Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Originally Posted by BetsyRoss

Uh-oh ... I just sent away for a new official copy of my birth certificate from Virginia. It arrived .... no raised seal. It doesn't even mention my race (though I had to state race to help them find it).

Betsy, the one that you received is useless. I was required to provide my full long form BC with the raised seal. We all know how easy it is nowadays to forge a phony.

Supremes to Conference on Obama Eligibility

drkatesview - Thoughts on Our Constitutional Republic
Published March 3, 2011
http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2011/0 ... igibility/


The case of Hollister v. Soetoro will be distributed for conference on Friday, March 4, at the Supreme Court. As you recall, the judge in this case deemed Hollister’s case frivolous as Obama’s eligibility had been ‘twittered’ and thus resolved. He dismissed the case and then threatened sanctions. What he forgot to do was dismiss the case based on standing, as all the other judges have.

John Hemenway, attorney for Hollister, directly challenged the Supreme Court to uphold its duty to their oath in protecting the Constitution.

[i]"A veteran attorney who has pursued a lawsuit challenging Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility since he was elected is telling the U.S. Supreme Court that if its members continue to “avoidâ€

[quote="drkate"][size=117]Based on their failure to follow the law, Hollister’s case is now back before the Supremes in conference–this time we hope without Sotomayor and Kagan.
__________________________________________________ _______

Agreed, court procedures, and will change that.

Also, I don’t know if they will recuse themselves… of course they should, but there is nothing preventing the court for doing exactly what you said–â€

The Jay Treaty Strongly Indicates That Obama Is Not Eligible To Be President.



Those who support Obama’s eligibility – despite his admission of dual allegiance/nationality (at the time of his birth) – routinely offer a rather absurd hypothetical which sounds something like this:

“The US is sovereign and not governed by foreign law so British law shouldn’t be considered as to Presidential eligibility. What if North Korea declared that all US citizens are also citizens of North Korea? In that case, nobody would be eligible to be President if dual nationality was a determining factor. Therefore, nationality laws of the United Kingdom are irrelevant.â€

Mr. Obama is still, even now, a Commonwealth Citizen - a Brit. The following makes the case and runs with it.

Originally Posted by bluecat at forums.hannity.com

So Obama has British Citizenship at the time of birth, that is a given.
Did he gain citizenship to Kenya? Yes - via Chapter VI, Section 87(2):

"(2) Every person who,

• having been born outside Kenya,

is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or
a British protected person shall,

• if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1),

become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963."

But did becoming a Kenyan Citizen terminate British Citizenship? We look into the Kenyan Constitution and find - NO, it did not. See Chapter VI, Section 95(1):

• "95. (1) Every person who, under this Constitution or an Act of Parliament, is a citizen of Kenya or who, under any law for the time being in force in a country to which this section applies, is a citizen of that country shall, by virtue of that citizenship, have the status of a Commonwealth citizen."

So, like the Thai president, Obama has never renounced his British Citizenship gained at birth.
He never 'automatically' lost it, even when Kenya became independent.

The situations are basically identical.

So we have to update the slogan:

Once a Brit, always a Brit, and ain't legit.

TODAY, we apparently have a British Citizen in the office of the President in the US.
__________________________________________________ ___

Factcheck and others [say:]

Here is short
[list ]of facts:

1. Obama is born a British Subject in 1961. It matters not where he was born - he is a British Subject due to descent.

2. Obama gains Kenyan Citizenship in December 1963 due to descent clause of Kenyan Constitution.
His status as British subject is NOT changed.

3. Obama loses his Kenyan citizenship in 1982 but has 2 years to reclaim it. (BTW, this holds for Indonesia as well.)

4. Between November 1982 and November 1984 Obama can reclaim Kenyan Citizenship or Indonesian Citizenship. He takes trips to both Kenya and Indonesia during that timeframe either in 1981 or 1983.

5. If Obama took no action to renew or reclaim his Kenyan Citizenship after reaching age 21 then it is the Kenyan Citizenship that expires at age 23. The British status is completely unaffected.

6. Social Security numbers starting with 999 are associated with Obama at addresses he lived at while at Occidental [and one address in Missouri, according to investigator Neil Sankey]. 999 SS# are commonly and as a standard used as temporary numbers for foreign national students for paperwork requiring a SS#.

For details of Kenyan Citizenship:

kenya.rcbowen.com/constitution/chap6.html

Leo Donofrio, who is up and blogging again, captured it accurately here [in Sept. of 2009]:

naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/confimed-factcheck-org-published-bogus-fact-regarding-obamas-kenyan-citizenship/

The document that is needed to renounce British Citizenship is here:

www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/applicationforms/nationality/form_rn.pdf

Without it, we have a (current) Brit in the White House. James Madison is likely not pleased.

