Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Posted on | April 2, 2015
Law Offices of Orly Taitz

Update on cases: How decision by Judge Hanen helped American workers and we are waiting to see if Judge Hanen will take on the issue of SSN fraud committed by Obama in light of his use of a stolen CT SSN and in light of massive SSN and IRS fraud that we see in relation to illegal immigration.

Barack Obama tried to provide his donors with cheap labor by his executive amnesty. Judge Hanen in Brownsville, Texas, stopped [ED.: temporarily stayed] this executive amnesty through his injunction order.

We are now seeing amazing positive results for American workers which are related to this order by Judge Hanen. As large corporations see that they will not be able to get cheap foreign labor, they are increasing salaries to keep American workers on the jobs. Shortly after the decision by Judge Hanen, Walmart announced salary increases for low wage workers from $7.25 to $9. This is about 25% increase. Pay increases will also affect higher paid workers. Now, TJ Maxx, Target and Mcdonalds are following in Walmart steps. We are seeing increases in salaries of American workers across the board. This is happening because one judge had the strength of character to stop corruption and lawlessness of Obama regime.

I would like to remind the readers that I was the first to file the amnesty challenge before Judge Hanen. I filed my case challenging DACA executive amnesty back in July of 2014. By the time 26 states filed their action, I already had 2 injunction hearings before Judge Hanen and got an order to show cause issued by Judge Hanen to Obama administration, to show cause why he shouldn’t rule in my favor.

Recently, I filed a motion seeking to amend the complaint and include new additional facts, namely the fact that many illegal aliens are using stolen identities, stolen Social Security numbers. I was one of the victims of identity theft as my SSN was stolen according to a written admission by the IRS. When I sought a copy of the fraudulent tax return and request for refund filed by the thief with the IRS, I was denied my request. I could get the identity of the thief by the bank account number which the thief attached to his request for a refund. By refusing the victims’ requests for fraudulent records filed under their names, IRS is aiding and abetting criminals. Further, Social Security administration is aiding and abetting criminals, when it refuses to provide copies of the original SSN applications when there is evidence of falsification and destruction of a computer record.

I provided Judge Hanen with 150 pages of evidence, some of it under seal, which show that Barack Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, aka Barry Soebarkah, is one of the individuals who is using a stolen Social Security number, namely Connecticut number 042-nn-nnnn, which was issued to Harry Bounel, resident of Connecticut, born in 1890.

www.orlytaitzesq.com/update-on-cases-how-decision-by-judge-hanen-helped-american-workers-and-we-are-waiting-to-see-if-judge-hanen-will-take-on-the-issue-of-ssn-fraud-committed-by-obama-in-light-of-obamas-use-of-a-stole/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ches, responding about Mr. Obama's 2006 tax return, which has a different SSN than his 2009 return.

Orly, I realize much has been said about Obama’s tax returns, but I don’t ever remember this particular item.

Susan Daniels found an unredacted copy of Obama’s 2009 tax return on the WH.gov site. His SSN started with 042, on that 2009 return.

Take a look at page 11 of 23 on his 2006 return.

Part of the first digit in his SSN was not redacted, in that 2006 return. That number is definitely NOT a zero. There is only one possible number it could be. [ED.: 5]

Take an objective look. What number do you think it is?

Since it is definitely not a zero, and the 2009 SSN started with a zero, that means Obama filed Federal Income returns under 2 different SSN’s.

Here is his 2006 return. [See] Page 11.

taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/files/obama_2006_tax_return.pdf

---

http://img242.imagevenue.com/loc78/t...N_122_78lo.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atty. Orly Taitz

I can’t see the number; however.,we know that he used a different SSN when he was in the Senate.

---

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a3...0989f43985.jpg

Dr. Terry Lakin On Challenging Obama's
Article II Constitutional [In]Eligibility

"My life was threatened."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hmm6BJgSXJE

Minor v. Happersett Revisited

posted on January 9, 2012, at 1:38 PM
by Leo Donofrio, Esq.

[My previous report naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/the-mccreery-v-somerville-funeral-maskell-and-gray-to-attend-minor-v-happersett-to-preside/ was in three parts, with the first being a rather extensive exposure of a misquote by the SCOTUS in both McCreery v. Somerville and Wong Kim Ark. The second part exposed fraudulent propaganda from Maskell’s most recent CRS memo. And the final part examined Minor v. Happersett in light of some of the arguments being offered against its precedent, providing new analysis of key provisions of the holding therein. I am reprinting the section on Minor now as a separate post because it is crucial to understanding the case, and it appears to have been somewhat swallowed up by the first two parts.]

MINOR v. HAPPERSETT REVISITED.

…the only time the US Supreme Court ever did define the class of persons who were POTUS eligible under Article 2 Section 1 was in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), wherein it was held:

“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.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.

There’s a quote for you. It really exists. And it tells you exactly who are natural-born citizens; those born in the country of parents who are citizens. The words are plain-spoken and self-evident. There are two classes of persons discussed in the above quotation. Those born in the country of citizen parents were labeled by the Court as “natives or natural-born citizens”, but these were also further identified as being “distinguished from aliens or foreigners”. The distinction is crucial.

On one side are those who have no citizenship other than that of the United States… as distinguished from those on the polar opposite side who have absolutely no claim to citizenship in the United States; “These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Those who fall in between these two extremes make up a third class of persons whose citizenship status, the Court noted, was subject to doubt:

“Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” Id. (Emphasis added.)

Had this third class been contemplated as having any claim to being natural-born citizens, the distinction employed by the court would not make sense. The distinction was employed to more specifically identify the class of persons who were natural-born citizens under Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5. The two classes discussed are in direct polar opposition to each other. Had this distinction not been employed, it might be argued that those born in the country of one citizen parent were also natural-born. But the distinction leads to the necessary conclusion that the Court in Minor was identifying a two-citizen parent rule.

