Natural Birthright Citizenship: Birthright of Blood According to English Common Law

ConstitutionallySpeaking ^ | April 6, 2011 | Linda Melin

[patlin]

My research has finally come full circle with an absolute and irrefutable conclusion and I want to thank all the patriots whom inspired me to research “out of the box”.

As I had already reported in my Congressional “Natural Born Citizen” series, in 1987 Michael Greve of the ‘Reason Magazine’ wrote that Prof. Lawrence Tribe is

[n]otorious for urging judges to go boldly where none have gone before…[T]ribe’s pretenses are a thin cover for their effort to mobilize the Constitution for left-liberal causes

As we already know, Lawrence Tribe was Obama’s law professor at Harvard whom Obama supposedly did extensive research for. What I conclude with, is research from the Harvard Law Review archives. Research that neither Tribe or Obama hoped would become public knowledge. For if this legal information cited by the US courts did become public; it would have immediately crushed Obama’s eligibilty for the presidency. And that is why, when it came to testimony for S.Res. 511, “A Bill Proclaiming John Sidney McCain III a natural born citizen“, Tribe was called in to give obfuscation to the exact meaning and intent of Article II qualifications for the presidency.

As I have said, the key to defining who the citizens are lies within the 14th Amendment phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and more specifically, what “jurisdiction” does it pertain to? Therein lie the question which must be answered.

[Timocrat]

I have a little nit to pick. You suddenly refer to the “WKA decision” with no prior reference. If you article is to reach a wider audience ( and hopefully gain traction) it might be useful to give a brief explanation of the Wong Kim Ark decision and the relevance to immigration law in general. Otherwise an enlightening and thought provoking article.

[BladeBryan]

The article misunderstands the issue in the quote:

When a person is a citizen by jus sanguinis, is he natural born or naturalized? The answer to this question will determine the applicability of certain expatriation provisions and the citizen’s qualification for the presidency. Some courts, relying on dicta in United States v. Wong Kim Ark equating natural born with native born, have indicated that those who claim citizenship solely by parentage are naturalized citizens. But this conclusion seems opposed to the common law concept -which may be assumed to be written into the constitutional requirements for the presidency -that jus sanguinis confers naturalborn citizenship.

After United States v. Wong Kim Ark, there was no question that the native-born are natural-born citizens. The issue is "equating natural born with native born". Equating the two would mean that *only* native-born citizens are natural-born citizens, and to that author of the quote objects.

[patlin]

The references I have quoted speak clearly as to WKA refering merely to jus soli (birth on the soil) regardless of jus sanguinis (parentage). The purpose of the article is not to be an entire legal thesis, but to direct people to the legal experts who actually wrote extensively on the subject. So nit pick all you want. I can not keep rehashing every point in every article. My site is a vast sea of knowledge and earlier articles that delve further into WKA can be found with a quick site search using the term WKA or Wong.

[patlin]

After United States v. Wong Kim Ark, there was no question that the native-born are natural-born citizens

That is a misreading which I clearly show as misleading. You are not understanding the definition of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as it is written in the 14th. For that one needs to go to the 1868 Expatriation Act & the doctrine of exclusive allegiance. The jurisdiction that the 14th refers to is not territorial jurisdiction, it is political jurisdiction. Political allegiance not some local obedience to the laws. It follows you were ever you go, no matter what foreign land you find yourself on and is the reason the US State Dept has a warning on their website stating that those who have not fully renounced any foreign allegiance they have, are not protected under the 14th & the expatriation act and should they get into trouble in the country of their foreign allegiance, the US has no authority under the law of nations to protect them. The US State Dept very clearly says that dual nationality is not law, it is merely accepted as existing as some phenomenon. the phenomenon of ignoring the law. The US Government is ignoring the law of the land in that US citizens owe exclusive allegiance to the United States, all others are aliens & foreigners.

[bushpilot1]

A small group of people on free republic will change the world..patlin’s research is always perfection..a little note..

to the White House and Justice Department cronies..reading this thread..

