Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

eBay birth certificate called fraud
Hospital refuses to authenticate document
Posted: August 25, 2009 -- 10:07 pm Eastern
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=108005

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


The alleged Kenyan birth certificate offered by eBay seller Lucas Smith and displayed last weekend on YouTube.com is not a valid document, a WND investigation has revealed.

Administrators at Coast Provincial Hospital in Mombasa, the hospital named as President Obama's supposed birth hospital in the document, refused to authenticate the record when contacted by WND sources in Kenya.

The document appears to have the following defects:

Coast Province General Hospital did not exist in 1961.

Until 1964, Kenya was the Dominion of Kenya, not the Republic of Kenya, and Mombasa was part of Zanzibar until Dec. 12, 1963, not a coastal province of Kenya.

Dr. James O.W. Ang'awa, the physician who was named in the document as the attending physician at Obama's birth, was a physician who worked in Kenya during the 1960s; however, he worked at Kenyatta National Hospital in Nairobi. Dr. James O.W. Ang'awa never worked at any hospital in Mombasa.

The dates on the document are formatted in U.S. style, listing in order the month, day and year; this is not the British format which typically follows the order of day, month and year.

The footprint on the document appears nearly perfect in definition; real infant footprints typically show signs of smudging because of foot movement.

The footprint on the document is densely black, revealing few natural lines on the sole of the foot; footprints used for document identification are typically inked much lighter to allow for natural lines to be clearly apparent.

Footprints taken for document identification are typically taken for both feet, just as fingerprints taken for identification are typically taken for both hands.

The document does not look remotely like the 1961-era birth certificates used in Kenya; infant footprints were not displayed on Kenyan birth certificates in the 1961-era.

WND sources in Kenya described the Smith document as a clever forgery in that Helton Muganga is currently an administrator at Coast Provincial General Hospital.

But when WND sources in Kenya contacted Coast Provincial General Hospital, no administrator would verify the authenticity of the document.

Moreover, WND sources reported it is unlikely any 1961 birth certificate for President Obama will ever be found at Coast Provincial Hospital in Mombasa, even if one originally existed.

Administrators and doctors at the hospital told WND sources that in 2004 a high-level team of Kenya's National Security Intelligence Service came to the hospital and seized all files containing birth certificate documents from the years 1960 through 1963.

According to the hospital administrators and doctors interviewed at the hospital, it was not until four months later that Kenya's National Security Intelligence Service returned the seized files to the hospital.

Rest of the WND article is found here:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=108005

Administrators and doctors at the hospital told WND sources that in 2004 a high-level team of Kenya's National Security Intelligence Service came to the hospital and seized all files containing birth certificate documents from the years 1960 through 1963.

I think Kenya documents regarding the BO BC are forever gone if they ever existed.

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

eBay birth certificate called fraud
Hospital refuses to authenticate document
Posted: August 25, 2009 -- 10:07 pm Eastern
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=108005

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Administrators and doctors at the hospital told WND sources that in 2004 a high-level team of Kenya's National Security Intelligence Service came to the hospital and seized all files containing birth certificate documents from the years 1960 through 1963.

I think Kenya documents regarding the BO BC are forever gone if they ever existed.

It also tells us the Obama NBC conspiracy has been going on since the 2004 election year, which coincidently included a senate debate between Obama and Alan Keyes in which they allegedly discussed off-camera Obama's non-natural born citizenship problem, and to which Obama allegedly responded 'it's a good thing I'm not running for president.'

If we could only find that video tape that recorded the conversation between Obama and Keyes... I wonder where it disappeared...

Is it just me or did the number of replies change for this forum?

The birth record for Barack Obama II is in the Royal Archives in London. Dr. Orly Taitz has a hearing on Sept. 8th to attempt to subpoena it.

Take heart. This is not about the birth certificate anyway. That is just to get a hearing. "The interest is worth more than the principle."

The undeniable 800 lb. gorilla in the middle of the room is his father, a British protected subject, a status which passed to his children. By Mr. Obama's own admission, his birth was governed by the laws of Great Britain.

The original intent of the Framers was to exclude anyone with loyalty to any other sovereignty - especially the Crown - from the office of Commander-in-Chief. For any judge to deny that intent for the sake of a usurper, an impostor, and a fraud, would be to disavow his own American citizenship.

Donofrio's blog is starting to show the Tip o' the Iceberg of some research that's been going on for awhile. Quite awhile, in fact.

[My bottom line is this: IF there was a legitimate marriage in 1961, we have an "illegitimate" POTUS now. If the marriage never happened or was bigamous (null and void) in 1961, then Obama is a natural born citizen because the law both THEN (when Constitution was written) and NOW (modern era) finds children born outside a legitimate marriage taking status solely from their mother. ]

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ... e-collins/

Rarely, when conducting legal research does one find a historical document that is directly on point. But even more rare is to find a document which is directly on point multiple times. But that’s exactly what has happened this week. A historical document which destroys every bogus point being made by Obama POTUS eligibility supporters was recently discovered by a cracker jack team of university students from UCONN. They call themselves UNDEAD REVOLUTION.

