____________________________________

ParrotNewsReport.com/cj (Citizen Journalist Blog)

ParrotNewsReport.com (All the news at at glance)


Friday, May 28, 2010

If obama was born outside of the US he became an illegal alien at birth and for 33 years until 1994 when he became a citizen

This information is hard to find on the web. The government only wants you to see the latest revisions of U.S. CITIZENSHIP LAW AND OVERSEAS AMERICANS.

What is imposrtant is the law that was in effect at the time of Barack Obama's birth to his parents. The law in 1961.

...........................................................................................

U.S. CITIZENSHIP LAW AND OVERSEAS AMERICANS

1790 First Congress, Act of March 26th, 1790, 1 Stat. 103.


"And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States".


1795 Act of January 29, 1795. Section 3, 1 Stat. 414, 415. (Same general provisions as above).


1802 Act of April 14, 1802. Section 4, 2 Stat. 153, 144. (Same general provisions as above).


1855 Act of February 10, 1855. Section 1, 10 Stat. 604.


"All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States."


1878 Section 1993, Revised Statutes of 1878. (Same general provisions as 1855 Act).


1907 Act of March 2, 1907, Section 6, 34 Stat. 1228, 1229.


"That all children born outside the limits of the United States who are citizens thereof in accordance with the provisions of section nineteen hundred and ninety-three of the Revised Statutes of the United States and who continue to reside outside the United States shall, in order to receive the protection of this Government, be required upon reaching the age of eighteen years to record at an American consulate their intention to become residents and remain citizens of the United States and shall be further required to take the oath of allegiance to the United States upon attaining their majority."


1934 Act of May 24, 1934, Section 1, 48 Stat. 797.


"Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States: but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child. In cases where one of the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship shall not descend unless the child comes to the United States and resides therein for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday, and unless, within six months after the child's twenty-first birthday, he or she shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America as prescribed by the Bureau of Naturalization."


1940 The Nationality Act of 1940, Section 201, 54 Stat. 1137.


"Section 201. The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:


"(g) A person born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, has had ten years' residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, at least five of which were after attaining the age of sixteen years, the other being an alien: Provided, That in order to retain such citizenship, the child must reside in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling five years between the ages of thirteen and twenty-one years: Provided further, That, if the child has not taken up a residence in the United States or its outlying possessions by the time he reaches the age of sixteen years, or if he resides abroad for such a time that it becomes impossible for him to complete the five years' residence in the United States or its outlying possessions before reaching the age of twenty-one years, his American citizenship shall thereupon cease.


(h) The foregoing provisions of subsection (g) concerning retention of citizenship shall apply to a child born abroad subsequent to May 24, 1934."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(If 17 year old Ann Dunham gave birth to a child on foreign soil whose father was not an American citizen, then the Immigration and Nationality Act at that time denied Barack Obama any right to American citizenship of any kind. Obama's mother Stanley Ann Dunham was born Nov 29, 1942. Obama was born on Aug 4, 1961 as his undocumented "cerfication of live birth" shows. Obama was born 18 years 8 months after his mother was born.

Obama’s "American citizen parent", Ann Dunham, had to have been a resident of the United States for 10 years, at least five of which were over the age of 14. Dunham did not meet that requirement (of the Nationality Act of 1940, revised June, 1952) until her 19th birthday in late November of 1961, almost four months after Obama was born.

Obama was an ILLEGAL ALIEN for 33 years until The Immigration and Nationality Corrections Act (Public Law 103-416) on October 25, 1994 was revised. On this date obama became a US citizen but not a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

This makes obama a RETROACTIVE US citizen. This also makes obama a FRAUD because he said he was born in Hawaii at birth. The "certification of live birth" obama has presented to the world is issued to persons who are not born in hospitals and most likely were born outside of the US. This is why his "birth certification" does not list a hospital, doctor or registrar name. Story Reports

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

(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States, who prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.

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

1952 The Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S. Code Section 1401 (b). (Section 301 of the Act).


"Section 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:


"(1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;


"(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States, who prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.


(b) Any person who is a national and citizen of the United States at birth under paragraph (7) of subsection (a), shall lose his nationality and citizenship unless he shall come to the United States prior to attaining the age of twenty-three years and shall immediately following any such coming be continuously physically present in the United State(s) for at least five years: Provided, That such physical presence follows the attainment of the age of fourteen years and precedes the age of twenty-eight years.


(c) Subsection (b) shall apply to a person born abroad subsequent to May 24, 1934: Provided, however, That nothing contained in this subsection shall be construed to alter or affect the citizenship of any person born abroad subsequent to May 24, 1934, who, prior to the effective date of this Act, has taken up a residence in the United States before attaining the age of sixteen years, and thereafter, whether before or after the effective date of this Act, complies or shall comply with the residence requirements for retention of citizenship specified in subsections (g) and (h) of section 201 of the Nationality Act of 1940, as amended."


1956 Fee v. Dulles (236 F.2nd 855 (C.A. 7, 1956), (355 U.S. 61)). A child born abroad on or after May 24, 1934, who acquired U.S. citizenship through one citizen parent had to comply with certain conditions for establishing American residence in order to retain his American citizenship. In Fee v. Dulles, the lower courts upheld the original administrative position that a person who had not complied with the conditions prescribed by previous statutes had lost his citizenship and derived no benefit from the more generous retention provisions of the 1952 act. However, upon consideration of this issue when it reached the Supreme Court the Solicitor General confessed error, taking the position that a person who could comply with the terms of section 301 (b) and (c) would retain his American citizenship, even though he had not fulfilled similar provisions of the earlier statutes. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court, and thus adopted the view projected in the Solicitor General's confession of error.


1956 The Act of March 16, 1956, (70 Stat. 50), provided as follows:


"That section 301 (a) (7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act shall be considered to have been and to be applicable to a child born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions after January 12, 1941, and before December 24, 1952, of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has served in the Armed Forces of the United States after December 31, 1946, and before December 24, 1952, and whose case does not come within the provisions of section 201 (g) or (i) of the Nationality Act of 1940".


1957 Act of September 11, 1957 (71 Stat. 644), provides as follows:


"Section 16. In the administration of section 301 (b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, absences from the United States of less than twelve months in the aggregate, during the period for which continuous physical presence in the United States is required, shall not be considered to break the continuity of such physical presence."


1961 Montana v. Kennedy (366 U.S. 308 (1961)). The court ruled that a child born abroad prior to May 24, 1934, to an American citizen mother did not acquire American citizenship at birth, since at that time citizenship at birth was transmitted only by a citizen father. Although subsequent legislation conferred upon American women the power to transmit citizenship to their children born abroad, such legislation was not retroactive and did not bestow citizenship on persons born before the enactment of such legislation.


See also: Wolf v Brownell (253 F.2nd 141 - (C.A. 9, 1958)-certiori denied (358 U.S. 859)). and D'Alessio v. Lehmann (289 F.2nd 371 - (C.A. 6, 1961)-certiori denied (368 U.S. 822)).


1964 Schneider v. Rusk (377 U.S. 163 (1964)). Mrs. Schneider, a German national by birth, acquired United States citizenship derivatively through her mother's naturalization in the United States. She came to the USA as a small child with her parents and remained there until she finished college. She then went abroad for graduate work, was engaged to a German national, married in Germany, and stayed in residence there. She declared that she had no intention of returning to the United States. In 1959, she was denied a passport by the State Department on the ground that she had lost her United States citizenship under the specific provisions of Paragraph 352 (a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Paragraph 1484 (a)(1), by continuous residence for three years in a foreign state of which she was formerly a national. The Court, by a five-to-three vote, held the statute violative of Fifth Amendment due process because there was no like restriction against foreign residence by native-born citizens. The dissent (Mr. Justice Clark, joined by Justices Harlan and White) based its position on what it regarded as the long acceptance of expatriating naturalized citizens who voluntarily return to residence in their native lands; possible international complications; past decisions approving the power of Congress to enact statutes of that type; and the Constitution's distinctions between native-born and naturalized citizens.


1966 Act of November 6, 1966 (80 Stat. 1322), amended Section 301 (a) (7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 to read as follows:


"Section 301 (a) (7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided*, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date.


1967 Afroyim v. Rusk (387 U.S. 253 (1967)). Mr. Afroyim, a Polish national by birth, immigrated to the United States at age 19 and after 14 years in the USA acquired United States citizenship by naturalization. Twenty-four years later he went to Israel and voted in a political election there. In 1960, he was denied a passport by the State Department on the ground that he had lost his United States citizenship under the specific provisions of Section 349 (a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. Section 1481(a)(5), by his foreign voting. The Court, by a five-to-four vote, held that the Fourteenth Amendment's definition of citizenship was significant; that Congress has no "general" power, express or implied, to take away an American citizen's citizenship without his assent," (387 U.S. at 257); that Congress' power is to provide a uniform rule of naturalization and, when once exercised with respect to the individual, is exhausted, citing Mr. Chief Justice Marshall's well-known but not uncontroversial dictum in Osborn v. Bank of the United States (9 Wheat. 738, 827 (1824)); and that the "undeniable purpose" of the Fourteenth Amendment was to make the recently conferred "citizenship of Negroes permanent and secure" and "to put citizenship beyond the power of any government unit to destroy," (387 U.S. at 263). Perez v. Brownell (356 U.S. 44 (1958)), a five-to-four holding within the decade and precisely to the opposite effect, was overruled. In dissent (Mr. Justice Harlan, joined by Justices Clark, Stewart and White) took issue with the Court's claim of support in the legislative history, elucidated the Marshall dictum, and observed that the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment did not deprive Congress of the power to expatriate on permissible grounds consistent with "other relevant commands" of the Constitution. (387 U.S. at 292).


