Recent WND Inquiries Appear To Have Established Obama’s Birth In Hawaii

naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ^ | 06/09/2011 | Leo Donofrio

[MHGinTN]

This may seem redundant, but here goes:

Whether barry the bastard was born in Kenya or Canada, the state of Hawaii appears to have allowed him to be registered at some point since his birth as a native born Hawaiian. Because the corrupt state of Hawaii--which issues a genuine registry of Hawaiian birth cert for Sun Yat Sen, completely Chinese, both parents chinese citizens, he born in China--has issued the bastard a state backed registry of Hawaiian birth, only proving little barry Dunham was born somewhere other than Hawaii is going to put a kink in that corrupted registry, if it is corrupted on Barry's behalf. There isn't a pirate Roberts court judge who would touch the ineligibility due to not NBC issue, so the affirmative action lying sonofabitch is more than teflon coated. Even fraudulent behavior on Barry's behalf is dismissed. Are you starting to get the picture that this sonofabitch in the White House is there because powers greater than his unqualified ass have chosen to put him there while the Republic is aborted? We birthers are ridiculed for questioning his eligibility, or his location of birth, or his criminal past, or his hidden records. Isn't it yet reaching the level of some sort of conspiracy that so much is being ignored so this affirmative action fraud can remain where he has been placed atop that fence post?

[SatinDoll]

Sorry, Gena. There exist witnesses to Obama’s birth in Mombassa, Kenya (place name was changed to Mombasa).

No witnesses to his ‘birth’ in Hawaii have ever come forward.

[Gena Bukin]

Sorry, Gena. There exist witnesses to Obama’s birth in Mombassa, Kenya (place name was changed to Mombasa).

Nope. These "witness" stories have been convincingly debunked.

No witnesses to his ‘birth’ in Hawaii have ever come forward.

Obama's family is dead so why would there be any witnesses? Do you think some nurse is going to remember? Nonetheless, Hawaiian officials say he was born there and their words are going to carry a lot more weight than some distant step-relative who never really said they witnessed his Kenyan birth in the first place.

Fact is, nobody has offered any credible evidence that Obama was born in Kenya. Only a few redacted newspaper articles, bogus "birth certificates" cobbled together by known scam artists and the deliberately mistranslated statements from supposed witnesses. No real evidence whatsoever. Why? because it didn't happen. Obama was not born in Kenya. This has to be one of the most far-fetched and, frankly, retarded conspiracies ever.

[justiceseeker93]

If one wants to argue Obama is ineligible on the basis of his foreign father, fine. I don't think this argument will ever bear fruit, but at least there's something of an intellectual debate that can be had regarding what it means to be a natural born citizen.

Sorry, Gena, what it means to be a "natural born Citizen," as that phrase appears in the Constitution, is pretty darn clear. The Framers of the Constitution understood "natural born Citizen" to mean a person born on the soil of the country (and under its jurisdiction) to parents both of whom were citizens of the country at the time of that person's birth. This is the Vattel definition of "natural born Citizen" which was definitively understood by the Framers.

There is absolutely no room for debate in a circumstance, such as this, where the person's father was unequivocally never an American citizen. By claiming that there is "something of an intellectual debate" and "this argument will "[n]ever bear fruit," you are nothing but a historical revisionist trying desperately to obtain the incorrect legal result. I don't know what your motive to do so is, but you are showing your ignorance of the issue.

[Gena Bukin]

This is the Vattel definition of "natural born Citizen" which was definitively understood by the Framers.

So where is this definition in the Constitution?

you are nothing but a historical revisionist trying desperately to obtain the incorrect legal result.

Trying desperately to obtain a legal result? Really? As far as I can tell, it is the folks arguing the Vattel definition who are trying desperately to obtain a legal result --and losing every step of the way. Nobody seems to be buying it. Nobody with any authority to do anything.

[Gena Bukin]

There is absolutely no room for debate in a circumstance, such as this, where the person's father was unequivocally never an American citizen.