For example, a person born in the US to a British father and U.S. citizen mother would, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution (and at the time Minor v. Happersett was decided), be considered as a natural-born subject of the U.K. Whether this child would be, at his birth, a citizen under the 14th amendment, was left undecided by the Court in Minor. But let’s assume that the child was a U.S. citizen. Where does that child fit into the distinction offered by the Court in Minor? The child is not on either polar extreme, since the child was not exclusively a US citizen at birth, nor was the child exclusively a British subject at birth. He does not fit into the distinction.

By choosing two extremes – those who, at their birth, are nothing but U.S. citizens – “as distinguished from aliens or foreigners” – those who, at their birth, are in no way U.S. citizens – the Supreme Court in Minor provided the necessary criteria to properly discern their holding.

Nothing has been left open as to the Minor Court’s definition of a natural-born citizen. This is further made clear by the Court’s other – somewhat overlooked – federal citizenship holding:

“The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association…

"For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words ‘subject,’ ‘inhabitant,’ and ‘citizen’ have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more.”

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 165-166 (1874). (Emphasis added.)

Therefore, when the Court uses the words, “citizen” or “citizenship”, no other meaning may be imputed other than, “membership of a nation”. But Jack Maskell believes he can overrule this specific holding of the Supreme Court by inserting the words “natural-born” where they do not appear. ”Natural-born” only pertains to a requirement for the municipal office of President. Those who are natural-born meet that qualification, but all who are citizens, natural-born, naturalized abroad, naturalized here, at birth or later in life, are members of our nation. The word citizen – according to the Supreme Court in Minor – refers to “membership of a nation, and nothing more“. It’s the “nothing more” that Maskell fails to recognize.

In Maskell’s CRS memo, he alleges that the following statement from Minor left open the issue of whether persons born of aliens could be considered as natural-born citizens:

“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. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.” Id. at 167-168. (Emphasis added.)

Reading this passage in light of the definition of “citizen” from pg. 166 of Minor’s unanimous opinion, it becomes evident that what is referred to here is membership in our nation, and nothing more. Any attempt to insert the words – “natural-born” – into this passage to imply that the court left open the issue of whether those whose citizenship was in doubt might also be eligible to be President would be in direct opposition to the Court’s very holding of the case. This expression of doubt must be limited to the political status of the person, not to their eligibility to hold a municipal office. Political status is a legal term of art which means, “membership in a nation, and nothing more”. Presidential eligibility refers to municipal status. The holding not only determined Virginia Minor’s citizenship, it directly defined “citizen”, and that definition remains the law of the land today.

First, on pgs. 165-166, the Court defined the meaning of the word “citizen”. Then, on pgs. 167-168, the [C]ourt defined the class of “natural-born citizens”. The Court left open the issue of who were “citizens” under the 14th Amendment, which the Court wisely avoided by exercising judicial constraint. Instead, the Court construed Article 2 Section 1, Clause 5, the natural-born citizen clause. In doing so, they defined and closed that class to persons born in the country to parents who are citizens.

The Minor Court’s unanimous opinion and definition of natural-born citizen have never been overruled or even questioned. In fact, the very passage defining the natural-born citizen class was re-stated in Justice Gray’s opinion from Wong Kim Ark. Had he intended to take issue with that definition, or to expand it, then his opinion would certainly contain something like this:

Wong Kim Ark is a natural-born citizen eligible to be President.

But no such statement exists. It’s also important to remember at all times that the Court in Minor specifically avoided construction of the 14th Amendment, thereby defining the class of natural-born citizens and identifying Virginia Minor as a member of that class. Virginia Minor directly petitioned the Court to determine that she was a citizen under the 14th Amendment. But the Minor Court declined to construe the 14th Amendment, and thereafter set about defining the class of persons who were natural-born citizens of the United States in determining that she was a citizen.

In 1996, the US Supreme Court’s majority opinion by Justice Breyer in Ogilvie Et Al., Minors v. United States, 519 U.S. 79 (1996), openjurist.org/519/us/79/ogilvie-v-united-states stated that when the Court discusses a certain reason as an independent ground in support of their decision, then that reason is not simply dictum:

“Although we gave other reasons for our holding in Schleier as well, we explicitly labeled this reason an ‘independent’ ground in support of our decision, id., at 334. We cannot accept petitioners’ claim that it was simply a dictum.”

The Minor Court’s construction of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, of the United States Constitution was the independent ground by which the Court avoided construing the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause.

Therefore, such construction is precedent, not dicta, despite POTUS eligibility not being an issue. The Court determined it was necessary to define the class of natural-born citizens, and the definition is current legal precedent.

Had the Court in Wong Kim Ark identified him as a natural-born citizen, there would have been no need to construe the 14th Amendment, just as it wasn’t necessary to construe it to determine Virginia Minor’s citizenship. But Wong Kim Ark was not natural-born, and therefore the Court was required to construe the 14th Amendment to determine his citizenship status.

Again, had Justice Gray’s opinion intended to state that Ark was natural-born, there would be a sentence in Gray’s opinion stating, Wong Kim Ark is a natural-born citizen. But there isn’t. No amount of tongue twisting can insert those words where they do not exist and do not belong.

The same is true for the Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion in Minor v. Happersett. Had the court intended to say – Some authorities go further and include as natural-born citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents – then that is exactly what the US Supreme Court would have said. But they didn’t.

And the same can be said for the framers of the 14th Amendment. Had they intended to include the words “natural-born citizen” in the [14th] Amendment, then that is exactly what they would have done. But they didn’t. Any attempt to read those words into the 14th Amendment would render Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, to be superfluous. And that goes directly against our entire body of national jurisprudence on the issue of statutory construction.
...
Leo Donofrio, Esq.

naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/minor-v-happersett-revisited-2/

Comments from Stephen Pidgeon's blog, February - March, 2009:

221b on March 13th, 2009 10:27 am
Leo Donofrio declined to add the substance of the following to his blog. Donofrio insists that certain issues must not be discussed, even if they threaten to undermine his central arguments and mean that on present evidence his case will fail. This is extremely disturbing. I leave it to others to ask why.