1971 Rogers v. Bellei (401 U.S. 815 (1971)). Bellei challenged the constitutionality of Section 301 (b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which provided that one who acquires United States citizenship by virtue of having been born abroad to parents, one of whom is an American citizen, who has met certain residence requirements, shall lose his citizenship unless he resides in this country continuously for five years between the ages of 14 and 28. A three-judge District Court held the section unconstitutional, citing Afroyim v. Rusk and Schneider v. Rusk. The Supreme Court, in a five-to-four decision, held that Congress has the power to impose the condition subsequent of residence in the country on Bellei, who does not come within the Fourteenth Amendment's definition of citizens as those "born or naturalized in the United States", and its imposition is not unreasonable, arbitrary or unlawful. Justice Black filed a dissenting opinion in which Justices Douglas and Marshall joined. Justice Brennan filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Douglas joined.


1972 Act of October 27, 1972 (87 Stat. 1289), amended the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 by changing section 301 (b) to the new text below; by repealing Section 16 of the Act of September 11, 1957; and by adding the new section 301 (d) below.


"Section 301 (b) Any person who is a national and citizen of the United States under paragraph (7) of subsection (a) shall lose his nationality and citizenship unless (1) he shall come to the United States and be continuously physically present therein for a period of not less than two years between the ages of fourteen years and twenty-eight years; or (2) the alien parent is naturalized while the child is under the age of eighteen years and the child begins to reside permanently in the United States while under the age of eighteen years. In the administration of this subsection absences from the United States of less than sixty days in the aggregate during the period for which continuous physical presence in the United States is required shall not break the continuity of such physical presence."


"Section 301 (d) Nothing contained in subsection (b) as amended, shall be construed to alter or affect the citizenship of any person who has come to the United States prior to the effective date of this subsection and who, whether before or after the effective date of this subsection, immediately following such coming complies or shall comply with the physical presence requirements for retention of citizenship specified in subsection (b) prior to its amendment and the repeal of section 16 of the Act of September 11, 1957."


1978 Act of October 10, 1978 (92 Stat. 1046) repealed subsections (b), (c) and (d) of section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, effective as of October 10, 1978. It also struck out "(a)" after "Section 301" and redesignated paragraphs (1) through (7) as subsections (a) through (g) respectively.


1980 Vance v. Terrazas: upheld the constitutionality of Section 349(c) of the INA. Under this provision, the party claiming that citizenship has been lost has the burden of proving such loss by a preponderance of the evidence. Moreover, a person who commits a statutory act of expatriation is presumed to have committed the act voluntarily, but the presumption may be overcome upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act was not performed voluntarily. The Court expressly rejected the contention that expatriation must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.


The Supreme Court reaffirmed and explained its holding in Afroyim v. Rusk that in order to find expatriation, "the trier of fact must...conclude that the citizen not only voluntarily committed the expatriating act prescribed in the statute, but also intended to relinquish his citizenship". The court declared that it would not be consistent with Afroyim "to treat the expatriating acts specified in the statute as the equivalent of or as conclusive evidence of the indispensable voluntary assent of the citizen". As the Court explained: "In the last analysis expatriation depends on the will of the citizen rather than on the will of Congress and its assessment of his conduct."


1986 Act of November 14, 1986 (PL 99-653) amended section 301(g) (8 U.S.C. 1401(g)) by striking out "ten years, at least five" and inserting in lieu thereof "five years, at least two". This reduced the prior residence time in the United States necessary for a U.S. citizen married to an alien to be able to automatically transmit U.S. citizenship to a child born abroad from the former period of ten years, five of which after the age of 14, to five years, two of which after the age of fourteen years.


This act also: (a) amended Sec 340(d) of the code reducing the period of time after naturalization before a naturalized citizen can reside abroad from five years to one year; (b) amended section 349 of the code so that a child who obtained a foreign nationality upon the application of the parent before the child reached age 21 years, no longer has to return to the United States to establish permanent residence in the United States prior to age 25; (c) amends section 349 so that a U.S: citizen who is a national of a foreign country and who performs an expatriating act under the provisions of section 349 is no longer presumed to have acted "voluntarily" if the individual has resided in this foreign country more than ten years. This reinforces the importance of the individual's intent in performing such an act as a deliberate intent to lose U.S. citizenship, rather than a mere automatic presumption that such intent existed.


1994 The Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994 amended several sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and took effect on March 1, 1995.


Amended Section 322 permits children born overseas of a U.S. citizen parent to be eligible for a certificate of citizenship if either their U.S. citizen parent or a U.S. citizen grandparent had been physically present in the United States for at least five years, two of which after the age of 14, prior to the child's birth abroad. This provision also applies to a child adopted abroad.


Amended Section 301 (h) gives back U.S. citizenship to a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.


Amended Section 324 (d) (1) allows former U.S. citizens who lost their citizenship through failure to meet the former conditions of physical presence in the United States to retain their citizenship to regain their citizenship without having to file an application for naturalization.


The law also allows U.S. citizen parents to apply for U.S. citizenship from abroad for their foreign-born children under the age of 18, provided the child is physically present in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission when the citizenship is granted.


1998 In Miller vs Albright (decided April 22, 1998), the Supreme Court in a 6:3 decision held that it was constitutional for Section 309 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. Section 1409) to give U.S. citizen mothers more rights to transmit U.S. citizenship to a child born out of wedlock abroad than to U.S. citizen fathers. There were three separate opinions on the majority side and two opinions on the dissenting side.


2000 PL 106-365, "The Child Citizenship Act of 2000" (or Delahunt Act) signed on 30 October 2000, and which takes effect on 27 February 2001 modifies the Immigration and Nationality Act by making it easier for minor children of US citizens (both foreign-born and adopted abroad) to become citizens of the US. The law has the following effects: (a) A child adopted abroad becomes a US citizen immediately upon entry into the US as a lawful permanent resident; and (b) A child born abroad to parents, one or both of whom are US citizens, but who is not recognized as a US citizen for various reasons, can also benefit from the new law, i.e. that child also becomes a US citizen immediately upon entry into the US as a lawful permanent resident. In the case of US parents residing permanently abroad with no immediate intention of returning to the USA with their children (either natural or adopted), it is also possible to file from abroad for immediate naturalization under a revised Section 322 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (also modified by the new law). This procedure enables Americans abroad to obtain US citizenship for their children, not otherwise eligible to be citizens at birth abroad, through a special naturalization procedure, which does not require that they move back to live permanently in the United States. All the papers are filed from abroad, and the American parent and child/children then travel to the chosen District Office in the United States to finalize the process on the day of a previously arranged appointment.

Kenyan Birth Allegations


U.S. CITIZENSHIP LAW AND OVERSEAS AMERICANS

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Barack obama the retroactive citizen


American Patriot Foundation's Legal Defense Fund will pay for all of LTC Lakin's attorneys fees and costs, and so we urgently need your tax deductible contribution. A noted civilian California trial lawyer has now been hired to be LTC Lakin's lead counsel. It is expected these fees and costs will exceed $500,000 and therefore it is essential that LTC Lakin's supporters come to his aid NOW.

MAKE A TAX DEDUCTIBLE CONTRIBUTION NOW TO TERRY'S DEFENSE FUND....CLICK HERE

Safeguard our Constitution

LTC Terry Lakin has tried in vain to get the same verification from our President that he has been asked to provide countless times in his career, for many jobs, and to obtain a security clearance for the trusted positions he has held within the U.S. Armed Forces.


He has put his life on the line all over the world and served with honor, and will be glad to do so again, but only under a Commander in Chief he knows is legally eligible to lead.

(Obama has put his mouth on the line and stumbled through a teleprompter speech. Obama has not served with honor but is a traitor. Obama is commander in chief in title only. He is but a figurehead acting as commander in chief.) Story Reports

LTC Lakin has questioned the President's "natural born" status, as mandated by the U.S. Constitution's Article II, Section 1. After months of seeking answers, he has not received a definitive response either from the Department of Defense or from his Congressional delegation that would assure him of the President's Constitutional eligibility.

LTC Lakin knows Americans want obama to prove he is a US citizen, a natural born citizen, and come out of the closet. LTC Lakin knows obama is a FRAUD and he is trying to force obama to prove he is not a FRAUD. A vigorous defense of this case presents the ONLY present hope that Americans will finally learn whether their president lawfully holds office. In facing court-martial, LTC Lakin is just the latest victim of the determined effort of the President not to provide simple proof of his eligibility under the constitution to hold office.

(Obama can't provide "simple" proof. This is what is really going on. Obama cannot verify nor prove he is eligibile for office, mandated by the Constitution. Its obama VS LTC Lakin. If obama was forced to verify or prove he is a US citizen or natural born citizen LTC would win the case and obama would be removed from office. Obama's orders are null and void as is any document he has signed while in office. Why? Simple, obama is not eligible to be president because he is NOT a natural born citizen. I also believe he was an illegal alien for 33 years until 1994 when he became a citizen because of US law. I said citizen. I did not say natural born citizen as the US Constitution requires.) Story Reports

Is obama eligible to be president? NO

Obama is Not a natural born citizen but a retroactive citizen.