IT’S OVER..your spurious born peregrine Obama is not a natural born Citizen.

[TigerClaws]

Linda, Did you review this decision? 916 N.E.2d 678

Steve ANKENY and Bill Kruse, Appellants-Plaintiffs,
v.
GOVERNOR OF the STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Respondent.

No. 49A02-0904-CV-353.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

November 12, 2009.

It rejects the NBC argument providing numerous sources. Does seem that it ignored many of the cases you cited. Only case I’ve seen that got into NBC as most stop at the issue of no standing.

[patlin]

These court cases are going nowhere. The judges are relying the WKA “jus soli” ruling which is itself, unconstitutional. Gray relied entirely on English feudal law of perpetual allegiance in his opinion while the US government had argued what I have uncovered, exclusive allegiance to be a citizen, either at birth or naturalization.

The corruption runs deep & wide in the bowels of all branches of government, federal, state & local. We are finally getting enough conservative constitutionalists in office to start making a difference. Forget the courts, it is legislation that is going to fix this problem & unless we fix citizenship laws and get them back into the confines of the constitution, we will never publicly expose the true meaning Article II NBC

[TigerClaws]

Thanks for the response.

Again, quite a research effort and convincing article. The recent Wisconsin Supreme Court showed how the game is being played — can’t win with the politics, change the court system. “We’re still counting the ballots... until you tell us how far behind we are.”

Sad there’s zero intellectual integrity in this country. Really is devolving into a Banana Republic controlled by multi-national corporations and foreign interests.

[BladeBryan]

patlin wrote:

That is a misreading which I clearly show as misleading. You are not understanding the definition of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as it is written in the 14th. For that one needs to go to the 1868 Expatriation Act & the doctrine of exclusive allegiance. The jurisdiction that the 14th refers to is not territorial jurisdiction, it is political jurisdiction. Political allegiance not some local obedience to the laws.

The meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was the issue in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, and you are taking the position that lost. You may think the decision erroneous, as two of the justices that heard the case did, but that changes nothing. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark settled the issue over a century ago, and courts have cited it affirmatively ever since.

[BladeBryan]

Nice read... but I wonder if the GOP establishment will ever start caring about Obama’s eligibility.

The GOP establishment cannot claim that a foreign father makes Obama ineligible, because it would look like they're trying to change the rules late in the game. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), is a highly-respected senior member of the GOP establishment, a solid conservative, a Juris Doctor, and a gentleman. His argument on the Article II eligibility clause before the Senate Judiciary Committee on 5 Oct 2004 included:

"What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen."

The record shows no challenge to that claim. After Barack Obama gets elected some want to challenge the notion that any child born in America could grow up to President. That looks like cheating, rolling back the rules mid-game, because that's exactly what it is.

[SquarePants]

Be that as it may, it has yet to be established with any degree of certainty that Obama was actually born in the USA

[patlin]

What part of WKA relying on feudal law of perpetual allegiance do you not understand?

If you think that we are subjects to the government & not the sovereigns the founders gave their blood for, then, well, you are still utterly informed as to your American history. Under feudal law, the sovereign was the king who governed and any who rose to it was through blood, not soil. On July 4, 1776, that sovereignty was taken away from the King and placed with the American citizen. The sovereign citizen became the one who would govern, the one who would pass the torch of governing through their blood offspring. This is the real common law, the right of blood, not some innate piece of soil. I have studied the history of English citizenship from its formation after the Norman Conquest, I have the English history books & I know what I speak of. That feudal law of birthright by soil is not natural law, it is law implemented by a power hungry King who was not happy with just being the commander in chief with the people of the society making all the major decisions. At England's founding, the kings job was pretty boring and I might add, a pretty low paying one at that. It was a title, period, nothing more.