You've been posting here since 2004. This forum has been the premiere conservative forum since when? 1997? 1998? Why is it that there isn't, as far as I can tell, a single post on this forum arguing that Obama is ineligible to be President until December of 2008?

If this was such a well-known fact, where are all the posts pointing this out during the primary? Again, as far as I can tell, Obama didn't become ineligible to be President on this forum until after he was elected President and this Vattel definition was together in a desperate and so far fruitless attempt to nullify an election.

[Fred Nerks]

thanks for that explanation, I do understand all that...but what I was trying to convey is that both the birthdate and the name of the child were established as a result of the divorce document...during the course of which Stanley Ann Dunham was given custody - of a child for whom no birth certificate is evident.

Think about it. She has custody officially, of a child named as Barack Hussein Obama 11, born 4 August, 1961. Without a birth certificate that names BOTH his parents and place of birth, YOU STILL DON’T KNOW WHO HE IS.

But the immigration authorities are satisfied. They have established nothing but THEIR END of responsibility, right?

If the divorce document is the foundation of his indentity, which it appears to be, what did ‘the parents’ supply to the Court to validate the name and the date of birth of the child?

NOTHING? Or something like this:

http://i668.photobucket.com/albums/vv47/MissieBessie/orlystamped-1.jpg

Filed for divorce in January. Document dated February. Divorce granted March. How would the Hawaii Court know if the document supplied was genuine or not?

[little jeremiah]

Did the Kenyan Obama say that Stanley was in the PI? Or just that “his wife” was in the PI?

[David]

Sorry, Gena, what it means to be a "natural born Citizen," as that phrase appears in the Constitution, is pretty darn clear. The Framers of the Constitution understood "natural born Citizen" to mean a person born on the soil of the country (and under its jurisdiction) to parents both of whom were citizens of the country at the time of that person's birth. This is the Vattel definition of "natural born Citizen" which was definitively understood by the Framers. There is absolutely no room for debate in a circumstance, such as this, where the person's father was unequivocally never an American citizen. By claiming that there is "something of an intellectual debate" and "this argument will "[n]ever bear fruit," you are nothing but a historical revisionist trying desperately to obtain the incorrect legal result. I don't know what your motive to do so is, but you are showing your ignorance of the issue.

I see you posting something like that every day or so and I had resolved to ignore you but you keep doing it.

If you are talking about a result from the Supreme Court, you are most likely wrong. If you did an opinion survey among knowledgeable Supreme Court lawyers, you would get maybe 80 or 90 percent that view you as out of touch.

The Supreme Court is a political institution. That's not how the framers intended it--if you want to be the essential defect in our Constitution, it was failure to insulate the third branch from the political system; but that is just the real world.

If you want to keep preaching the dream world, be my guest but if we ever get to a legal test, there is no doubt that if Zero proves he was born in the USA, he will prevail on the Natural Born test.

Yes, your reading of the history of the provision is correct. But the lawyers will say that by adoption of the 14th Amendment, we eliminated a "quality of citizenship" test for the Natural Born Citizen clause for any quality other than place of birth.

Your expressed view is misleading.

[TigersEye]

Thanks for the ping. Convoluted story.

[MHGinTN]

It has been comjectured that the missing page (page 11 IIRC) of the divorce decree has the proof of child for whom the court authorized custody to the then to be single Satnely Ann Dunham Obama. That the opage is missing lends credence ot the notion that the name is very different from ‘barack hussein obama’, but we just don’t know wihtout that removed page. But of course there’s no conspiracy, the page was probably only coincidentally misslaid somewhere. And of course the college records from Occidental and Columbia have merely been carelessly missplaced. And of course the birth cert accompanying the kindergarten app may never have been there in the first place. No conspiracy here. It’s incredible to believe there’s a conspiracy to cover this lying sonofabitch’s hitory from review.

[Fred Nerks]

http://i668.photobucket.com/albums/vv47/MissieBessie/21-ea011ad90c-1.jpg

“The wife in the Philippines from whom he is separated...”