Sufficient questions have been raised to justify a call for Barack Obama to release his original birth certificate. (There are no doctors, nurses, midwives or other witnesses to Ann Dunham giving birth to Barack Obama in Hawaii. In fact, from mid-February 1961 through August 1962, there are no witnesses to or evidence that Ann Dunham was in Hawaii at all.) If the American people are not shown the original birth certificate, his birth in Kenya or elsewhere becomes a clear possibility. And if Obama continues to refuse to allow the state of Hawaii to release the original birth certificate, it begins to look like he was not born in a hospital in Hawaii (as his campaign has claimed) or at home with the assistance of a doctor or midwife.

My conclusion is obama was born outside of the US. The NATURAL BORN CITIZEN issue is back on the back burner. Its a side show as I had previously concluded. Obama has admitted he was born to a Kenyan father and American mother. This alone makes him a FRAUD because obama and the DNC both claim that he is a natural born citizen. This is an impossible fact. Not only is obama NOT a "natural born citizen" obama was an illegal alien at birth because his mother did not qualify him to be an American citizen. Obama was issued a "certification of live birth". A Certification of Live Birth simply says a woman who has a mailing address in Hawaii for at least a year, gave birth and the child is alive. It is not proof of where the child was born. His mother did not qualify him to be an American citizen because of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

If obama was born in Kenya this would explain why he has spent millions hiding his original birth certificate, if one exists. If he was born in Kenya because of The Immigration and Nationality Corrections Act (Public Law 103-416) on October 25, 1994 revised obama would be a US citizen now but was an illegal alien for 33 years!

If obama was born in Kenya in 1961 he was not a US citizen because the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, applied to stanley ann dunham at the time of obama's birth. So obama was a man without a country for 33 years. This is what I believe obama is covering up. This is why obama does not want to provide an original birth certificate including hospital name and doctor name. I don't think this documment exists. Imagine if America would find out they elected a man in Nov 2, 2004 Senator and he only became a citizen in Oct 1994. A retroactive citizen. Not a natural born citizen but a "retroactive citizen:!

This is what obama fears. Obama fears his former "life" as an illegal alien being exposed. Obama was most certainly an illegal alien if he was born outside of the US to a parent who did not qualify for him to be a US citizen at the time of his birth. His mother did not qualify him to be a US citizen at the time of birth. This is what I believe obama fears will come out. Obama claims he was a US citizen from birth but if he was born in Kenya for example he was not born a US citizen because of his mother. If obama was born in Kenya in 1961 he was not a US citizen because the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, applied to stanley ann dunham at the time of obama's birth.

If obama was born in the US he has nothing to hide except the hospital and doctors name.

Obama has not produced evidence of either. There have been statements about his birth at a hospital in Hawaii but NO evidence whatsoever.

This is why I question obama's citizenship. This is why LTC Lakin is betting everything on the fact obama is a FRAUD and his "trial" to expose obama will shed some light on the dark side of obama's origins.

Is obama eligible to be president? NO

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Water World star Kevin Costner, who has spent years and millions of dollars perfecting a device that cleans oil from seawater

 

Kevin Costner Has A Solution To The Oil Spill Clean Up

Kevin Costner is donating a $24 million centrifuge machine to help clean up oil-contaminated water.

After asking for ideas from anyone to solve the Deepwater Horizon oil leak, the petroleum giant has given the go-ahead to begin using a centrifuge machine bankrolled by Kevin Costner, the star of such Hollywood hits as Field of Dreams, Bull Durham and Water World.

According to a WWLTV report out of Louisiana, Costner invested $24 million in the project after the Exxon Valdez oil spill.

The machines, manufactured by Ocean Therapy Solutions, act as a centrifuge, separating the oil from water. The centrifuge makers claim the device can separate 97 percent of the oil from water at a rate of 200 gallons per minute, and that 31 of the devices have already been built.


Could there be a happy Hollywood ending to the Gulf oil spill?

Enter "Waterworld" star Kevin Costner, who has spent years and millions of dollars perfecting a device that cleans oil from seawater.

British Petroleum - desperate for ideas - gave the okay to test six of Costner's gizmos this week, said BP Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles.

Costner's high-speed centrifuge machine has a Los Angeles-perfect name: "Ocean Therapy."

Placed on a barge, it sucks in large quantities of polluted water, separates out the oil and spits back 97% clean water.

"It's like a big vacuum cleaner," said Costner's business partner, Louisiana trial lawyer John Houghtaling.

"The machines are basically sophisticated centrifuge devices that can handle a huge volume of water," he said.

The "Field of Dreams" star first got a team together to create the device in the wake of the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska.

His scientist brother, Dan Costner, helped develop the device, and together, the brothers formed Costner Industries Nevada Corp. to pursue various energy projects, including a non-chemical battery that could last 15 years.

The 55-year-old actor eventually sank $26 million into the Ocean Therapy oil separator project. He obtained a license for the device from the Department of Energy in 1993 and has been trying for years to promote it.

In 2007, he told London's Daily Mail that he had blown millions on "technologies I thought would help the world" and had nothing to show for it.

"I've lost $40 million-plus," he said. "But I knew that if I was right, it would change things in an incredibly positive way."

Last week, he was in Louisiana seeking redemption, demonstrating his Ocean Therapy contraption.

"I'm just really happy that the light of day has come to this," Costner said.

Though reporters largely greeted his ideas with snickers, BP apparently wasn't laughing.

At least 210,000 gallons of oil per day is gushing into the sea from the ocean floor where the BP rig exploded April 20. The oil company has tried several novel solutions, but none has worked so far to plug the leak.

The company is skimming the oil, spraying it with dispersant chemicals underwater and trying to burn it on the surface.

Nineteen percent of the Gulf's lucrative fisheries are closed, billions of beach tourist dollars are at stake and dozens of seagoing species are threatened.

Costner has 300 of his Ocean Therapy machines in various sizes. The largest, at 21/2 tons, is able to clean water at a rate of 200 gallons a minute - faster than the well is leaking, Houghtaling noted.

(Thats 288 thousand gallons of clean water a day. The oil leak is gushing 210,000 \gallons a day. This is just one of his machines. Costner has 300 of various size machines. BP and the government would be crazy not to use these machines if they only do 50% of what Costner claims. Obama is too stupid to use something like this. It will be up to BP I hope to give it a try.) Story Reports

Meanwhile, the 50 or so tar balls that washed up this week in the Florida Keys are not from the BP spill, the Coast Guard announced, temporarily calming tourism jitters.
"The source of the tar balls remains unknown at this time," the Coast Guard said.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said a tendril of oil from the slick entered the Loop Current that leads to the Gulf Stream yesterday, prompting fresh fears for Florida's tourist industry.

A counterclockwise eddy in the Loop Current that might keep the oil contained - at least for now - has been observed, NOAA said.

NOAA set up a "virtual Incident Command Center" in St. Petersburg, Fla., just in case.

If the job had Obama's apppoval, "that is a high crime and misdemeanor."



White House scandal called 'impeachable offense' if what Sestak is saying about obama job offer is true.

Drew Zahn

If a Democratic member of Congress is to be believed, there's someone in the Obama administration who has committed a crime – and if the president knew about it, analysts say it could be grounds for impeachment.

"This scandal could be enormous," said Dick Morris, a former White House adviser to President Bill Clinton, on the Fox News Sean Hannity show last night. "It's Valerie Plame only 10 times bigger, because it's illegal and Joe Sestak is either lying or the White House committed a crime.

"Obviously, the offer of a significant job in the White House could not be made unless it was by Rahm Emanuel or cleared with Rahm Emanuel," he said. If the job offer was high enough that it also had Obama's apppoval, "that is a high crime and misdemeanor."

"In other words, an impeachable offense?" Hannity asked.

"Absolutely," said Morris.

The controversy revolves around an oft-repeated statement by Rep. Sestak, D-Pa., that he had been offered a job by the Obama administration in exchange for dropping out of the senatorial primary against Obama supporter Sen. Arlen Specter.

Sestak said he refused the offer. He continued in the Senate primary and defeated Specter for the Democratic nomination.

But Karl Rove, longtime White House adviser to President George W. Bush, said the charge is explosive because of federal law.

"This is a pretty extraordinary charge: 'They tried to bribe me out of the race by offering me a job,'" he said on Greta Van Susteran's "On the Record" program on the Fox News Channel. "Look, that's a violation of the federal code: 18 USC 600 says that a federal official cannot promise employment, a job in the federal government, in return for a political act.

(Wow, obama and Rahm Emanuel bribed Rep. Sestak, D-Pa and offered a job in exchange for dropping out of the senatorial primary against Obama supporter Sen. Arlen Specter. Obama should be impeached if this is true. Obama should be impeached anyway for incompetence and failure to accomplish anything but parrot the words off a teleprompter.) Story Reports

"Somebody violated the law. If Sestak is telling the truth, somebody violated the law," Rove said. "Section 18 USC 211 says you cannot accept anything of value in return for hiring somebody. Well, arguably, providing a clear path to the nomination for a fellow Democrat is something of value.

He continued, citing a third law passage: "18 USC 595, which prohibits a federal official from interfering with the nomination or election for office. ... 'If you'll get out, we'll appoint you to a federal office,' – that's a violation of the law."

