Let's prove Obama Was Born In Hawaii So we Can Move Onto His British Birth

NaturalBornCitizen Blog ^ | 09/21/2009 | Leo Donofrio

[BuckeyeTexan]

Let this post be fair warning… Leo Donofrio is now interested in the birth certificate… so that we can finally prove Obama was born in Hawaii and stop the never ending circus surrounding BIGFOOT – an official long form birth certificate for President Obama.

The nation faces a crucial legal question:

How can a person who admits to having been born a British citizen – governed at birth by British law – be a natural born citizen of the United States?

This is a very serious legal question. Obama's father was never a US citizen and was never permanently domiciled in the US. The leading Supreme Court decision in Wong Kim Ark indicates that the native born son of an alien is not natural born. There is no conspiracy theory attached to this question. Let's state it another way:

Can a person who is at birth a dual citizen be considered a natural born citizen for purposes of meeting the Constitution’s requirements to be POTUS?

That is in no way a conspiracy theory. The US State department web site - now run by Obama – tells us that dual citizens owe allegiance to both nations and that while on the soil of the foreign nation that nation has a greater claim to the person than the US. It is certainly not trivial for US citizens to ask whether dual citizenship at birth means a person is not a “natural born citizen” of the US.

But as long as the never ending search for Bigfoot continues to obscure the real legal question, the true issue here will not only be attached to the conspiracy theory, it will be ridiculed as well.

Because of the conundrum, this blog will now also be concerned with an investigation into the vital records of President Obama as well as an intense focus upon the activities of the Hawaii Department of Health and the Hawaii Office of Information Practices. I hope to one day put these officials under oath and cross-examine them thoroughly.

I have always believed that Obama was born in Hawaii and I expect this investigation will reveal that he was. Upon proving that he was born in Hawaii, we may uncover details which indicate that Obama and Hawaii government officials purposely used the birth certificate issue to distract the nation from his British birth problems. If a smokescreen can be made clear, the nation will better comprehend the Constitutional blasphemy inherent in the 2008 POTUS election and the current White House resident.

Should our investigation prove that he wasn’t born in Hawaii, I will be very surprised, but I am certainly open to that conclusion.

I have written this post as a preview to some very interesting research – documents and letters issued by the State of Hawaii – which have not been made public yet. I will be making those public very soon as they are the product of researchers I am working with. Stay tuned. It’s going to get interesting.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Ping

[the anti-liberal]

bkmrk

[ncfool]

Birthers! I resemble that remark.

Such an easy thing to prove and fix but yet Obama doesn’t want to handle. It must be from the Alinsky play book to keep your opposition asking questions about your past to take the heat off of your current status.

[pepsionice]

I’ve had this belief since October of last year when the subject first arose. There are two possible things on that birth certificate which could give problems. Either the British nationality is noted, or the father is not this Kenyan. The first answer means that he’s pretty much declared out of the game. The second one means that the legend he has given out....has some holes in it.

What I suspect is that most of the legal profession has come to agree that the birth certificate matters...and this whole delay game makes things more suspicious than what they should be.

[Dryman]

“FREE THE LONG FORM!”

[mlo]

"The leading Supreme Court decision in Wong Kim Ark indicates that the native born son of an alien is not natural born."

Would you mind posting your citation for that?

[BuckeyeTexan]

What I suspect is that most of the legal profession has come to agree that the birth certificate matters...and this whole delay game makes things more suspicious than what they should be.

AGREED!

[mel]

He has the same nose as that Davis chap.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Leo Donofrio has covered this in depth. Let me see if I can find the relevant information from his blog and post it for you. I’ll get back to you.

[kennedy]

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

[steve0]

ALERT: I have it on good information that there is some new info.

The website http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=1703 has a document, with Barack Obama’s signature on it, that purports to be a “Presidential Preference Election Candidate Nomination Paper” required in Arizona by A.R.S. § 16-242. The significant thing about this is that it is completely invalid. The notarization of Obama’s signature was made by a Virginia notary and as such is subject to Va. Code 47.1-16 (effective July 1, 2007). The Virginia law requires that: “Every notarization shall include the date upon which the notarial act was performed, and the COUNTY or CITY IN WHICH it was performed.” Violation number two occurred when Ray Anderson, Notary failed to note when his own authority to notarize documents expired. The Virginia law requires that requires it with the word “shall” is stated here, “Upon every writing which is the subject of a notarial act, the notary shall, after his certificate, state the date of the expiration of his commission.” Obama may try to seek safe harbor from any criminal fraud allegation on account of “swearing that he is qualified to hold the office he sought” that such document was invalid and thus could not be used as evidence against him. This is just one piece of evidence applicable to the state of Arizona. Obama inc. may well have bungled the other 57 states requirements on candidate eligibility. In the worst case scenario for Obama, the invalid candidate attestation invalidates the amount of Arizona electoral college votes which in turn invalidates the 2008 Joint Session of Congress certifying electoral votes.