There are TWO ways Obama’s parents can be PROVED LEGALLY UNMARRIED, with consequences that would dramatically affect deliberations in eligibility hearings. ON CURRENT EVIDENCE such hearings would never find against Obama:

a British citizenship under the UK Nationality Act 1948 transmitted automatically ONLY TO CHILDREN OF A LEGITIMATE MARRIAGE. Obama’s father was already married in Kenya before he came to America. The marriage was by native custom. In British Kenya in 1961 “customary marriage” for black Kenyans was absolutely legal. Customary marriage for white Kenyans was not permitted: their marriages required official licenses and generated certificates. These two forms of marriage could not be contracted simultaneously to different spouses: that was bigamy under the Kenya Marriage Act, Chapter 50, 1902 and the Kenya Penal Code of 1930, Section 171. Customary marriage was very public, invariably polygamous, and very legal — in British Kenya. The question is: what was the status of Kenyan customary marriage in America in 1961 ? Common law marriage had no official status in Hawaii in 1961 (or now). PROBLEM: Would a perfectly legal British Kenyan customary marriage (between Obama Sr and his wife Kezia Grace), which had no official certificate, be ruled by a US court in 1961 as being “common law” ? If it would, Obama’s parents were legally married under US law (if they did legally contract a marriage); if Obama Sr’s customary marriage would NOT have been ruled “common law”, if Obama Sr’s very Kenyan, very respectable, and eminently lawful customary marriage (to a doctor’s daughter) would have been deemed legal under US law (had authorities here and Ann Dunham herself known about it !), Obama’s parents COULD NEVER HAVE BEEN LAWFULLY MARRIED by any authority within US jurisdiction. We do know that it was Ann Dunham-Obama herself who left Obama Sr in August 1961 and only returned to Hawaii in 1963, many months AFTER Obama Sr left Hawaii for Harvard. Under these circumstances if Obama Jr was born in Kenya, just one year’s residency in America was all his mother needed to transmit US citizenship; though it should be said, he could never possess natural born citizenship. Conversely, if Obama’s parents are deemed by US authorities to have been legally married ONLY in America, then his mother did not have sufficient residency to transmit US citizenship if he was born in Kenya; and again Obama could never possess natural born citizenship.

b Obama’s father contracted a customary marriage in Kenya, perfectly legal there, several years before coming to study in Hawaii. Obama Sr then contracted (if he did) a second marriage with Ann Dunham in Hawaii in 1961. Polygamous customary marriage was legal for black Kenyans in British Kenya. PROBLEM: It was not legal under the British Kenya Marriage Act 1902 and Kenya Penal Code 1930 to mix the two types of marriage. American marriages were recognized foreign marriages and governed by statute, whereby “NO marriage in Kenya shall be valid…where either of the parties…is married by native law or custom to any person other than the person with whom such marriage is had”: ie for one customarily married any statutory spouse must be the customary spouse - thereby outlawing statutory polygamy. This means that Obama Sr’s Hawaiian marriage (if real) to Ann Dunham was BIGAMOUS AND ILLEGAL IN KENYA UNDER BRITISH LAW. While birth in Kenya would necessarily have entitled Obama Jr to British citizenship immediately, an Obama Jr birth in America to bigamous parents could never bestow British citizenship upon him, because at no time would Britain have regarded Obama Jr as the child of a marriage that was legitimate under British Kenyan law. Marriage (incontrovertibly bigamous) in the US for Ann Dunham and Obama Sr without a Kenyan birth for Obama Jr, or merely an American birth for Obama Jr, are both deadly poison for Leo’s brief.

There is only one possible escape - an escape which relies on alleged facts that Donofrio has previously dismissed as without interest - and it revolves around what Ann Dunham was doing in the summer of 1961: and, more precisely, where she might have been doing it. For this escape to work it is indispensable that Ann Dunham was in Kenya in 1961: not married to Obama Sr in February 1961, not yet having given birth to Obama Jr (in this escape that can only happen later in Hawaii - otherwise it’s too easy !), but necessarily contracting a customary marriage. The 1902 statute allows that “…nothing in this Act…shall affect the validity of any marriage contracted under or in accordance with any native law or custom, or in any manner apply to marriages so contracted…”

Remember it could not be a marriage under statute: for Obama Sr that would have been bigamy punishable by 5 YEARS IMPRISONMENT. Maybe that was why Obama Sr’s father was vehemently opposed to Sr’s marriage to Ann in Hawaii: could some decision have been made to return home and make a legal marriage under native law ? Given that in customary marriage Ann would be marrying man AND family AND tribe it was not something that could have been arranged on short notice and without complex preparations by all parties. I find it hard to believe that British officials would have smiled benevolently on such follies. Some might ask: Kenya is vast, how were British authorities to know what was going down far out in the bush ? Quite frankly, as a consequence of civil unrest in the 1950s, I believe British information systems were such that authorities would have known in exhaustive detail everything an impulsive white American girl aged 18 was doing upcountry, and most probably would have done all in their power to dissuade her.