"I've said all I'm going to say on the matter. … Others need to explain whatever their role might be," Sestak said on CNN this week. "I have a personal accountability; I should have for my role in the matter, which I talked about. Beyond that, I'll let others talk about their role."

That's not fulfilling his responsibilities, Rove said. He said Sestak needs to be forthcoming with the full story so "the American people can figure out whether or not he's participating in a criminal cover-up along with federal officials."

The Obama White House has tried to minimize the issue.

(Obamagate has begun. Obama is trying to minimize the issue because obama could be impeached.) Story Reports

"Lawyers in the White House and others have looked into conversations that were had with Congressman Sestak, and nothing inappropriate happened," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has stated.

Gibbs told the White House press corps, "Whatever conversations have been had are not problematic."

And on CBS' "Face the Nation" he said, "I'm not going to get further into what the conversations were. People who looked into them assure me they weren't inappropriate in any way."

(Almost everything obama says or does is just the opposite of what he says or does. If gibbs says nothing inappropriate happed in conversations with Sestak and Sestak says he was bribed I think obama is lying. If gibbs, speaking for obama, says the conversations are not problematic, they are problematic. If gibbs says, speaking for obama, people looked into the conversations and assure me they are not inappropriate, they were inappropriate as congressman Sestak says they were. Sestak is accusing obama of offering him a job if he would drop out of a senate race. A bribe. Lets hope Sestak isn't found to have taken an asprin overdose or some other accident.) Story Reports

But the administration also is taking no chances on what might be discovered.

According to Politico, the Justice Department has rejected a request from Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., for a special counsel to investigate and reveal the truth of the controversy.

The report said Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich confirmed no special counsel would be needed. But the report said Weich also gave no indication that the Justice Department actually was looking into the claims by Sestak.

"We assure you that the Department of Justice takes very seriously allegations of criminal conduct by public officials. All such matters are reviewed carefully by career prosecutors and law enforcement agents, and appropriate action, if warranted, is taken," Weich wrote in the letter.

Issa had suggested that the alleged job offer may run afoul of federal bribery statutes.

He said in a statement to Politico, "The attorney general's refusal to take action in the face of such felonious allegations undermines any claim to transparency and integrity that this administration asserts."

"The bottom line is all fingers are being pointed back to the White House," he said in a statement released as ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

"This Chicago-style politicking is an assault on our democracy and is downright criminal. President Obama faces a critical choice – he can either live up to his rhetoric of transparency and accountability by disclosing who inside his White House tried to manipulate an election by bribing a U.S. Congressman or he can allow his administration to continue this stonewalling and relinquish the mantle of change and transparency he is so fond of speaking on."

Issa suggested, "Could the reason why Congressman Joe Sestak refuses to name names is because the very people who tried to bribe him are now his benefactors? For months, Sestak has repeatedly said without equivocation that the White House illegally offered him a federal job in exchange for dropping out of the race. Was Joe Sestak embellishing what really happened, or does he have first-hand knowledge of the White House breaking the law? If what he said is the truth, Joe Sestak has a moral imperative to come forward and expose who within the Obama Administration tried to bribe him."

Michael Steele, the Republican National Committee chairman, as well as Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, have joined the chorus suggesting the White House needs to answer some questions.

Former judge Andrew Napolitano, an analyst for Fox News, said the level of the offer simply isn't an issue.

"It wouldn't matter if it was a job as a janitor. Offering him anything of value to get him to leave a political race is a felony, punishable by five years in jail," he said.

The Section 600 statute states:

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

(I'll settle for impeachment of a fraud. I don't see anything happening on this issue unless Joe Sestak is made to name names and it turns into something obama can't control. Either Sestak is lying or gibbs, speaking for obama, is lying. Lets keep an eye on Sestak. He should be indicted. If a chicken sandwich can be indicted ,Sistak can. Then maybe he will start singing about obama.) Story Reports

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee have asked Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate allegations that the White House offered a job to Rep. Joe Sestak to drop out of the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate primary.

The Republicans, led by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), ranking member of the panel, sent a letter to Holder on Wednesday, asking the Justice Department to investigate the Sestak claim and determine whether a crime was committed. House Republicans have made a similar request, and were rebuffed by Justice.

Sestak, a Democrat, defeated incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) last week for the party's Senate nomination. Since then, Sestak has continually deflected questions on who offered him what job in the Obama administration, although he has repeatedly confirmed that the incident did occur.

Seeking a chance to pick up the Pennsylvania Senate seat, Republicans have pressed both Sestak and the White House to provide more information on the incident, which took place sometime in mid-2009, according to Sestak.

The Justice Department has already rejected a call from Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, to appoint a special counsel to investigate the Sestak incident.

(If it was a democrate requesting a republican administration justice dept to appoint a special counsel all the state run media would be sceeming for blood. The fact obama is not smells like BO again. If BO has nothing to hide and he did not bribe Sestak why stonewall?) Story Reports

Yes it is a a federal crime.

The Section 600 statute states:

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Live view of BP oil gusher in the gulf




Live video link from the ROV monitoring the damaged riser.

This oil gusher reminds me of the waste obama and the DNC gushes forth in the form of wasteful spending and lies.

Americans will "choke off" the socialist agenda of obama and the dnc in Nov.








Release date: 26 May 2010
BP today provided an update on developments in the response to the MC252 oil well incident in the Gulf of Mexico.

Subsea efforts continue to focus on progressing options to stop the flow of oil from the well through interventions via the blow out preventer (BOP), and to collect the flow of oil from the leak points. These efforts are being carried out in conjunction with industry experts and governmental authorities.

A series of diagnostic tests are currently underway on the Deepwater Horizon’s failed BOP to improve understanding of the status and configuration of the BOP and determine whether a ‘top kill’ procedure can be successfully executed. These tests involve pumping drilling fluids into the BOP to measure pressures and validate flow paths. When complete, a decision will be made on the execution of the top kill procedure itself.
This top kill procedure has not been carried out offshore at 5,000 feet water depth before, and its success cannot be assured. It is expected that the entire procedure could take up to two days, and it cannot be predicted how long it will take for the operation to prove successful or otherwise. Should it be necessary, plans and equipment are in place to combine the top kill process with the injection under pressure of bridging material into the BOP to prevent or limit upward flow through the BOP.

BP will continue to provide a live video feed from the seabed through the diagnostic testing and top kill, if undertaken. Throughout the diagnostic process and top kill procedure very significant changes in the appearance of the flows at the seabed will be expected. These will not provide a reliable indicator of the overall progress, or success or failure, of the top kill operation as a whole.

Should the top kill not succeed in fully stopping the flow of oil and gas from the well, BP would then intend to move forward to deployment of the LMRP cap containment system.
Deployment of this system will involve first removing the damaged riser from the top of the BOP to leave a cleanly-cut pipe at the top of the BOP’s lower marine riser package (LMRP). The LMRP cap, an engineered containment device with a sealing grommet, would then be connected to a riser from the Discoverer Enterprise drillship and then placed over the existing LMRP with the intention of capturing most of the oil and gas flowing from the well.

The LMRP cap is already on site and it is anticipated that this option will be available for deployment by the end of May.

Additional options also continue to be progressed, including the option of lowering a second blow-out preventer, or a valve, on top of the failed Deepwater Horizon BOP.

Work on the drilling of two relief wells, begun on May 2 and May 16, continues. Each of the wells is estimated to take some three months to complete from the commencement of drilling.

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Birth Certificate and Citizenship Law when Obama was Born


Fukino could not have seen obama's "Certificate of Live Birth" because obama was issued a "Certification of Live Birth". A "Certificate of Live Birth" was issued to a child born overseas when a woman who has a mailing address in Hawaii for at least a year, gave birth and the child is alive. Fukino did NOT say she had seen a "Certificate of Live Birth" "vital record" on file in Hawaii. Why? IT DOES NOT EXIST!

Obama has a "certification of live birth", this was issued to a child born overseas when a woman who has a mailing address in Hawaii for at least a year, gave birth and the child is alive. Obama does not have a "certificate of live birth" which is issued to a Hawaiian citizen when they are born in Hawaii in an Hawaiian hospital.

So obama's "certification of live birth" only proves that he was not born in Hawaii at in a hospital because it is issued to a child that was born overseas when a woman who has a mailing address in Hawaii for at least a year, gave birth and the child is alive.

Obama has issued no proof he was born in an Hawaiian hospital. A "certification of live birth" is only proof his mother or other relative sent in an application for a child born out of the USA.

The proof obama is a FRAUD is posted on his web site "fight the smears". If obama had a "certificate of live birth" he could have posted that form without the need to redact any "vital record" information. This would indicate the hospital, mother and fathers name, attendant, and signature of registrar making it an offical document. The "certification of live birth" obama has posted on the web has none of these items. Obama is a FRAUD that wants you to believe he was born in Hawaii but he was born overseas in another country. Most likely he was born in Kenya. His mother did not qualify him to be an American citizen because of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Obama was an ILLEGAL ALIEN for 33 years until The Immigration and Nationality Corrections Act (Public Law 103-416) on October 25, 1994 was revised. On this date obama became a US citizen but not a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

Yes its true, the "certification of live birth" did not qualify obama to be an American citizen because his mother in 1961 did not qualify him to be an American citizen because of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

The elephant in the room is the "certification of live birth". It not a valid document because did not qualify obama to be an American citizen. His mother in 1961 did not qualify him to be an American citizen because of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

Obama committed FRAUD for 33 years claiming he was an American citizen. Obama should not have qualifed to be a "citizen" because of The Immigration and Nationality Corrections Act (Public Law 103-416) on October 25, 1994 revised. Remember obama claimed for 33 years he was a citizen of Hawaii and was born in Hawaii. Obama has been issued a form for a child born overseas. Obama does not have a long form "certificate of live birth". Obama cannot prove he was born in an Hawaiian hospital. Obama cannot prove who the attending doctor was. Obama cannot prove who the registrar was. Obama cannot prove the date he was born. Obama cannot prove his mother or father signed a "certificate of live birth". Obama cannot prove ANYTHING concerning his birth in Hawaii at a hospital.