You can read here the rest of Mr. Donofrio's analysis from Sept. 9, 2009, including extensive comments.

IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED HERE! Please HELP!


http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-1194360.html#1194360

Just heard on the radio a News Break, The Supreme Court once again threw out another Eligibility case. I do not know what to say.
I guess if the S. Court will NOT follow the Law, Follow Thier OATH to Uphold the Constitution of The United States of America...
We now Live in a LAWLESS NATION!
I was looking up some Info. from another website and stumbled across something I thought was very strange... Could someone tell me this :
If a Judge was a member of an Organization that DOES Lobbying, would that be considered Unethical?

The 1803 Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison arose out of a fairly trifling matter of political intrigue, yet the case would have enormous consequences for the young American nation. In his decision, John Marshall would assert the Supreme Court’s doctrine of judicial review, the power to strike down unconstitutional laws.

It would appear the SCOTUS is no longer the watchdog of unconstitutional matters when it comes to the usurper in the white house.

Editorial, 3/7: 'Birther' bill is fringe of the fringe
Posted: Sunday, March 6, 2011 11:59 pm

The "birthers" who insist that President Barack Obama does not meet the citizenship requirement to be president represent a fringe of public opinion.

Then there are some whose views represent only a fringe of the fringe.

That's where the bill proposed by Sen. Mark Christensen of Imperial comes from.

The charge that Obama failed to meet the requirement that the president be a "natural born citizen" of our great country was dismissed as invalid long ago.

The director of the Hawaiian state agency that handles birth certificates issued the following statement: "I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai'i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai'i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai'i and is a natural-born American citizen."

Various attempts to challenge Obama's citizenship have failed in court. The U.S. Supreme Court on several occasions has let stand lower court rulings that Obama met the requirement in the U.S. Constitution that the president be a "natural born citizen."

Yet the "birthers" keep the myth alive.

What makes Christensen's bill an oddity even by "birther" standards is that not only would it require presidential and vice presidential candidates to provide a certified long-form copy of their birth certificates to Nebraska's secretary of state, it also would require candidates to provide copies of their parent's long-form birth certificates.

Furthermore, in order for a person to qualify to be a presidential candidate in Nebraska, the bill, LB654, would require an affidavit in which the candidate swears, "On the day I was born both my birth father and my birth mother were citizens of the United States of America."

Christensen has told reporters that he "absolutely" believes Obama is a U.S. citizen, but it's worth noting that a faction of "birthers" believes that to be a "natural born citizen" a person must be the child of two U.S. citizens. Christensen already had a reputation for introducing peculiar bills. His unsuccessful effort two years ago to regulate sexually oriented businesses provoked more jokes than serious discussion. His proposal this year to allow teachers to carry concealed weapons drew a chorus of opposition from Nebraska educators.

But this time, Christensen has outdone himself. His "birther" bill is one of the most outlandish pieces of legislation that has been introduced this year.

The bill has been scheduled for a public hearing Thursday. It promises to be entertaining. It possibly might attract kooks from all across the country.

But entertainment is the only possible value anyone could find in this 14-page bill. It's a joke. The less time the Legislature wastes on it, the better.

http://journalstar.com/news/opinion/edi ... e6fa5.html

From Butterdezillion's

Factcheck Forgery for Dummies =)

ksdb says:

...about the Hawaii State Archives. The official archives itself tells us in several places they don't keep any records there newer than 1929.

butterdezillion says:

There might be a small discrepancy between what the State Archive says and the retention schedule. The HDOH retention schedule mentions that COHB's [Certificates Of Hawaiian Birth] must be at least 75 years old to be transferred to the State Archives but the other records it allows to be stored at the State Archives are Certificates of Foreign Birth, with no age limit mentioned. In fact, the records in question are listed as being from June 1987 and later.

... marriage license applications and evidence master negatives are to be stored at State Archives.

Aha! Very sneaky. On page 31 it says that master microfilm for Records and Statistics Office (RSO) VR-1, VR-2, and VR-4 may be transferred to the State Archives, but only had the description of VR-4 attached to it (abortion records). From previous requests I recognized VR-1, because I had requested them and been told they don't exist – the indices. VR-2 is the vital records. So the microfilms of the vital records may be kept at the State Archives. That would make it very important to know whether they are kept there regardless of age.

This alters the picture though, because master negatives of vital records were authorized to be stored at the State Archive. Aagh.