They have been sending me good stuff for quite a while now. A wonderful contributor to comments at this blog – Kamira – is part of that team. This group is preparing the mother of all natural born citizen research reports based upon their unique historical document discoveries. It will be guest blogged by them right here when it’s ready for public consumption.

But for now, and as a lead in to their work, I offer you one of their superb historical finds. It’s an article from The American Law Review dated Sept./Oct. 1884. The American Law Review was a premier legal journal - the brain child of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes.

This was not a law school publication. It was considered to be the state of legal art which utilized the most esteemed attorneys of the period.

The article I am about to show you was published in The American Law Review, written by George D. Collins, Esq. Attorney Collins was the Secretary of the California Bar Association. His name was recognized nationally for cases in the federal courts and moreso due to his regular publishing of articles via The American Law review.

The article I am excited to bring you is titled:

ARE PERSONS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES IPSO FACTO CITIZENS THEREOF?

The article provides historical opposition for every single point raised by Obama eligibility pundits and destroys all propaganda in its path.

The article is written in a clear and concise manner, easily understood by lawyers and lay persons alike. I will now introduce each relevant issue confronted in this article and then present the article in full for your review.

OBAMA POTUS ELIGIBILITY MYTHS DESTROYED BY MR. GEORGE COLLINS

MYTH #1: Chester Arthur’s British birth was known and accepted by the American people.

This article was written in Summer 1884, while Chester Arthur was still President. Since The American Law Review was such an esteemed legal publication, old Chester must have been somewhat intimidated by the report of Mr. Collins. This is because the article makes perfectly clear that to be a natural born citizen one must have been born to a US citizen father.

Chester’s father William was not naturalized until 1843, 14 years after Chester was born. This meant that Chester Arthur was a British subject at birth and was therefore not eligible to be President as was first reported at this blog back in December 2008.

It has been argued that ChesterArthur’s occupation of the White House set a legal precedent for Obama since both Chester and Barack were born of British fathers. But the public – at the time Chester was running for VP and later when he became POTUS – never knew that Chester Arthur was a British subject since he successfully lied to the public about his parental heritage.

The law review article goes into great detail concerning the issue of who exactly rises to the level of natural born citizen. It discusses law cases and legal precedent in its analysis, but it does not even mention the current President – Chester Arthur – even though Attorney Collins steadfastly denies that a person born on US soil to an alien father could be a natural born citizen.

If Attorney Collins – esteemed lawyer, Secretary of the Bar Association and nationally known legal journalist – had thought his current President at the time this article was published – Chester Arthur – was a British subject at birth, then the article would have required a discussion of that point.

But the article does not mention President Chester Arthur because Chester Arthur managed – through blatant deceit - to cover that issue up. He successfully concealed his British birth from the American people. This law review article is proof of that conclusion.

MYTH #2: Lynch v. Clark ( a New York State case, not federal) is legal precedent for Obama to be considered a natural born citizen.

Despite the fact that state court cases have absolutely no legal weight of authority in federal court, Obama eligibility supporters cite this case often. Attorney Collins tears the decision to shreds and exposes its faulty conclusions.

MYTH #3: Common law states that being born on the soil – Jus Soli – makes one a “natural born subjectâ€

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

Donofrio's blog is starting to show the Tip o' the Iceberg of some research that's been going on for awhile. Quite awhile, in fact.

Thanks, FreedomFirst. Good information.

I am concerned about one of Leo's comments to a post on the blog:

[Ed. In my opinion, nothing will come of anything written at this blog. Nothing will come of any of the law suits brought. Nothing will come of the grand Jury presentment issue. Nothing will stop Obama. I have personally felt his power and protection in my experience in the courts. He is here to stay. I publish all of this so that there will be some historical record. But just as my Citizenspook blog is now being controlled by some outside force - I am locked out of my own blog there - I expect that this blog will also be taken over at some point. Eventually, I see the internet being taken down and reborn in a much more censored format. What is happening before our very eyes is nothing short of a coup de tat. And it didn't start with Obama, but it just might end with him. He may be the last President of the US because I don't believe we are going to survive as a sovereign nation for more than 8 years.]

Our own individual and ongoing frustration about this legal malfeasance also bears out Leo's dire set of circumstances. The total lack of responsiveness by our elected officials to all of us bears out Donofrio's blackest comments above. This is not the American government we are dealing with - it has already been taken over by the Marxists, and we are now under totalitarian government control. They've won the battle. Maybe not the war... but surely the latest battle.

It is becoming increasingly clear (to me, anyway) that the freedom loving American patriotss may have one of three choices:

1. View the American Revolution as not having ever ended, and to rise up in open rebellion to take back our Founder's republican government.