But perhaps, only perhaps, some colonial officials told her: “Don’t mind us, it’s legal - if as you say you’re NOT LEGALLY MARRIED IN AMERICA” ? It is 99.999999% certain that no white woman ever contracted a customary marriage in British Kenya in 1961, as this would have meant complete and forced absorption into tribal lifestyles, customs, and culture as was expected of a dutiful wife, not to mention incurring some notoriety. Even if it were legal, even if a wayward, unconventional, runaway, and hard-to-hide Ann Dunham did MARRY customarily, where could we ever find the evidence ? Where’s the Certificate a US judge could rustle and squint at ? Could there be such a Certificate, from such a marriage ? What foreign investigation conducted by which authorities (US and\or British and\or Kenyan) in remote regions and times, to establish probative evidence of a white woman contracting a customary polygamous marriage in British Kenya in 1961, would be accepted as valid in US law ? Could the child of a second polygamous (in this case, Kenyan) customary marriage ever be judged legitimate in US law ? For this escape to work it is Obama Jr’s status at birth in British law that is decisive: his status at birth in Hawaii as the son of Obama Sr’s second legal customary wife. Some may say, “Maybe that’s what behind those Hawaii divorce papers - which marriage was really being terminated: the Hawaiian, as earlier claimed, or maybe, as can be seen with hindsight, or the Kenyan” ? No comment.

It should be blindingly obvious by now that there’s very little chance of this escape being successful but maybe Donofrio will find alleged events in Kenya in 1961 more compelling than he has so far. Donofrio’s case has no hope of success unless Obama’s COLB is ruled inadmissible, bypassed, and the original 1961 record is examined. (There are irrefutable arguments to achieve this) Anyhow, there’s no getting away from annoying Certificates: we all want one, “our” one. Not least Obama’s “genius” attorneys (as Donofrio calls them) !? All those foolish admissions by Obama Jr online that he was a Kenyan citizen until age 21: are they just romantic daydreams in the context of this analysis ? Donofrio believes Obama has trapped himself into admitting ineligiblity and that “Birthers” are being cunningly distracted from this vulnerabilty by Obama’s “simply the best” puppetmaster lawyers: in this conspiratorial spirit a better theory would be that the admissions are a masterstroke to hide in plain sight the truth that Obama never received British citizenship from his father. I’m suprised they haven’t already snapped to it and found the Hawaiian marriage certificate, the certificate that makes Ann Dunham’s purported US marriage bigamous, the certificate that makes Obama Jr a natural born citizen of the US, if he was born here. Maybe they’re holding it in reserve, a secret weapon ?

As simple as I can make it:

Obama Born In Kenya: British citizen by birth; US citizen if Kenyan customary marriage is not recognized in US law and Hawaii marriage correspondingly legal; not a US citizen if Kenyan customary marriage is recognized in the US and Hawaii marriage correspondingly bigamous. Obama is never a natural born US citizen.

Obama Born In Us: US citizen by birth; NEVER A BRITISH CITIZEN because Obama Sr’s bigamous marriage cannot allow transmission of British citizenship under British law. BRITAIN HAS NO CLAIM UPON OBAMA JR and therefore he is a natural born US citizen, unless “natural born” is strictly interpreted as requiring two US parents: even Leo has doubts that a court would so rule.

Therefore: Leo’s case will never be successful if Obama’s COLB is admitted by our courts as prima facie evidence: only if Obama’s COLB is ruled legally irrelevant and Obama’s long form Certificate upon discovery shows Kenyan birth can Leo’s case be sustained.

OK even more simply:

Only if Obama Jr was born in Kenya is Obama not a natural born US citizen; only if Obama Jr was born in Kenya and his parents contracted a legal US marriage is Obama not a US citizen. If Obama was US born he is a natural born citizen, very probably.

Conclusion: Donofrio’s central arguments against Obama’s eligiibilty, (that place of birth was immaterial, that British citizenship was transmitted through Obama Sr, that natural born citizenship required two citizen parents) have collapsed. Obama’s birthplace has now become the supreme and decisive issue. Unless Obama’s COLB is ruled irrelevant, and a court examines the original 1961 birth record, Obama will remain securely in office.

For Donofrio to reject that assessment as beneath contempt works only for Obama’s side of the dispute. Strange to say, Donofrio is on record as having conceded legitimacy to “President” Obama to further his brief.


Kamira on March 19th, 2009 2:40 am
221b, I would like to ask you a question.

I’ve heard all about this theory because an attorney at our group discussed and your post was brought to his attention. He also got censored at Donofrio’s blog for bringing it up. heh

Don’t feel bad. He thinks nothing of telling people off in our group and then using our research for his briefs. Vattel, Grotius, Gallatin, Shields, etc. He didn’t bring up Bacon, we gave that to Apuzzo. lol

Anyway, the problem with this theory, as I see it, is that Stanley Ann claimed to be married in Maui, Hawaii on her divorce decree. Hawaii statute states that you could only get a license in Hawaii for marriage if you had an authorized officiate who had to then file the marriage with Hawaii. That’s the way the legal papers read. Do we really want to try to disprove that she was validly and legally married in Hawaii when she and her husband signed papers that said this?


Piecemaker on March 19th, 2009 11:00 am
I am a bit confused. Let’s assume, for the sake of discussion, that the Obama, Sr. marriage was NOT legal. The only benefit I can see, if this is true, is Obama, Sr.’s citizenship is in question. The fact that the mother and father of record must be US citizens for the child to have a chance at being eligible for ‘natural born Citizen’ status. It seems to me the legality of the marriage is irrelevant. One of the two parents, as listed on the ‘Certification of Live Birth’ (bogus or not) is NOT a US citizen, thereby, disqualifying the child of the union for ‘NBC’ status. Am I missing something???


Kamira on March 20th, 2009 7:46 pm
Nope, you’re not missing anything at all, Piecemaker. There’s nothing I can find either going back to the statements made during the time of the Constitutional Convention that say anything about having to be married.

I just brought it up in case someone wanted to argue the point. The divorce decree itself states they were married in Maui, Hawaii, signed by both parties.
When I looked up the Hawaii rules on marriage, I found that Hawaii states that you need to file for a license to obtain a marriage certificate. If anything, if Obama’s lawyers tried to claim that the marriage was not the truth after all, it goes more to the credibility of his entire family as being nothing but liars. Would he really have us believe his parents lied, his step-father lied, his Indonesian citizenship was a lie, too? That would just give more of a reason to find out how much more were lies.