NOT NAMED.

[justiceseeker93]

Now how in hell does the Fourteenth Amendment change the Vattel meaning of the "natural born Citizen" clause? If it does, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment themselves had no clue as to what they were doing. The basic purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment citizenship clause was the farthest thing from changing presidential qualifications: it was to give newly freed black slaves and their descendants born in the USA unequivocal citizenship, in order to overturn the result of the asanine Dred Scott decision.

Unfortunately, these "80 to 90 percent" of "Supreme Court lawyers" are merely products of currently left-leaning elitist American law schools who are are historical revisionists themselves. They conveniently neglect the real history of both the "natural born Citizen" clause in Article II and the Fourteenth Amendment, and read them, because of political pandering, in weird conjunction to get the absurd result that a child of unnaturalized aliens, born in the US, qualifies to be President. This defies both history and logic. Advocates of this theory are just taking the Constitution and torching it! (Of course, torching the Constitution is nothing new, it's been pretty much SOP for the federal courts since the second term of Franklin D. Roosevelt.)

BTW, my guess is that same bunch of "Supreme Court lawyers" to which you refer are probably cheerleading the wacky arguments used by Big Brother to defend the constitutionality of the individual mandate provision in ObamaCare..

[SatinDoll]

No conspiracy involved at all in his birth in Mombassa.

As to having been convincingly debunked, only in “Dummie land”, and its inmates imagination.

Yes, some of the witnesses were his step-grandmother, Sarah Obama, and a couple of Obama cousins. They’re safe; their relatives will make sure nothing happens to them. The whole family knows the truth and have given interviews as long ago as the early 1990s. Those interviews had been widely published in magazines, newspapers and journals all across Africa.

Witnesses outside his family were not so lucky. There was a reason Obama, who is a cheapskate when it comes to spending his own money, sent $1Million to Raila Odinga in Kenya. The cover term used was “campaign donation”, to support Raila’s run for President of Kenya. But is wasn’t really for his cousin’s campaign.

The money was meant to terrorize the missionaries in Kenya and ultimately commit the murder of the Christian woman who helped Stanley Ann and her newborn leave Kenya way back in August, 1961.

Keep that in mind, Gena. Obama uses people, and when YOU are no longer of use, you too, will be tossed aside. He has no conscience - none at all.

[little jeremiah]

That’s what I remembered.

Thanks.

“Wife in the PI” - no name.

[Mr. K]

THEN WHY THE HELL DID HE SUBMIT A FAKE BIRTH CERTIFICATE???

[bgill]

Therefore, if Stanley Ann Dunham had been issued a passport prior to President Obama’s birth, there will be a passport issue card available with that information. If no such card exists, Dunham did not have a passport prior to August 4, 1961, and Obama could not have been born in Kenya. She would have needed a passport to be in Kenya.

IIRC, passports are good for 5 years and in '65 Stanley Ann renewed hers. She couldn't have renewed it if it never existed before.

[danamco]

Thank goodness this fraud will be out of the White House come next January.

And is the "fraud" the END of the story according to you???

[bgill]

The Government is required to respond to the EXACT request made.

Hahahahahahahahaha!!!! Ohhh, that's a knee slapper!!!!!

It's been a while since I took a biology class but I don't recall that a baby couldn't be born outside the presence of the father. If the kid was born in Honolulu, Sr.'s INS records show he wasn't aware of the event until much later. Did "they" find these handwritten Lolo notes somewhere in the archives near the bc post-it note? Guess the term "natural born" took up too much space on the post-it note. Sorry, too many loose ends not connecting.

[danamco]

But at the end of the day, Barry was born a subject to the crown of her majesty the Queen of England. Inheriting his foreign fathers foreign citizenship by birthright. He's also held Kenyan and possibly Indonesian citizenship. The guy is clearly not a natural born Citizen as known and intended by the framers....regardless of place of birth.

Which is exactly what most of us have been saying for three years on these threads and Leo ought to know that as well!!!