This is a very technical application of the rules but we should not apologize for applying the law when Obama never apologized for his own hardball tactics where he used the rule book to win his first race for Illinois state Senate against Alice Palmer. See http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/29/obamas.first.campaign/index.html . I also suggest that any discovery questions relating to this “notary issue” is fair game when standing is based upon 3 U.S.C. § 15. As has been said, possibly multiple provisions were not properly followed on January 8, 2009 when the votes for Obama were counted. And the district court therefore does have jurisdiction to review a failure of the Government to follow the laws enacted to protect the integrity of the electoral process.

Therefore, upon the Leo Donofrio, basis: since the DOJ raised the statute and relied upon it for the motion to dismiss, and since Judge Carter has allowed immediate discovery necessary for purposes of opposing the motion to dismiss, Orly should also demand discovery for any issue related to the invalidity of each individual state presidential eligibility documents. Apparently, the Arizona documents are invalid because they require a valid Notary endorsement, which Obama failed to provide.

(Note this argument fails if the Arizona document was merely cropped and the original actually contains the location of the notarial act and identifies the commission expiration date.)

Requests for Admissions
1. Admit that the “Presidential Preference Election Candidate Nomination Paper” required in Arizona by A.R.S. § 16-242, is genuine, attached as Exhibit A.
2. Admit that the notarial act is invalid in reference to exhibit A because it does not comply with all the requirements of Va. Code 47.1-16.
3. Admit that the notarial act is invalid in reference to exhibit A because it fails to identify the location of the notarial act.
4. Admit that the notarial act is invalid in reference to exhibit A because it fails to identify the commission expiration date.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Here’s the relevant article at Donofrio’s blog.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/justice-horace-gray-clearly-indicated-wong-kim-ark-was-not-a-natural-born-citizen/

Here’s his conclusion (from the above-referenced article) regarding Justice Gray’s majority opinion:

It appears at first glance that the passage claims children of aliens born on US soil are themselves natural-born citizens. And that’s certainly the hard line taken by Obama eligibility supporters. But a closer inspection reveals this is not what the court held.

Have another look:

“...and his child… ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen...”

Justice Gray does a very revealing compare and contrast here:

- he compares two children

- on the one hand, he mentions the US born child of a resident alien

- on the other hand, he mentions the “natural-born” child of a citizen

Do you see the difference?

He clearly states that only one is natural-born: the child of the citizen.

He says that both are citizens. But only the child of the citizen is natural born – for this is what he is comparing the other one to. So the holding indicates Wong Kim Ark was as much a citizen as any other citizen despite not being natural-born.

~Leo Donofrio

[Genoa]

BT, my gut tells me that the problem isn’t anything that’s already public knowledge, like UK. The concealment, I suspect, has to do with complications arising from the Indonesian adoption connection—such as subsequent use of Indonesian citizenship to obtain student aid and passport.

[counterpunch]

Finally.
The real issue regarding 0bama’s citizenship revolves around issue of dual citizenship, or possibly multiple citizenship.

Was 0bama a “natural born” US citizen when he was born with both US and Kenyan citizenship?
Is he still a Kenyan citizen, and if not, when did that change?
Did he ever become an Indonesian citizen?
Was his US citizenship status ever lost or changed due to either of these issues?

Unfortunately, these real and legitimate questions have been overshadowed and tainted by the “Kenyan birth” nonsense.

[El Sordo]

Just a general thought.

It doesn't seem really necessary to ‘prove’ that BHO was born in Hawaii in order to move on to more legitimate questions regarding the meaning of ‘Natural Born Citizen’. Instead what might be more beneficial is to put a stake through the fallacious and unsupported arguments that BHO was born somewhere other than Hawaii.

If the argument can be steered away from that unprofitable line of thought, a great deal of the noise goes away.

But I do not know how likely that is to happen on such an emotionally charged issues.

[RightInEastLansing]

“Would you mind posting your citation for that?”

I agree. From what i have read about Wong Kim Ark, the courts said nothing about natural born status. Totally irrelevant case.

[Sibre Fan]

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark

Some relevant excerpts:

In Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor (1833), 3 Pet. 99,....Mr. Justice Thompson, speaking for the majority of the court, said:

"It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the Colonies of North America, whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain, are natural-born British subjects."

" It was contended by one of the learned counsel for the United States that the rule of the Roman law, by which the citizenship of the child followed that of the parent, was the true rule of international law, as now recognized in most civilized countries, and had superseded the rule of the common law, depending on birth within the realm, originally founded on feudal considerations.

But at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States in 1789, and long before, it would seem to have been the rule in Europe generally, as it certainly was in France, that, as said by Pothier, "citizens, true and native-born citizens, are those who are born within the extent of the dominion of France,"...

There is, therefore, little ground for the theory that, at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, there as any settled and definite rule of international law, generally recognized by civilized nations, inconsistent with the ancient rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion.

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle." It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides .....

[dalereed]

He wasn’t born in Hawaii, he isn’rt a naturalized citizen, he doesn’t have dual citizenship, he’s a kenyan and an illegal alien.!!!

Arrest and deport the Pile of shit!

[kidd]

Sound like an interesting technicality.

While it will probably go nowhere (unless Ray Anderson is found ot be an inelligible notary), it would certainly open other routes in discovery.