It doesn’t really matter anyway if he tries to ruin all credibility, natural-born citizen has nothing to do with being born of married parents, not in English Common Law or any law that I can see. Your parents are your parents, married or not.


221b on March 23rd, 2009 1:27 pm
Kamira, Only just read your post today. To be clear: Constitutionally the US President must be a “natural born citizen” and to date neither the Constitution, statute, nor judicial ruling has defined what that might be. My understanding and preference is for a President qualified by US birth to two US citizens. The significance of the bigamous and thus non-existent marriage (see post above) of Obama Sr and Dunham CANNOT BE UNDERSTATED. It puts Obama Jr’s citizenship and eligibility in such a completely new perspective that it could essentially decide the case.

If Obama Sr and Dunham went through a marriage ceremony (and I stress IF, as no Certificate has been located) then Obama Sr lied about not being married in Kenya: he lied to Hawaiian authorities and probably lied to Dunham at the time. There is some slight indication she only found out later during that strange summer of 1961. Obama Sr never divorced his first wife: indeed after returning to Kenya they had two more children together. Using the established legal principle of “lex loci celebrationis”, whereby US states and foreign states recognize lawful marriages from other jurisdictions, in both British and Hawaiian law Obama Sr committed bigamy with Ann Dunham, if they ever “married”. The Obama-Dunham “marriage” was void and never existed. Obama Jr was, therefore, illegitimate and could never have been a British citizen by descent.

Donofrio’s ENTIRE case is that, no matter where Obama was born, according to British law Obama was British at birth, and hence not a “natural born” US citizen. My reply is: if someone asserts that British law could make Obama a British citizen at birth, logic demands that they also accept that British law could reject Obama as a British citizen at birth. Donofrio however dimisses Obama’s illegitimacy by most emphatically stating that his parents’ subsequent marrying would have legitimated him, still making Obama British at birth: this is a TOTAL MISREADING OF THE LAW, TWICE OVER:

1 The UK Nationality Act 1948 Section 21 (1) provided for illegitimate children presently excluded from British citizenship by descent to become legitimate and British citizens FROM THE DATE OF THE SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGE, not at birth. Donofrio’s case requires Obama’s British citizenship at birth, which is impossible under this statute.

2 The illegitimacy of Obama Jr was IRREDEEMABLE AND COULD NEVER BE REMEDIED IN BRITISH LAW AS HIS ILLEGITIMACY DERIVED FROM BIGAMY, as stipulated in the 1926 UK Legitimacy Act. (UK Nationality Govt Manual: “The Legitimacy Act 1926 was the first English Act under which a child born out of wedlock was, if living, legitimated by the subsequent marriage of the parents. There was, however, a proviso that NEITHER PARENT WAS MARRIED TO A THIRD PERSON when the child was born.”) Application of the British Kenya Marriage Act 1902 (retained after Kenyan independence in 1964 and still operative) and UK Nationality Act 1948 Section 21 (2), meant that Obama NEVER HAD THE REMOTEST HOPE of ever being a British citizen by descent at birth or any other time.

3 I wrote above in my previous post that Obama Sr and Dunham’s only chance of avoiding bigamy in British Kenya and Hawaii was if they had contracted a customary marriage in Kenya. This possibility is now ELIMINATED: “Any marriage celebrated on or before 31 July 1971 was regarded as void if, despite having taken place in a country whose law permits polygamy [ie Kenya], it was: polygamous in form; and at the time of the marriage, EITHER party was domiciled in the United Kingdom or IN ANOTHER COUNTRY WHOSE LAW DID NOT PERMIT POLYGAMY.” (UK Nationality Govt Manual). In 1961 Ann Dunham was domiciled in the United States, which did not permit polygamy.

Without his parents being lawfully married there would be no acceptance on the part of British authorities that Obama Jr really was the natural son of Obama Sr. How were they to know that Obama Sr was the true father of Obama Jr ? On Ann Dunham’s word alone ? In 1961, with no DNA testing ? Dunham would have been told to get lost.

In 1961 only the existence of a lawful marriage would have allowed the presumption of paternity: marriage proves legitimacy proves paternity proves citizenship-by-descent — no marriage proves no legitimacy proves no paternity proves no citizenship-by-descent. In British (and Hawaiian) law there was no lawful marriage, consequently there was British no citizenship-by-descent for Obama. It would have been easier to wring blood from a stone than to persuade British authorities otherwise: that is the determining significance of legitimacy.

In terms of British citizenship-by-descent (1948 Act), irredeemable illegitimacy had no force in law, no ability to demand or expect anything, nothing would ever be required or sought from it. In these circumstances, IF OBAMA WAS BORN IN HAWAII, in what way could he be legally or morally deemed by British authorities as being “subject to their jurisdiction at birth” ? In law Obama had nothing from Britain: no rights, obligations, expectations; no nothing - tentative, conditional, or otherwise. Britain can hardly exercise jurisdiction over something non-existent (”Obama’s British citizenship”), any more than Obama could exercise something non-existent (the infinite and irredeemable nothingness of “his British citizenship”). Conversely, given Obama’s illegitimacy is proved, all scenarios of his birth conferred US citizenship: as Dunham was the mother of collegiate child she only needed ONE YEAR of prior US residence to transmit American citizenship if her son was born in Kenya. Dunham had that..

Donofrio’s entire case has been that what puts the “natural” into “natural born citizen” is that by ancient law and custom, respected by the Framers of the Constitution, the child inherits the condition of the father (Vattel “Law of Nations” § 215: thus Obama inherits his father’s British citizenship). Donofrio cites Vattel § 212 that “in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen” but denies that this would allow natural born status to be conferred by a single parent. In the same paragraph Vattel (and other contemporary sources) seems to reinforce the idea that it is from one parent alone, the father, that the child inherits his condition, rights, privileges, and property. Vattel: “…children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights…The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent…” For decades this was the basis of US nationality laws. American women married to foreigners lost US nationality EVEN WHILE LIVING IN THE US, and their children (if born abroad) could never be American.