Obama has proved he was not born in the USA because he was issued a "certification of live birth". A form issued to a child born overseas. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 did not qualify obama to be a US citizen. Obama should never have been issued a "certification of live birth". Obama was an illegal alien at birth. Obama was an illegal alien for 33 years and because of fraud should not have qualifed to a "citizen" because of The Immigration and Nationality Corrections Act (Public Law 103-416) on October 25, 1994 revised.



Fukino says she has seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaiian state dept of health but in 2001 – the state of Hawaii Health Department went paperless.*Paper documents were discarded*. What original vital records did Fukino see? No one in America knows except Fukino. Fukino must have viewed "discarded" vital records. All anyone needed in 1961 was a drivers license to get a "fake" birth certificate issued.
*****************************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************************
Obama says he has a Certification of Live Birth. Obama does not have a Certificate of Live Birth. One ends in a “e” one with an “ion”. They are VERY different documents. The state of Hawaii web sight says directly it does not accept Certification of Live Birth as proof of place of birth. Many people born overseas to Hawaii residents have Certificates of Live Birth. A Certification of Live Birth simply says a woman who has a mailing address in Hawaii for at least a year, gave birth and the child is alive. It is not proof of where the child was born. If Obama had been born in Hawaii he would have Certificate of Live Birth not a Certification of Live Birth.. Nobody that I know of has ever shown proof of a "Certificate of Live Birth" being issued to a child born overseas.
*****************************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************************

The previous conclusion I made was correct. I do believe obama was an illegal alien, for 33 years, but as the following article explains it is because, in 1961, if 17 year old Ann Dunham gave birth to a child on foreign soil whose father was not an American citizen, then the Immigration and Nationality Act at that time denied Barack Obama any right to American citizenship of any kind. My previous conclusion and understanding led me to believe the law, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, applied to stanley ann dunham in the US. This law applied to a child born outside of the US. Evidence points to the conclusion obama was born outside the US.

If, in 1961, 17 year old Ann Dunham gave birth to a child on foreign soil whose father was not an American citizen, then the Immigration and Nationality Act at that time denied Barack Obama any right to American citizenship of any kind.

My conclusion is obama was born outside of the US. The NATURAL BORN CITIZEN issue is back on the back burner. Its a side show as I had previously concluded. Obama has admitted he was born to a Kenyan father and American mother. This alone makes him a FRAUD because obama and the DNC both claim that he is a natural born citizen. This is an impossible fact. Not only is obama NOT a "natural born citizen" obama was an illegal alien at birth because his mother did not qualify him to be an American citizen. Obama was issued a "certification of live birth". A Certification of Live Birth simply says a woman who has a mailing address in Hawaii for at least a year, gave birth and the child is alive. It is not proof of where the child was born. His mother did not qualify him to be an American citizen because of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

If obama was born in Kenya this would explain why he has spent millions hiding his original birth certificate, if one exists. If he was born in Kenya because of The Immigration and Nationality Corrections Act (Public Law 103-416) on October 25, 1994 revised obama would be a US citizen now but was an illegal alien for 33 years!

If obama was born in Kenya in 1961 he was not a US citizen because the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, applied to stanley ann dunham at the time of obama's birth. So obama was a man without a country for 33 years. This is what I believe obama is covering up. This is why obama does not want to provide an orignal birth certificate including hospital name and doctor name. I don't think this documment exists. Imagine if America would find out they elected a man in Nov 2, 2004 Senator and he only became a citizen in Oct 1994. A retroactive citizen. Not a natural born citizen but a "retroactive citizen:!


The Immigration and Nationality Corrections Act (Public Law 103-416) on October 25, 1994 revised this law to accommodate “a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years”.

But in 1961, if Barack Obama had been born outside of the country, the only way to get citizenship for him would be to take advantage of the loopholes in the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act.

The Immigration and Nationality Act was changed 33 years after he was born. The law was retroactively changed to grant citizenship (but not “natural-born” citizenship) to some of those who had at birth been denied it.

*In 2001 – the state of Hawaii Health Department went paperless.*Paper documents were discarded*The official record of Obama’s birth is now an official ELECTRONIC record Janice Okubo, spokeswoman for the Health Department told the Honolulu Star Bulletin, “At that time, all information for births from 1908 (on) was put into electronic files for consistent reporting,” she said.

Under Section 57 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii (which was in effect in 1961), a mailed-in form (without mention of a hospital, doctor, or midwife) signed by one of his parents (who could have been out of the country and pre-signed a form or whose signature could have been forged by a grandparent) would have been enough to set up a birth record and a birth certificate at the Dept of Health.

(This mailed in form and any other documents were discarded. If this mailed in form was not destroyed it could provide evidence obama was born out of the US. This would be the missing "original" "birth certificate" minus any doctor or hospital name signed by just one parent or relative.) Story Reports

.........................................................................................
Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility Updated

From Western Journalism

Birth Certificate and Citizenship Law when Obama was Born

Under Section 57 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii (which was in effect in 1961), a mailed-in form (without mention of a hospital, doctor, or midwife) signed by one of his parents (who could have been out of the country and pre-signed a form or whose signature could have been forged by a grandparent) would have been enough to set up a birth record and a birth certificate at the Dept of Health. The Dept of Health would then have automatically sent the names of the parents, their address as given on the mailed-in form , the gender of the child, and the date of birth to the Honolulu Advertiser and Star-Bulletin. (The address given for the parents in the newspaper announcements is actually, however, the August 1961 home address of Obama’s maternal grandparents Stanley and Madelyn Dunham [6085 Kalanianaole Highway], and not the 1961 home address of Barack Obama, Sr. [625 11th Ave].) This notification would then have automatically generated the newspaper announcements. (This was the practice of the Honolulu Advertiser and Star-Bulletin at the time).

This meager birth record would also be enough to generate the computer-generated Certifications of Live Birth in 2007 and 2008. This series of events is certainly possible. It is also the most likely explanation for Obama’s refusal to request and release (or authorize the release of) his original birth certificate. When these considerations are placed next to the statements by Sarah Onyango Obama, Peter Ogego (the Kenyan ambassador to the U.S), and now a Kenyan cabinet minister, James Orengo, in the Kenyan Parliament that Barack Obama was born in Kenya (on page 31 of the following pdf

http://www.bunge.go.ke/parliament/downloads/tenth_forth_sess/Hansard/RDRAFT25.03P.pdf

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=139481

Sufficient questions have been raised to justify a call for Barack Obama to release his original birth certificate. (There are no doctors, nurses, midwives or other witnesses to Ann Dunham giving birth to Barack Obama in Hawaii. In fact, from mid-February 1961 through August 1962, there are no witnesses to or evidence that Ann Dunham was in Hawaii at all.) If the American people are not shown the original birth certificate, his birth in Kenya or elsewhere becomes a clear possibility. And if Obama continues to refuse to allow the state of Hawaii to release the original birth certificate, it begins to look like he was not born in a hospital in Hawaii (as his campaign has claimed) or at home with the assistance of a doctor or midwife.

When you actually look closely at the carefully lawyered statements by the Hawaiian Dept of Health, all that its director is willing to assert is that she has “personally seen and verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” But according to the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii, no hospital’s name, or doctor’s or midwife’s statement was necessary to establish an original birth certificate.

Now, if it should turn out that there is no hospital or physician record in the original birth certificate, then of course Barack Obama wasn’t born in a hospital in Hawaii. And a home birth or non-hospital birth can then probably be ruled out for the following reason.

When someone has a home birth or is not born in a hospital, this becomes a part of his family’s lore and is now and again spoken of by his parents. He and his siblings grow up knowing that he was born at home or his uncle’s house, etc. The fact that someone in the campaign told a Washington Post reporter that he was born in Kapioliani hospital and his sister said he was born at Queens hospital indicates that there was not and is not any Obama/Dunham family memory of a home birth or non-hospital birth in Hawaii.

A reasonable person would acknowledge that there are serious reasons to doubt that Barack Obama was born in the United States and to ask why the more substantial evidence that the media assume exists, has not been provided. This is especially true because, if Obama was born in a foreign country, his family had a compelling reason to lie about it.

In 1961 if a 17 year old American girl gave birth in a foreign country to a child whose father was not an American citizen, that child had no right to any American citizenship, let alone the “natural born” citizenship that qualifies someone for the Presidency under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.

In 1961, the year that Barack Obama was born, under Sec. 301 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Ann Dunham could not transmit citizenship of any kind to Barack Obama.