FYI...Supreme Court decisions are just that...OPINIONS. If they were the law of the land forever, then the blacks would still be slaves because of the Dredd Scott decision. And further more, Gray wrote the decision in Elk v Wilkins, so what made him change that 14 years later? The fact that his appointment was tainted because the history of Chester Arthur was about to be busted wide open by Collins from California. Gray became corrupted & used his power on the bench to alter our course through fraud.

[BladeBryan]

patlin wrote:

What part of WKA relying on feudal law of perpetual allegiance do you not understand?

Were I to agree with you that the decision in WKA was erroneous, it would not matter because the Constitution gives appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court and not to you and me. If a candidate is eligible under the law as interpreted by the Article III judiciary, then he's eligible.

Many Democrats thought Bush v. Gore was wrongly decided, and perhaps they have reasonable arguments on that. Some Dems used the case to cast doubt on President G.W. Bush's legitimacy, and that was just nonsense. We got a ruling. Doesn't matter if anyone thought the ruling erroneous, nor even if everyone other than a majority of justices of our High Court thought it erroneous.

FYI...Supreme Court decisions are just that...OPINIONS.

To use that idiom, you want the word after "just that" to be one of the words before "just that".

If they were the law of the land forever, then the blacks would still be slaves because of the Dredd Scott decision.

Took our nation's bloodiest war and two or three amendments to our constitutional to reverse that one. Do we hate Obama that much? Wouldn't it be better just to elect someone else?

More to the point, Supreme Court decisions are law of the land unless and until they are overturned. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark stands as controlling precedent to this day, and has for as long as any of us have walked this earth. Most importantly, it was law of the land on the fourth day of November 2008.

[patlin]

Gray in WKA dicta quotes:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)

He then moves on into his diatribe on English feudal law of perpetual allegiance. Perpetual allegiance is based on an innate piece of land, not by nature that the Kings use to keep the throne in the hands of only blood relation which IS the law of nature. Gray never went as far as to call WKA a natural born, he only went as far as to say that he is a citizen of the soil with the same rights AS the natural born citizen. There in lies your misunderstanding of the holding of the case.

Harvard Law: "England follows the same rule, both by virtue of the common law and under a declaratory statute of 1350 guaranteeing such application. As a result, it is generally concluded, despite occasional dissent,” that jus sanguinis was the common law doctrine."..."Some courts, relying on dicta in United States v. Wong Kim Ark equating natural born with native born, have indicated that those who claim citizenship solely by parentage are naturalized citizens. But this conclusion seems opposed to the common law concept -which may be assumed to be written into the constitutional requirements for the presidency -that jus sanguinis confers naturalborn citizenship."..."A native and a naturalized American may therefore go forth with equal security over every sea and through every land under Heaven…They are both of them American citizens, and their exclusive allegiance is due to the Government of the United States. One of them never did owe fealty elsewhere, and the other, at the time of his naturalization…threw off, renounced and abjured forever all allegiance to every foreign..."

Harvard wouldn't have printed those if they were not the law.

Finally, put the race card away. I could care less what color the president is, as long as he is a natural born US citizen of 2 citizen parents at his birth.

As the chairman of the judicial committee on the constitution said in hearings in 2000 prior to hearing testimony on changing Article II qualifications:

“The natural-born citizen qualification continues to provide to the political system of the United States a certain level of protection against the influence of foreign nations. In addition to this safeguard, the requirement also secures the ability of the President to make decisions involving domestic and foreign policy that are in the best interests of the United States without an inherent emotional or familial attachment to another nation.”

I do not want a president of any color that has immediate, from birth, emotional or familial ties to a foreign nation and it seems that a super majority of the country doesn't either. I am not calling for Obama’s removal, I know that is hopeless given the lack of constitutional integrity of our current elected officials. But I damn sure am not going to sit by & let the political establishments force another candidate upon us that has these emotional & familial ties on us ever again.

[BladeBryan]

patlin wrote:

Gray in WKA dicta quotes: The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain [...]

Well, Gray did quote that, and a lot of the Court's opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Ark was dicta. Your problem is, first, that you had argued a position that had long since lost. You wanted to lecture on meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". That was the issue in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, and your position lost. Two justices dissented and essentially agreed with you that the Court's decision was erroneous; nevertheless the decision stands.