My point here is that US nationality laws have evolved over the preceding century to roll back previous legislative discrimination against women. For example, one statute (the US Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act 1994) corrected a discriminatory anomaly whereby a child born to a female US citizen abroad before 1934, who had previously been prevented from assuming American citizenship, was put on the same basis as a child born to a male US citizen abroad before 1934, with retroactive effect. Never mind what I or anyone else might think is meant by “natural born citizen”, does Donofrio seriously believe that a modern judge or jury will interpret Vattel, the Constitution, and US law TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF WOMEN and Obama, if Obama actually was born in Hawaii to an American woman and a father who TRANSMITTED NO CITIZENSHIP ? Does Donofrio seriously believe that a modern judge or jury will indulge in semantic hair-splitting (”citizen”, “citizens of the country”, and “natural born citizens”, or “fact of birth” as opposed to “legal citizenship”) - just to amuse Donofrio, discriminate against women, and remove Obama as ineligible ? A sympathetic federal judge ? A jury confined to DC ? SCOTUS (whom Donofrio has vilified as cowardly cult members) ?
Donofrio’s case and no case challenging Obama’s eligibility can succeed if Obama’s COLB is ruled admissible (see post above). I and many others suspect that Obama is ineligible to be President because he was born in Kenya. Only physical birth in a British jurisdiction makes Obama a British citizen. Nothing else can deem Obama ineligible. On any other basis (ie COLB admissible) a hearing in a friendly federal court or SCOTUS throws Obama a lifejacket. To which, with much and everlasting gratitude, he will very firmly cling.

221b on March 23rd, 2009 9:56 pm CORRECTIONS to March 23rd, 2009 1:27 pm:

“…significance of the bigamous and thus non-existent marriage (see post above) of Obama Sr and Dunham CANNOT BE UNDERSTATED.” should be “MUST NOT BE UNDERSTATED.”

“…his parents’ subsequent marrying…” should be “… his parents’ subsequent MARRIAGE…”

: “…as Dunham was the mother of collegiate child” should be “as Dunham was the mother of an ILLEGITIMATE child…”

It should be remembered that the marital status of Obama Sr and Dunham in British law (British Kenya Marriage Act 1902 and UK Nationality Act 1948 ) pivots on Sr’s legal domicile. Obama Sr was a British Kenyan citizen in America on a student visa, with wife and children in Kenya. Obama Sr returned to his domicile in Kenya on completion of his studies. For Britain, whose law alone decided the transmissibility of Obama Sr’s British citizenship, the authority of the Kenya Marriage Act 1902 was final. There can be no question that transmissibility could NOT issue from a criminal bigamy subject to five years imprisonment.

It should not be forgotten that Dunham’s age NEVER precluded her transmission of US citizenship if Obama was foreign born. This is could only be true if her she was lawfully married: as Dunham was NEVER lawfully married to Obama’s father, merely ONE YEAR of US residence by the mother of an illegitimate child transmitted residence wherever in the world the child was born.

Anyone who doubts that a friendly federal court or an obliging SCOTUS would be tempted to define “natural born citizenship” away from “parents” or “father” (Vattel) need only be reminded that the Constitution defines the US President as “he”. Who imagines that if the eligibility of a female President were challenged, on the basis that the Constitution specifies only a male is eligible, that SCOTUS would strictly construe the term “he” and disqualify her ? 19th Amendment ? Permits women to vote, not hold office. See what I mean ?

Bottom line: Obama’s long form birth Certificate is the deal maker or breaker.

decalogosintl.org/?p=256

[ED.: The release of the (counterfeit) purported long form Certificate of Live Birth in April of 2011, which named Barack Hussein Obama Sr. as the official father of record, put an end to such speculations about the nationality of a fatherless child.]

Obama’s Social Security Number Fraud Evidence Goes to Judge Who Blocked Illegal Amnesty

Tim Brown April 2, 2015

Share6.3K Tweet796 Share8.2K Share271 Email115

http://www.trbimg.com/img-54e3ed3f/t...01/750/750x422
U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen, shown at left in 2005, temporarily blocked President Obama's executive actions on immigration, giving 26 states time to pursue a lawsuit that aims to permanently stop the orders. Judge Hanen still has to issue his final ruling on whether Obama's executive actions were constitutional. Born in Elgin, Ill., and raised in Waco, Texas, Hanen graduated from Baylor Law School at the top of his class in 1978. (Brad Doherty / Brownsville Herald)

Judge Andrew Hanen is the [U.S. District Court for South] Texas judge who has stood in the way of Barack Obama's illegal executive amnesty, which would have provided many of his donors with cheap labor and was an obvious violation of the law. [Judge Hanen was] even going so far as to threaten Obama's Justice Department with [sanctions for] perjury, As a result of his actions, Americans have benefited from increased wages. However, the attorney that first filed an amnesty challenge before Judge Hanen has now submitted 150 pages of documented evidence concerning Obama's fraudulent Social Security number before the judge[, pending his ruling on the constitutionality of Mr. Obama's Executive Order of amnesty].

Attorney and medical doctor Orly Taitz, who has been involved in numerous cases involving Obama's fraudulent documentation, submitted the very first challenge to Obama's illegal executive amnesty, long before the twenty-six states, which most people have heard about in the media, filed theirs. By the time those states had issued challenges before the court, Taitz already had two injunction hearings before the Texas judge and got an order to show cause, which was issued by Judge Hanen.

Following her efforts, Taitz also filed a motion which seeks to amend her complain to include new additional facts. Among those facts are that many of the illegal aliens that are in the United States are using fraudulent identification, including stolen Social Security numbers. In fact, Taitz claims that she has been the victim of identity theft. Her Social Security number was stolen, according to an admission of by the Internal Revenue Service.