“ 7 FAM 1133.2-2 Original Provisions and Amendments to Section 301

(CT:CON-204; 11-01-2007)

“a. Section 301 as Effective on December 24, 1952: When enacted in 1952, section 301 required a U.S. citizen married to an alien to have been physically present in the United States for ten years, including five after reaching the age of fourteen, to transmit citizenship to foreign-born children. The ten-year transmission requirement remained in effect from 12:01 a.m. EDT December 24, 1952, through midnight November 13, 1986, and still is applicable to persons born during that period.

“As originally enacted, section 301(a)(7) stated: Section 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.”

The Immigration and Nationality Corrections Act (Public Law 103-416) on October 25, 1994 revised this law to accommodate “a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years”.

But in 1961, if Barack Obama had been born outside of the country, the Dunham family had no way of knowing that in 1994 Congress would pass a law that would retroactively make him a citizen. At that time, the only way to get citizenship for him would be to take advantage of the loopholes in the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act.

People can debate the meaning of the term “natural-born citizen” as long as they like but this is clear: If, in 1961, 17 year old Ann Dunham gave birth to a child on foreign soil whose father was not an American citizen, then the Immigration and Nationality Act at that time denied Barack Obama any right to American citizenship of any kind. Therefore if at the time of his birth Obama was ineligible for American citizenship of any kind, then he cannot be a “natural-born citizen”. This is true even if the Immigration and Nationality Act was changed 33 years after he was born. Even if the law was retroactively changed to grant citizenship (but not “natural-born” citizenship) to some of those who had at birth been denied it. If a person is not at the time of his birth an American citizen, he cannot be a natural-born citizen. Therefore, that person is ineligible under Article II, Section 1 for the Office of President of the United States.

Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility Updated

In December ‘08 a retired CIA officer commissioned an investigator to look into the Barack Obama birth certificate and eligibility issue. On July 21, 2009 westernjournalism.com obtained a copy of the investigator’s report and published it. Thousands have since read the report. The report is featured as one of the Key Documents on the safeguardourconstitution.com website that is maintained by the American Patriot Foundation that supports Lieutenant Colonel Terry Lakin.

Lieutenant Colonel Lakin is refusing to deploy as ordered to Afghanistan until Obama permits the Hawaii Department of Health to release his original birth certificate to support the claim that he is a natural born citizen and thereby meets the eligibility requirement for his office mandated by the Constitution. This may lead to Lakin’s facing a court-martial.

Much new information has surfaced since the original publication and the investigator recently submitted to us an updated version of the report. Even if you have read it before, please consider reading the updated version that includes this new information. The situation for Lt Col Lakin is grave and we salute his courage, and we reaffirm the accuracy of this important research.—The Editors

Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility

Most people think of an original birth certificate as a state or hospital document containing a statement by a doctor or midwife. The hospital document usually is accompanied by a footprint.

No one has ever presented any evidence that such a document has ever existed in the United States for Barack Obama. The Hawaii Dept of Health refuses to give a yes or no answer to the question whether they have such a document on file.

Instead of the birth certificate on file at the Hawaii Dept of Health, the Obama campaign posted on the Daily Kos blog and the Fightthesmears website a “Certification of Live Birth”. This Certification of Live Birth is not a copy of the original birth certificate. It is a computer-generated document that the state of Hawaii issues on request to indicate that a birth certificate of some type is “on record in accordance with state policies and procedures”. And there is the problem. As will be shown below, given the statutes in force in 1961, the Certification of Live Birth proves nothing unless we know what is on the original birth certificate. There are several legal areas (involving ethnic quotas and subsidy) for which the state of Hawaii up until June 2009 did not accept its computer-generated Certification of Live Birth as sufficient proof of birth in Hawaii or parentage. Why should the citizens of the United States be content with lower standards for ascertaining the qualifications of their President than were required by the Department of Hawaiian Homelands for ascertaining whether an applicant for its programs was born in Hawaii?

Obama has refused to allow the Hawaii Dept of Health to release his original birth certificate. The Hawaii Dept of Health has refused to provide any information about the hospital, or doctor, or midwife. It also refuses to confirm whether it has on record any information about a hospital, or doctor or midwife.

Jonathan Alter, senior editor at Newsweek magazine, told Keith Olbermann on MSNBC on Feb 20, 2009 that “They [the Republicans] are a party that is out of ideas so they have to resort to these lies about the fact that he’s not a citizen. This came up during the campaign, Keith. The Obama campaign actually posted his birth certificate from a Hawaii hospital online.” But it is Alter who resorted to lying to the American people on television. “The Obama campaign” never “actually posted his birth certificate from a Hawaii hospital online.”

On July 17, 2009 CNN’s Kitty Pilgrim lied when she stated that the Obama campaign had produced “the original birth certificate” on the internet and that FactCheck.org had examined the original birth certificate. The Certification of Live Birth that was posted by the campaign and FactCheck.org is not, and by definition, cannot be the original birth certificate or a copy of the original birth certificate. It contains no space for the signature of a doctor or midwife. It contains no space for the hospital or house where Barack Obama was born. There is no space on the Certification for any probative evidence that can be checked up on to see whether the Certification is valid. There were no computer generated Certifications of Live Birth in 1961, the year Obama was born.

Obama’s original birth certificate was a very different document from this Certification of Live Birth on FactCheck.org. that Kitty Pilgrim, Chris Matthews, Jonathan Alter, and Keith Olbermann have waved around to end the discussion. On the FactCheck.org web site, the claim is made that “FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate.” They only saw and touched the Certification of Live Birth. So FactCheck.org is lying about this as well.

FactCheck.org gets its prestige from a reputation for objectivity. Why would those who run this site choose to tell so obvious a lie and so endanger the site’s reputation? The answer is in the date of the posting, August 21, 2008. It was in mid-August that questions about the Certification of Live Birth began to reach a critical mass and threaten to enter the public discourse. The mostly pro-Obama television and newspaper/magazine media had to be given an excuse and cover for their collective decision to dismiss or ignore the substantial questions about whether Obama met the qualifications for the office set forth in Article II section I of the Constitution. And those reporters and editors who were not in the tank for Obama had to be deceived. After Labor Day the swing voters would begin to pay attention to the Presidential campaign. The truth had to be killed. And with its lie about “how it examined and photographed the original birth certificate“, FactCheck.org killed it.

Birth Certificate and Citizenship Law when Obama was Born


Under Section 57 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii (which was in effect in 1961), a mailed-in form (without mention of a hospital, doctor, or midwife) signed by one of his parents (who could have been out of the country and pre-signed a form or whose signature could have been forged by a grandparent) would have been enough to set up a birth record and a birth certificate at the Dept of Health. The Dept of Health would then have automatically sent the names of the parents, their address as given on the mailed-in form , the gender of the child, and the date of birth to the Honolulu Advertiser and Star-Bulletin. (The address given for the parents in the newspaper announcements is actually, however, the August 1961 home address of Obama’s maternal grandparents Stanley and Madelyn Dunham [6085 Kalanianaole Highway], and not the 1961 home address of Barack Obama, Sr. [625 11th Ave].) This notification would then have automatically generated the newspaper announcements. (This was the practice of the Honolulu Advertiser and Star-Bulletin at the time).

This meager birth record would also be enough to generate the computer-generated Certifications of Live Birth in 2007 and 2008. This series of events is certainly possible. It is also the most likely explanation for Obama’s refusal to request and release (or authorize the release of) his original birth certificate. When these considerations are placed next to the statements by Sarah Onyango Obama, Peter Ogego (the Kenyan ambassador to the U.S), and now a Kenyan cabinet minister, James Orengo, in the Kenyan Parliament that Barack Obama was born in Kenya (on page 31 of the following pdf

http://www.bunge.go.ke/parliament/downloads/tenth_forth_sess/Hansard/RDRAFT25.03P.pdf

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=139481

sufficient questions have been raised to justify a call for Barack Obama to release his original birth certificate. (There are no doctors, nurses, midwives or other witnesses to Ann Dunham giving birth to Barack Obama in Hawaii. In fact, from mid-February 1961 through August 1962, there are no witnesses to or evidence that Ann Dunham was in Hawaii at all.) If the American people are not shown the original birth certificate, his birth in Kenya or elsewhere becomes a clear possibility. And if Obama continues to refuse to allow the state of Hawaii to release the original birth certificate, it begins to look like he was not born in a hospital in Hawaii (as his campaign has claimed) or at home with the assistance of a doctor or midwife.

When you actually look closely at the carefully lawyered statements by the Hawaiian Dept of Health, all that its director is willing to assert is that she has “personally seen and verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” But according to the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii, no hospital’s name, or doctor’s or midwife’s statement was necessary to establish an original birth certificate.

Now, if it should turn out that there is no hospital or physician record in the original birth certificate, then of course Barack Obama wasn’t born in a hospital in Hawaii. And a home birth or non-hospital birth can then probably be ruled out for the following reason.

When someone has a home birth or is not born in a hospital, this becomes a part of his family’s lore and is now and again spoken of by his parents. He and his siblings grow up knowing that he was born at home or his uncle’s house, etc. The fact that someone in the campaign told a Washington Post reporter that he was born in Kapioliani hospital and his sister said he was born at Queens hospital indicates that there was not and is not any Obama/Dunham family memory of a home birth or non-hospital birth in Hawaii.

A reasonable person would acknowledge that there are serious reasons to doubt that Barack Obama was born in the United States and to ask why the more substantial evidence that the media assume exists, has not been provided. This is especially true because, if Obama was born in a foreign country, his family had a compelling reason to lie about it.

