveal his actual birth certificate because the student Barack Obama is not on that certificate as his father; that the already pregnant/shamefully unmarried Stanley Ann and the likely-to-be-deported-if-he-didn’t-get-another-visa-extension Obama entered into a quid-pro-quo: marriage of convenience/necessity/desperation. I suspect Obama,Sr. lied to the INS about the child being his, and where it was born - because it was essential for him to promote the charade of being its father. I suspect all these things are the primary reason there is nothing - NOTHING - of Barry’s existance in Hawaii, or of his mother’s being in Hawaii [except for fall ‘61 semester] - until after Obama left Hawaii for Harvard in August, 1962. And even at that, there is no tangible evidence of Stanley Ann & Barry being there until photos of him when he appears closer to three than to two years old.

This seems to be the most reasonable scenario of what 'really' happened.

Regardless of what really happened. It got solidified into legal reality with the divorce settlement. Regardless of what sham was being run for what ever reason that created a legal reality. And one that is problem if one wants to be President. i.e. a foreign national, never was a resident, never was citizen father.

[David]

Thanks for some explanationa about that mysterious dock photo. Was it a departure photo actually? Or just something totally different?

No.

It is an arrival photo--September 1959. Anna was long gone by 1962.

[David]

Look between the legs of the sailor in front at the knee level. Look also between the left leg of the sailor in front and the right leg of the oriental lady who has been inserted in front of Anna.

If the white were sailors legs, you would see no black. Instead you see a horizontal line with a rise on the right (left as you face the picture) for the baby's head cover.

Further, the white is too close to the sailor in front and the oriental lady to be the rear sailor--the white isn't connected at the top to the sailor--it is a separate object.

This is the 1959 arrival picture for Anna and Senior--they brought Barack H. Obama II with them. In 1959.

[DiogenesLamp]

Your stating such things with complete certainty does a disservice to others reading here at FR. There is obviously divided opinion about what the phrase natural born citizen means. Consider William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States (1829) quoted in The Founders' Constitution:

Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.

I have been studying this issue for quite awhile, and something I discovered is that there were a LOT of people that didn't get the memo. (That when we broke with the monarchical form of government, we broke with the feudal criteria for citizenship.) Rawles happens to be one of these. It is not entirely their fault because English Common law was ubiquitous throughout the colonies, and people became accustomed to applying the English Common law to every occasion, not bothering to contemplate whether it was appropriate or not. Add to that the fact of so many British trained lawyers, and it is easy to see how the false meme was spread.

Example 1:
To give an example of how the meme was false, it was left up to the individual states to decide what criteria they required to designate someone a "citizen." In the case of Virginia, the original declaration on "Who shall be deemed a citizen" was written by Thomas Jefferson, and Jefferson initially required a citizen to be either Naturalized, or born to someone who was already a citizen.

and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth,

This law was later amended to include anyone born in Virginia, but that is irrelevant to the point that at this time STATES set the requirements for who was a citizen of their state. English Common law was simply used as a default position for when a State did not have a law otherwise.

------------------------------------------------------------

Example 2:
As you already know, when the Constitution was ratified, it accepted anyone who was at that time a citizen of a state, as a citizen of the Federal Republic. This allowed for multiple definitions coming from multiple sources. Some states (Such as Virginia) had laws defining who shall be a citizen, but some states, (such as South Carolina) had no laws defining who would be a citizen. In these cases, should the question arise, people would harken back to the old English common law, and use the criteria of being born in that state. James Madison did this in the case of William Smith's contested house seat. He tacitly acknowledges States rights to determine who shall be regarded as a citizen of a particular state.

I take it to be a clear point, that we are to be guided in our decision, by the laws and constitution of South-Carolina, so far as they can guide us, and where the laws do not expressly guide us, we must be guided by principles of a general nature so far as they are applicable to the present case.

It were to be wished, that we had some law adduced more precisely defining the qualities of a citizen or an alien; particular laws of this kind, have obtained in some of the states; if such a law existed in South-Carolina, it might have prevented this question from ever coming before us; but since this has not been the case, let us settle some general principles before we proceed to the presumptive proof arising from public measures under the law, which tend to give support to the inference drawn from such principles.

It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.

------------------------------------------------------------

Example 3:
Obots are fond of pointing out the case of Lynch v Clarke as a (state)court ruling which decides that anyone born in New York of alien parents is a citizen. The court exclaimed that because New York did not have a rule, they would use the English Common law rule. What a lot of the Obots don't want you to know is that the New York Legislature shortly thereafter passed a law to plug this particular hole in their citizenship laws.

------------------------------------------------------------

Example 4:
While we're at it, I just thought i'd throw in this last example. It is a law passed by the Legislature of Maryland declaring the Marquis de Laffeyette as a "natural born citizen" and also declaring that his male descendants shall in perpetuum be regarded as "natural born citizens". (jus sanguinus, Partus sequitur Patrem. By law of blood rights descendent from father.)

------------------------------------------------------------

I think four examples ought to be sufficient to indicate that the States set the criteria for citizenship of a STATE, but that English Common law was often the default position in the absence of a specific law for STATE citizenship. None of this demonstrate that it was the default position for FEDERAL citizenship, and especially as regards the meaning and intent of Article II, which was created SPECIFICALLY for the purpose of keeping out foreign influence from the executive branch of our government. The evidence on that score seems to be overwhelmingly influenced by the Vattel definition.

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

Supreme Court Justice Washington:
"1. The writers upon the law of nations distinguish between a temporary residence in a foreign country for a special purpose and a residence accompanied with an intention to make it a permanent place of abode. The latter is styled by Vattel "domicile," which he defines to be, "a habitation fixed in any place, with an intention of always staying there." Such a person, says this author, becomes a member of the new society, at least as a permanent inhabitant, and is a kind of citizen of an inferior order from the native citizens, but is nevertheless united and subject to the society without participating in all its advantages. This right of domicile, he continues, is not established unless the person makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. Vatt. 92-93. Grotius nowhere uses the word "domicile," but he also distinguishes between those who stay in a foreign country by the necessity of their affairs or from any other temporary cause and those who reside there from a permanent cause. The former he denominates "strangers" and the latter "subjects," and it will presently be seen by a reference to the same author what different consequences these two characters draw after them.

Chief Justice Marshall:
The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says

"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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

"The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages."

"The domicile is the habitation fixed in any place with an intention of always staying there. A man does not, then, establish his domicile in any place unless he makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. However, this declaration is no reason why, if he afterwards changes his mind, he may not remove his domicile elsewhere. In this sense, he who stops, even for a long time, in a place for the management of his affairs has only a simple habitation there, but has no domicile."

A domicile, then, in the sense in which this term is used by Vattel, requires not only actual residence in a foreign country, but "an intention of always staying there." Actual residence without this intention amounts to no more than "simple habitation."

-----------------------------------------------------------

Rawles argues against Justice Washington and Justice Marshall, whom I would say are the more authoritative experts on this issue.

[bluecat6]

Remember the M.F. McKeon memo dated 4/2x/64.

“The wife in the Philippines from whom he is separated is a U.S.C.”

The women in this photo and in the other photo with some of the same group sitting around a coffee table (and identified as ‘Anne’) are definitely of Filipino heritage.

So who is this Filipino ‘Anne’? Is she another real or sham wife of Obama senior?

There is nothing that indicates Stanley Ann went to the Philippines in the early 60s. Yet, M.F. McKeon says - she - or someone who is Obama senior’s wife is there in a formal memo.