"When I sought a copy of the fraudulent tax return and request for refund filed by the thief with the IRS, I was denied my request," wrote Taitz. "I could get the identity of the thief by the bank account number which the thief attached to his request for a refund."

"The IRS is aiding and abetting criminals [ED.: and thwarting vigilante justice] by refusing to provide victims with information," Taitz told Freedom Outpost.

This led to her then providing Judge Hanen with 150 pages of evidence concerning the fraudulent identity of Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, aka Barry Soebarkah. After all, if illegal aliens are doing this, and the idea is to help hold them accountable under the law, why is the chief law enforcer in the country involved in the same criminal activity?

Obama is using a stolen Social Security number, as we have documented previously. There has been absolutely no credible rebuttal of that fact.

His Social Security number is 042-nn-nnnn and was issued by Connecticut, though he never lived in the state. In fact, that number was actually issued to one [Harrison J.] Bounel, who was born in 1890!
. . .
Taitz told Freedom Outpost that her efforts were in large part due to the fact that many of the illegals coming across the border were not only are stealing identifications, but they are coming into the US with infectious diseases. Part of one of her motions was to deal with that issue. As a medical doctor, [a dentist,] Taitz confirmed what Border Patrol has been telling us concerning those with infectious diseases crossing the US/Mexico border.

Now the question remains how Judge Andrew Hanen will rule once he sees all of the evidence. It appears we are not going to see any constitutional efforts to impeach Barack Obama by Congress, though that would be the rightful remedy in this matter. However, a [U.S. District Court Judge in Texas] taking a stand against the usurper-in-chief has already drawn many Americans to his aid. I wonder if he would do the same thing regarding the crime of identity theft that the current occupant of the White House is engaged in.

Read more at freedomoutpost.com/2015/04/obamas-social-security-number-fraud-evidence-goes-to-judge-who-blocked-illegal-amnesty/#rZ0LyWu8Y7DBxZ90.99

Obama is an Indonesian Citizen Who Was “Bought and Paid for by the Saudis,” Ex CIA Asset Said

Obama is an Indonesian Citizen Who Was “Bought and Paid for by the Saudis,” Ex CIA Asset Said

A former CIA asset, Dr. Jim Garrow, is making headlines again by claiming that Barack Obama is an Indonesian citizen who was educated in a school for Imams and subsequently put in place by the Saudis to bring down America. In an interview with Dr. James David Manning, Garrow also references a document which supports most of his claims while citing that “Every intelligence service in the world has this document.” I am not sure how accurate that claim is, but I know you would be hard pressed to find someone in the conservative blogosphere who does not have an image of Barack Hussein Obama’s Indonesian school registration. It is in fact proof that he was an Indonesian citizen at one time. Whether he is still legally an Indonesian citizen is up for constitutional scholars to decide. Here is a glimpse of the document in question.Below is an audio of the interview, courtesy of Birther Report, and an amateur transcript.

Dr. Manning: Is Obama a Muslim Sympathizer, a Muslim wannabe, a Muslim that has been put in place to weaken America and all of its offices of leadership? It’s about time that America finally wakes up to who he is. This caliphate will be so powerful that only a person like you or Ronald Reagan could stop it.Dr. James Garrow: Well you need to know that he is a Muslim. From a young age he was indoctrinated in Madrassas school. There was in place, to train young boys to become Imams. He was there for five years. This was in Indonesia. His application to the school said that he was an Indonesian citizen. We have this document. Every intelligence service in the world has this document. But it says very plainly he is an Indonesian citizen and that his religion is Islam. So that’s who he is. We’ve been lied to from the very beginning. He is not a Christian. He’s a practicing Islamist who practices the art of taqqiya: deception to enhance the possibility of Islam moving forward. So that is his dedication. He is bought and paid for by the Saudis, of the Saudi Royal Family, and put in place to bring America down.

Dr. Garrow is most noted for being a former Nobel Peace Prize nominee. He has made some stunning and downright bizarre claims in the past. The Saudi involvement is not substantiated by other sources, to my knowledge. However, his Indonesian citizenship has been outed by multiple sources. Garrow is also not the only individual with CIA ties to talk about Obama’s connection to Islam.Do you think this one piece of evidence (the school registration) is enough for an investigation into Barack Obama’s eligibility? It is in black and white on an official document and as “plain as day.” I believe it is more than enough reason to investigate. It is hard to deny what we see right before our very eyes, yet many pretend that such evidence does not exist. In fact those who we elected, and are paying to represent us, simply do not care. As the congressman from Oklahoma, MarkWayne Mullins, told his constituents last year, congress simply doesn’t give a sh**.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h66hTjrFbAU

http://www.political-correctness.net...ia-asset-said/————————————————-

http://www.teaparty.org/wp-content/u...ama-tattoo.jpg
Photo credit: Tea Party

ED.: IMHO, the illegal alien in the photograph should be joined in handcuffs by the alien Resident of his tattoo.

CRUZ REMINDS KATIE COURIC THAT HILLARY CREATED ANTI-OBAMA BIRTHER MOVEMENT

http://media.breitbart.com/media/201...g-burning1.bmp

by JOHN NOLTE 30 Jun 2015 80

Faded, former-media darling Katie Couric hosted Republican Senator Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)

for a full-hour to discuss a wide range of issues Monday. The left-wing anchor, who is now perched at a place called Yahoo!, introduced Cruz as a historic candidate — potentially the first American president to be born in Canada. Later in the interview, she questioned Cruz on his citizenship.

The look on Couric’s smug face when he correctly reminded her that it was the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2008 that birthed the anti-Obama Birther movement, is priceless.

It all starts at right around the 25 minute mark.
—
—
CRUZ: “You know it’s interesting, the whole Birther thing was started by the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2008 against Barack Obama…”

This is a fact, one even admitted to by the left-wing Politico:

Where did this idea come from? Who started it? And is there a grain of truth there?