In 1961 if a 17 year old American girl gave birth in a foreign country to a child whose father was not an American citizen, that child had no right to any American citizenship, let alone the “natural born” citizenship that qualifies someone for the Presidency under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.

In 1961, the year that Barack Obama was born, under Sec. 301 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Ann Dunham could not transmit citizenship of any kind to Barack Obama.

“ 7 FAM 1133.2-2 Original Provisions and Amendments to Section 301

(CT:CON-204; 11-01-2007)

“a. Section 301 as Effective on December 24, 1952: When enacted in 1952, section 301 required a U.S. citizen married to an alien to have been physically present in the United States for ten years, including five after reaching the age of fourteen, to transmit citizenship to foreign-born children. The ten-year transmission requirement remained in effect from 12:01 a.m. EDT December 24, 1952, through midnight November 13, 1986, and still is applicable to persons born during that period.

“As originally enacted, section 301(a)(7) stated: Section 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.”

The Immigration and Nationality Corrections Act (Public Law 103-416) on October 25, 1994 revised this law to accommodate “a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years”.

But in 1961, if Barack Obama had been born outside of the country, the Dunham family had no way of knowing that in 1994 Congress would pass a law that would retroactively make him a citizen. At that time, the only way to get citizenship for him would be to take advantage of the loopholes in the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act.

People can debate the meaning of the term “natural-born citizen” as long as they like but this is clear: If, in 1961, 17 year old Ann Dunham gave birth to a child on foreign soil whose father was not an American citizen, then the Immigration and Nationality Act at that time denied Barack Obama any right to American citizenship of any kind. Therefore if at the time of his birth Obama was ineligible for American citizenship of any kind, then he cannot be a “natural-born citizen”. This is true even if the Immigration and Nationality Act was changed 33 years after he was born. Even if the law was retroactively changed to grant citizenship (but not “natural-born” citizenship) to some of those who had at birth been denied it. If a person is not at the time of his birth an American citizen, he cannot be a natural-born citizen. Therefore, that person is ineligible under Article II, Section 1 for the Office of President of the United States.

Obama’s Passport File

It should be added that “Obama’s top terrorism and intelligence adviser”, John O. Brennan, heads a firm that was cited in March 2008 for breaching sensitive files in the State Department’s passport office, according to a State Department Inspector General’s report released this past July.

“The security breach, first reported by the Washington Times and later confirmed by State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, involved a contract employee of Brennan’s firm, The Analysis Corp., which has earned millions of dollars providing intelligence-related consulting services to federal agencies and private companies.

“During a State Department briefing on March 21, 2008, McCormack confirmed that the contractor had accessed the passport files of presidential candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and John McCain, and that the inspector general had launched an investigation.

“Sources who tracked the investigation tell Newsmax that the main target of the breach was the Obama passport file, and that the contractor accessed the file in order to ‘cauterize’ the records of potentially embarrassing information.

“ ‘They looked at the McCain and Clinton files as well to create confusion,’ one knowledgeable source told Newsmax. ‘But this was basically an attempt to cauterize the Obama file.’

“At the time of the breach, Brennan was working as an unpaid adviser to the Obama campaign.

” ‘This individual’s actions were taken without the knowledge or direction of anyone at The Analysis Corp. and are wholly inconsistent with our professional and ethical standards,’ Brennan’s company said in a statement sent to reporters after the passport breach was made public.

“The passport files include ‘personally identifiable information such as the applicant’s name, gender, social security number, date and place of birth, and passport number,’ according to the inspector general report.

“The files may contain additional information including ‘original copies of the associated documents,’ the report added. Such documents include birth certificates, naturalization certificates, or oaths of allegiance for U.S.-born persons who adopted the citizenship of a foreign country as minors.”

“The State Department Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a 104-page report on the breach last July. Although it is stamped ‘Sensitive but Unclassified,’ the report was heavily redacted in the version released to the public, with page after page blacked out entirely.”

http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/brennan_passport_breach/2009/01/12/170430.html

The following may be relevant:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/apr/19/key-witness-in-passport-fraud-case-fatally-shot/

Key witness in passport fraud case fatally shot

Saturday, April 19, 2008

“A key witness in a federal probe into passport information stolen from the State Department was fatally shot in front of a District church, the Metropolitan Police Department said yesterday.

“Lt. Quarles Harris Jr., 24, who had been cooperating with a federal investigators, was found late Thursday night slumped dead inside a car, in front of the Judah House Praise Baptist Church in Northeast, said Cmdr. Michael Anzallo, head of the department’s Criminal Investigations Division.

“Cmdr. Anzallo said a police officer was patrolling the neighborhood when gunshots were heard, then Lt. Harris was found dead inside the vehicle, which investigators would describe only as a blue car.

“Emergency medics pronounced him dead at the scene.

“City police said they do not know whether his death was a direct result of his cooperation with federal investigators.

“We don’t have any information right now that connects his murder to that case,” Cmdr. Anzallo said.

“Police say a “shot spotter” device helped an officer locate Lt. Harris.

“A State Department spokeswoman yesterday declined to comment, saying the investigation into the passport fraud is ongoing.

“The Washington Times reported April 5 that contractors for the State Department had improperly accessed passport information for presidential candidates Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain, which resulted in a series of firings that reached into the agency’s top ranks.

“One agency employee, who was not identified in documents filed in U.S. District Court, was implicated in a credit-card fraud scheme after Lt. Harris told federal authorities he obtained “passport information from a co-conspirator who works for the U.S. Department of State.” “

There is a possibility that the breaches of the passport files associated with the “credit-card fraud scheme” were a cover for or associated with the breaches of the passport files by the employee of Brennan’s Analysis Corp.

Protecting Hawaii’s Favorite Son

Until June 2009, the reasonable doubts about where Obama was born could have quickly and finally been resolved if he had authorized the release by the Hawaiian Dept of Health of his original birth certificate or else applied for it himself and released it to the media. But as these doubts have increased and reached the point where they are no longer a “fringe” phenomenon, the Hawaiian state govt has recently taken certain steps that would create procedural and possibly legal barriers to a resolution of the controversy.

On June 7, 2009, a spokeswoman for the Hawaii Department of Health, Janice Okubo, announced that “The state Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past. The department only issues ‘certifications’ of live births, and that is the ‘official birth certificate’ issued by the state of Hawaii, she said. ” [Honolulu Star Bulletin] http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html

This 2009 announcement sets up a way for the bureaucracy to stonewall any requests by Obama’s relatives or other interested parties who, before the change in policy, had a right to obtain his original birth certificate. (Now they will be fobbed off with the certification of live birth which the Dept of Health has now declared to be the ” ‘official birth certificate’ issued by the state of Hawaii”, a very dodgy bureaucratic maneuver that I doubt would stand up in a court of law if a relative contested it.) It also violated the long-standing right of all Hawaiian citizens to obtain copies of their original birth certificates. This right was often a legal necessity.

As late as June 10, 2009, the Department of Hawaiian Homelands insisted that it would not accept the Certification of Live Birth as adequate proof of birth in Hawaii. All applicants for its special programs had to present an original birth certificate, and the Department of Hawaiian Homelands described the simple procedure by which the original birth certificate could be obtained from the Department of Health. This was the statement on their website on June 10, 2009:

“In order to process your application, DHHL [Department of Hawaiian Homelands] utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.

“Please note that DOH [Department of Health] no longer offers same day service. If you plan on picking up your certified DOH document(s), you should allow at least 10 working days for DOH to process your request(s), OR four to six weeks if you want your certified certificate(s) mailed to you.”
On July 8, 2009 the web site World Net Daily accurately reported that “The state, which had excluded the controversial document [the Certification of Live Birth] as proof of native Hawaiian status, has changed its policy and now makes a point of including it.”

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103408

Here is the new statement on the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands web site [July 8, 2009]. “The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth [original birth certificates] and Certifications of Live Birth … Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.

The web site theobamafile.com picked up this significant change in procedure on the Dept of Hawaiian Homelands website on June 18, 2009. http://www.theobamafile.com/_BogusPOTUS/20090608.htm#HawaiiRuleChange

Sometime between June 10, 2009 and June 18, 2009 the state of Hawaii changed its long-standing rule on what documents and data were necessary to prove a birth in Hawaii for the Dept of Hawaiian Homelands, thereby upgrading the apparent status of the Certification of Live Birth which it had formerly regarded as insufficiently probative. Why?

A family that I am acquainted with has a child who was born in Hawaii in December 2008. They filled out and mailed in a form to the Dept of Health, as did their doctor. In return the Dept sent them in the first week of June, 2009, the same computer-generated form that last year on the Daily Kos and subsequently on the Obama campaign web site was called a “Certification of Live Birth”. The form that this family received this year is identical in format to the Certification of Live Birth on the Daily Kos web site with one exception: the title at the top of the form.

On June 12, 2008 the title for this form was Certification of Live Birth. The title for the form that this family received in the first week of June 2009 is Certificate of Live Birth. I called The Dept of Health and confirmed that the title of the form had been changed. The bureaucrat that I spoke to said the change had been made “recently”, but could not or would not tell me when. Sometime between June 12, 2008 and the first week of June 2009 the Hawaiian Dept of Health changed the title of this abbreviated form from “Certification of Live Birth” to “Certificate of Live Birth“. Why?