2. Join the criminal underground, as all freedom loving patriotic Americans have become criminals in the eyes of our new totalitarian state.

3. Give up on America and leave America for some other almost free nation (TBD).

The time for serious intelligent contemplation, secret meetings, and quiet conspiracy is upon us.

The Holy Grail of POTUS Eligibility Law Review Articles: Mr. Obama and Mr. Arthur… Meet Attorney George Collins
http://tinyurl.com/nf8r4u

Donofrio comments to readers are extensive, including the following:


CAL Says:
August 26, 2009 at 7:23 am

Thanks Leo. I know you are more concerned about what the article says about nbc, but I think Collin’s view on the citizenship of children born on US soil of a non citizen father is important. We have all grown up believing that children of aliens born on US soil are citizens automatically, but this was never what was intended in the 14th amendment. I think this misinterpretation has clouded the meaning of natural born citizen and that is why everyone is so concerned about the birth certificate. I also think that this misinterpretation is one of the reasons why the nbc issue is so controversial. If you really delve into all of this, you get into the whole anchor baby question and that could anger a huge part of the voting electorate.

In response to Ladyhawke’s comment above, you said that Obama would be a citizen by statute. Which statute is that? Do you mean he would be a citizen according to the current interpretation of the 14th amendment as defined by Wong Kim Ark?

If this is the case, Gray’s opinion in Wong Kim Ark has had huge repercussions on the direction of our country.

[i][Ed. I don't believe Obama is a 14th Amendment citizen, nor do I believe anchor babies are 14th Amendment citizens - as far as Wong Kim Ark is concerned. WKA is very limited. It's certainly limited to children born of parents who were permanently domiciled in the US. Obama's father never was so domiciled here so it's an open question whether Wong Kim Ark applies to Obama. OK, his mother was a US citizen, but Wong Kim Ark discusses "parents"... and the parents are supposed to be permanently domiciled here in the US. Obama's father wasn't.

I understand that many people will feel and argue that WKA should apply to obama because of his mother's US citizenship - but the fact remains, SCOTUS has never determined this issue.

Also, WKA by the very wording of its holding is strictly limited to the "single question presented" and that had to do with a child born of Chinese nationals who by treaty were not allowed to naturalize as US citizens. This meant that the child, if not held to be a 14th Amendment citizen, would not be able to naturalize as a US citizen even though he was born here. One could argue that WKA only applied to this very limited group of persons

- children born of Chinese nationals permanently domiciled in the US

Since Obama's father was never permanently domiciled here, Obama may not be a Constitutional US citizen according to the strict interpretation of Wong Kim Ark.

BUT PERHAPS I WAS WRONG ABOUT OBAMA BEING A STATUTORY CITIZEN IF HE WAS BORN IN HAWAII.

THANK YOU FOR DRAWING THIS TO MY ATTENTION.

I think I may have just been bamboozled by the State Department's Foreign Affairs MANUAL which says

7 FAM 1117 LEGISLATION REGARDING CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES
(TL:CON-64; 11-30-95)

a. The citizenship provision of the 14th Amendment is essentially restated in Section 201(a) of the Nationality Act of 1940 (NA) and in Section 301(a) [formerly Section
301(a)(1)] of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA).

b. The current section of law that governs the acquisition of citizenship by birth in the
United States is Section 301 INA, which states:

Sec. 301. The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) A person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian or
other aboriginal tribe, Provided, that the granting of citizenship under this subsection
shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right to tribal or other property;…
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of
five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have
been born in the United States;…

c. The provisions of Section 201(a) and (b) NA were identical to those of Section
301(a) and (b) INA. The differences between Section 201(f) NA and Section 301(f) INA are discussed in section 7 FAM 1118 .

d. All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States illegally at the time of birth.

Look at “d.â€

Wait! It gets better!


Was Obama’s Mother a US Citizen At The Time of Obama’s Birth?
Posted in Uncategorized on August 27, 2009 by naturalborncitizen
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ... tegorized/

We know for a fact that Obama’s father was a UKC citizen and never became a US citizen and was never permanently domiciled in the US. As to Obama’s mother, everyone has always assumed she was a US citizen at the time of Obama Jr.’s birth.

But it’s very possible Stanley Ann Obama was not a US citizen by the time Obama was born.

The British Nationality Act of 1948 established Barack Obama Sr. as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. But as to the relevance of the BNA 1948 to Obama’s mother, please take a look at Section “6(2)â€

Well, that's a stretch. Maybe all sorts of things happened. How would we know?

Originally Posted by BetsyRoss

Well, that's a stretch. Maybe all sorts of things happened. How would we know?

That, my Dear, is the million dollar question.

Remember, we have 6-1/2 months of Dunham's records that are missing. Someone may be many steps ahead of us in this matter.