The answer lies in Democratic, not Republican politics, and in the bitter, exhausting spring of 2008. At the time, the Democratic presidential primary was slipping away from Hillary Clinton and some of her most passionate supporters grasped for something, anything that would deal a final reversal to Barack Obama. …

The original smear against Obama was that he was a crypto-Muslim, floated in 2004 by perennial Illinois political candidate and serial litigant Andy Martin. Other related versions of this theory alleged that Obama was educated in an Indonesian “madrassa” or steeped in Islamist ideology from a young age, and the theories began to spread virally after Obama appeared on the national stage – to the casual observer, from nowhere – with his early 2007 presidential campaign. …

Then, as Obama marched toward the presidency, a new suggestion emerged: That he was not eligible to serve.
That theory first emerged in the spring of 2008, as Clinton supporters circulated an anonymous email questioning Obama’s citizenship.

“Barack Obama’s mother was living in Kenya with his Arab-African father late in her pregnancy. She was not allowed to travel by plane then, so Barack Obama was born there and his mother then took him to Hawaii to register his birth,” asserted one chain email that surfaced on the urban legend site Snopes.com in April 2008.

Has been Katie Couric can look as annoyed and exasperated as she wants; that does not change history.

I should add that the whole hour is worth watching. Cruz is superb throughout.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journal...ther-movement/

https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net...1e&oe=56104EDB

So that's how post turtles get to the top of fence posts. I always thought some jokers just put them there.

Now I'll have to rethink my understanding of how Mr. Obama inveigled his way, i.e., slithered, into the White House.

Kenyan Politician Just Made A MAJOR Threat To Obama Ahead Of His Big Visit

“No amount of persuasions, theories or philosophy will make us change our position."

Randy DeSoto July 10, 2015 at 11:46am

[Putative] President Barack Obama may not be received with open arms by leaders in his ancestral homeland of Kenya during his planned visit later this month–if he starts preaching the gospel of homosexual acceptance.

CNS News reports that Irungu Kangata, a lawmaker in Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta’s The National Alliance (TNA) party, said: “We are telling Mr. Obama when he comes to Kenya this month and he tries to bring the abortion agenda, the gay agenda, we shall tell him to shut up and go home.”

Kangata, according to The Standard of Nairobi, said Kenyans would protest against Obama over the gay agenda issue while he visited their country.

http://westernjournalismcom.c.pressc...gu-Kangata.jpgImage Credit: Facebook/Irungu Kangata (in gray suit)

Additionally Deputy President William Ruto said homosexuality was “against the plan of God,” while speaking at a church in Nairobi last Sunday. “God did not create man and woman so that men would marry men and women marry women,” he was quoted as saying by The Daily Nation.

“No amount of persuasions, theories or philosophy will make us change our position. We believe in God, this is a God fearing nation and will continue to be so,” he added.

Reuters reports that Ruto’s spokesman, Emmanuel Talam, confirmed the remarks, adding: “The government believes that homosexual relations are unnatural and unAfrican.”

Rose Mitaru, one of 47 female lawmakers in Kenya, said that allowing same-sex marriage in her country would open “floodgates of evil synonymous with the biblical Sodom and Gomorrah.”

The practice of homosexuality is illegal in Kenya and has been since the nation’s founding in 1963. According to a Pew Research poll, 90 percent of Kenyans believe homosexuality is wrong. This number is consistent with most African nations’ views on the issue, according to the poll.

http://westernjournalismcom.c.pressc...se-Rainbow.jpgImage Credit: Facebook/The White House

It is not just political leaders who have come out strongly against normalizing homosexuality in Kenya, according to Breitbart. Justin Muturi, the speaker of the National Assembly, said to an Anglican Church congregation: “Liberal thoughts are being entertained in some countries under the guise of human rights.” He added: “We must be vigilant and guard against it. We must lead an upright society and not allow obnoxious behavior as we have a responsibility to protect our children.”

Numerous Episcopal congregations in the United States decided to leave the denomination over the last several years and form the Anglican Church in North America, after the Episcopal Church rejected Biblical teaching on marriage and homosexuality. When the move first began in the last decade, many congregations initially put themselves under the authority of bishops in Africa and South America, who hold to the traditional view of marriage and sexuality.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said on Monday that President Obama would not avoid the topic of the gay agenda during his visit: “I’m confident the president will not hesitate to make clear that the protection of basic universal human rights in Kenya is also a priority and consistent with the values that we hold dear here in the United States of America.”

TNA lawmaker Jamleck Kamau would clearly like to dissuade the president from taking that tack. “Anybody who tries to come and preach to this country that they should allow homosexuality, I think he’s totally lost,” he said.

“And I would also like to add, our son from the U.S., Barack Obama, when he comes here, to simply avoid that topic completely,” added Kamau, “because Kenyans will not be happy with him if he comes to bring the issue of homosexuality in this country.”

www.westernjournalism.com/kenyan-politician-just-made-a-major-threat-to-obama-we-will-tell-him-to-shut-up-and-go-home/

[ED.: if Mr. Obama proclaims or promotes the mainstreaming of homosexuality and the acceptance of abortion as a means of birth control, then Kenya's leaders may kick Mr. Obama out of the closet and to the curb, outting him...

as a native son and natural born citizen of Kenya:

1) the son of a father of record who was a citizen of Kenya, and never anything else.

2) the son of a mother who was 18 years and 8 months of age when he was born, 117 days short of the 19 years of age (5 years a resident of the U.S. after age 14) required by the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 (INA) to confer her U.S. citizenship upon her foreign-born child with an alien. In other words, her U.S. citizenship did not count towards his nationality at birth.

3) born in Mombasa, Kenya, in the Coast Province General Hospital, Dr. James O. W. Ang'awa, presiding physician, and John Kwame Odongo, supervisor of obstetrics, on 8-7-1961.

www.thepowerhour.com/images/birth4.jpg ]