The use of the word “Certificate” rather than “Certification” makes the form feel somewhat more like a traditional birth certificate than the “Certification of Live Birth” that the Daily Kos website and subsequently the Obama campaign posted on the Internet even though, like the “Certification“, it also lacks any information about the hospital, doctor, or midwife. This renaming of the document will be very convenient for the Hawaiian Dept of Health in future stonewalling should any legal pressure be brought against them to produce Obama’s “Certificate of Live Birth”. Instead of producing the original “Certificate of Live Birth”, they will produce the “Certification of Live Birth” form that the Dept of Health has now renamed a “Certificate of Live Birth” and claim that they are doing so “in accordance with state policies and procedures” in the words of the Dept’s Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino.

What is a “Natural Born Citizen”

It is only by examining the 18th century usage and definition of a term that we can ascertain its meaning in the Constitution. In the 18th century, and at the time of the framing and ratification of the Constitution by the states, the term “natural-born” subject or citizen was always used or defined in such a way as to exclude the child of a British or American girl or woman when that child was born in a foreign country and that child’s father was a foreign citizen. No 18th century jurist would have thought the term “natural-born” citizen or subject could have been extended to the child of a British or American girl or woman when that child was born in a foreign country and that child’s father was a foreign citizen.

Here is Blackstone’s classic exposition in 1765 of the legal meaning of the term from the Commentaries on the Laws of England.

William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:354, 357–58, 361–62

1765

“Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.. . .

“When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king’s embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king,…might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.”

Avoiding a Constitutional Crisis

I think it is clear that there are reasonable arguments that Barack Obama may not be a natual-born citizen of the United States. These arguments could be settled if Obama allowed the Hawaii Department of Health to release his original birth certificate. It is completely reasonable to regard his refusal to do so as suspect.

In 2008, these justifiable doubts should have led to demands for the original birth certificate by the media, the responsible officials in the Democratic Party, the Secretaries of State in the different states, the members of the Electoral College and the Unites States Senate. John McCain was asked to provide his original birth certificate, and he did so.

The irresponsible confirmation in the Senate of the irresponsible tallying of votes in the Electoral College does not supersede the clear meaning of Article II, Section 1. If it is allowed to stand, disregard of the Constitution by all branches of the government would be openly established. To all who believe that the Constitution is the government’s basic law, that the Constitution is the only instrument that gives the enactments of Congress and the commands of the Executive validity, it will be clear that the rule of law in the United States is a fiction.

Journalists and politicians complain that we must avoid a Constitutional crisis, but there already is a Constitutional crisis. It has been caused by Obama’s refusal to take the simple step to clear the matter up. The power of the Executive branch has been compromised. Its right to collect taxes and sign Congressional enactments into law, in fact all of its powers, have become problematic. Since their validity under Section I is now doubtful, they depend on the illegal exercise of force. Since officers of the American military take their oath on commissioning to the Constitution and not the President, their obedience to the Commander-in-Chief has lapsed and, if they challenge or resist his authority, any court-martial will also be an illegal exercise of force. The only way out of the present Constitutional crisis is for Obama to do as McCain did when he was confronted by far less pressing doubts about the circumstances of his birth. He must disclose his original birth certificate. Since the document has been so suspiciously withheld for so long, it should be subjected to rigorous forensic tests. Then whatever is on it should be judicially assessed together with the claims that have been made that Barack Obama was born on foreign soil.
.........................................................................................
Story Reports

A mailed-in form (without mention of a hospital, doctor, or midwife) signed by one of his parents or relative if it was not "disgarded" or destroyed could provide evidence obama was born out of the US. This would be the missing "original" "birth certificate" minus any doctor or hospital name signed by just one parent or relative.

A mailed in form is possibly the only evidence obama has to prove he is a US citizen. This could be the missing "long form" that never existed. I can see why obama does not want this crude evidence of his "citizenship" to be disclosed if it exists. There is a good chance this is the only evidence obama has that he can present and it is the forged "certification of live birth". I think the problem is obama can't prove he was born in a hospital in Hawaii as he and Hawiann officals have stated. Obama can't back up his claim that he was born in Hawaii in 1961. There is no evidence that can be verified, obama was born in a hospital in Hawaii. Its not just he is not a natural born citizen it is the lie about the hospital he was born in.

Obama has to cover up the facts about the hospital he was born in. I believe he can't produce evidence of the hospital nor the doctor. Obama has two problems. He is not a natural born citizen. He was not a citizen of the US until Oct 25, 1994 if he was born out of the US. No documentation other than a mailed in form and obama was an illegal alien for 33 years. An AMAZING conclusion that is plausible considering the lack of any evidence from obama concerning his original documentation of birth.
.........................................................................................
westernjournalism

Here is a summary of Hawaii’s “state policies and procedures” in 1961.

In the State of Hawaii, back in 1961, there were four different ways to get an “original birth certificate” on record. They varied greatly in their reliability as evidence. For convenience, I’ll call them BC1, BC2, BC3, and BC4.

BC1. If the birth was attended by a physician or mid wife, the attending medical professional was required to certify to the Department of Health the facts of the birth date, location, parents’ identities and other information. (See Section 57-8 & 9 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).

BC2. In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or midwife, then all that was required was that one of the parents send in a birth certificate to be filed. The birth certificate could be filed by mail. There appears to have been no requirement for the parent to actually physically appear before “the local registrar of the district.” It would have been very easy for a relative to forge an absent parent’s signature to a form and mail it in. In addition, if a claim was made that “neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as above provided is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local registrar shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.” (Section 57-8&9)

I asked the Dept of Health what they currently ask for (in 2008) to back up a parent’s claim that a child was born in Hawaii. I was told that all they required was a proof of residence in Hawaii (e.g. a driver’s license [We know from interviews with her friends on Mercer Island in Washington State that Ann Dunham had acquired a driver’s license by the summer of 1961 at the age of 17] or telephone bill) and pre-natal (statement or report that a woman was pregnant) and post-natal (statement or report that a new-born baby has been examined) certification by a physician. On further enquiry, the employee that I spoke to informed me that the pre-natal and post-natal certifications had probably not been in force in the ‘60s. Even if they had been, there is and was no requirement for a physician or midwife to witness, state or report that the baby was born in Hawaii.

There is and was no requirement for a physician or midwife to witness, state or report that the baby was born in Hawaii.

(This is also AMAZING. No requirement for a physician or midwife to witness state or report that the baby was born in Hawaii. No requirement in 1961 or 2008. What good is any "birth certificate" that is generated in Hawaii if there is nothing but a drivers license, telephone bill, "statement that a woman was pregnant" and certificztion by a physician that a baby had been examined. The pre-natal and post-natal certifications had probably not been in force in the ‘60s.

So to recap: phonebill or drivers license is all that was needed in 1961 for the required proof of residence in Hawaii. This is only proof of residence in Hawaii. It is no proof a child was born in Hawaii yet this is all that was required in 1961 to get a "certification of live birth" certificate. Amazing!

Just show yout drivers license and get a fake birth certificate? Amazing!) Story Reports

More western journalism insight into the fraud of obama
..........................................................................................
4 Ways to get a Hawaiin BC in 1961

BC3. In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or midwife, then, up to the first birthday of the child, a “Delayed Certificate” could be filed, which required that “a summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for delayed filing or the alteration [of a file] shall be endorsed on the certificates”, which “evidence shall be kept in a special permanent file.” The statute provided that “the probative value of a ‘delayed’ or ‘altered’ certificate shall be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence.” (See Section 57- 9, 18, 19 & 20 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).”

[In other words, this form of vault birth certificate, the Delayed Certificate, required no more than a statement before a government bureaucrat by one of the parents or (the law does not seem to me clear on this) one of Barack Obama’s grandparents. If the latter is true, Ann Dunham did not have to be present for this statement or even in the country.]

BC4. If a child is born in Hawaii, for whom no physician or mid wife filed a certificate of live birth, and for whom no Delayed Certificate was filed before the first birthday, then a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth could be issued upon testimony of an adult (including the subject person [i.e. the birth child as an adult]) if the Office of the Lieutenant Governor was satisfied that a person was born in Hawaii, provided that the person had attained the age of one year. (See Section 57-40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961.) In 1955 the “secretary of the Territory” was in charge of this procedure. In 1960 it was transferred to the Office of the Lieutenant Governor (“the lieutenant governor, or his secretary, or such other person as he may designate or appoint from his office” §338-41 [in 1961]).

Certification of Live Birth, released by Obama
Certification of Live Birth, released by Obama

In 1982, the vital records law was amended to create a fifth kind of “original birth certificate”. Under Act 182 H.B. NO. 3016-82, “Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that the proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.” In this way “state policies and procedures” accommodate even “children born out of State” (this is the actual language of Act 182) with an “original birth certificate on record.” So it is even possible that the birth certificate referred to by Dr ****** is of the kind specified in Act 182. This possibility cannot be dismissed because such a certificate certainly satisfies Dr ********** statement that “I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” If this is the case, Dr ****** would have perpetrated so unusually disgusting a deception that I find it practically incredible (and I greatly doubt that anyone could be that shameless). On the other hand, if the original birth certificate is of types 2, 3, or 4, Dr ********** statement would be only somewhat less deceptive and verbally tricky. I only bring up this possibility to show how cleverly hedged and “lawyered” and basically worthless Dr ********** statement is.


Obama is Not a natural born citizen but a retroactive citizen. Was obama an illegal alien for 33 years? I think so.