Second, you should check out what "dicta" means. It's the stuff that is *not* binding precedent. You don't know such basics so you've misunderstood your own sources.

Finally, put the race card away.

Hold on... Who was it went off on "Dredd [sic] Scott" and slavery... Oh look: it was *you* Linda. I did not mention race, and the only references to such things in my comments were where I quoted you. Can I expect you to check that out and issue the appropriate retraction and apology?

[patlin]

Took our nation's bloodiest war and two or three amendments to our constitutional to reverse that one. Do we hate Obama that much?

You brought the race card in, not I. I referred to a SCOTUS case wherein the majority of the court denied that blacks were persons. I used it as a reference to the FACT that SCOTUS opinions are NOT law, they are only precedence until & unless they are overturned. They are always subject to scrutiny & dismissal. Precedence is not law, it is opinion of the judges who happen to be on the bench at the time. They are as fleating as the members of the court.

[BladeBryan]

patlin wrote:

Took our nation's bloodiest war and two or three amendments to our constitutional to reverse that one. Do we hate Obama that much?

You brought the race card in, not I.

You just quoted me not saying anything about race. But you did answer my question: No, you will not issue the appropriate retraction, you'll just go on lying about what I wrote.

[PBinTX]

ping

[Yosemitest]

Here's fuel for the fire.

---

Let's examine

how Hawaii legally can issue bcs for those born out of state
and then hide this fact
by issuing a certificate stating BORN IN HAWAII OAHU HONOLULU"

I refer you to Birth Certificate Vs. Certification Of Live Birth.

We just did a story bringing to light how
the U.S. Army revoked the orders of a Major scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan
after he filed a lawsuit
claiming that the deployment would be illegal
due to the fact that Barack Obama has failed to produce a birth certificate,
therefore he has not proven his eligibility to be Commander-In-Chief.

To say that we started a firestorm would be putting it mildly.

We had our fair share of rational responses,
as well as the usual off-topic comments, accusations of being right-wing nuts, etc.

As well as a few that were too obscene to put into print.

It turns out that our theory
that the document presented by Obama appears to be homemade has some support,
in that it seems that there is a difference between a “Certification of Live Birth” as opposed to a “Certificate of Live Birth.”

Our friend Pamela at Atlas Shrugs also presents a compelling case
that the document presented as proof that Obama is a natural-born American citizen is indeed a forgery.

And for you Obamanites
who claim that there is no difference between a Certification of Live Birth and a Birth Certificate,
we, as well as the State of Hawaii, would have to disagree with you.

Pay close attention to the following Hawaiian legal statute:

“[§338-17.8]  Certificates for children born out of State.
(a)  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 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.

(b)  Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health
in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. 
The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91
that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates
and to require any further information or proof of events
necessary for completion of a birth certificate.

(c)  The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91.
[L 1982, c 182, §1]”

Everybody get that?

As long as an adult can walk into Hawaii’s version of the Department of Records
and provide proof that they (the parents) are a legal resident of Hawaii,
the document is issued.

The child, on the other hand, could have been born in Hawaii, KENYA, or a back-alley in Budapest.
How much more proof do you disciples of the Messiah need
before you will admit
that there are legitimate reasons
to demand answers on this issue?

Of course the fact that
Obama may have been elected to our nation’s highest office in direct violation of the United States Constitution
is NOT something that would greatly trouble a dedicated Kool-Aid drinker.

But you STILL WON'T ACCEPT THE TRUTH that

Barack Hussein Obama II ...is ...
THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT IN CHIEF!!!

Here is some more information and links

and all of this without using the link to "the source of the "moderator-offending-video" by a group called The Council of Conservative Citizens.
This is NOT a Conservative group, do not be fooled by the name.
This group is a front group for a neo-Nazi group known as the National Alliance and is associated with Stormfront.

(But I don't see how those groups are MORE OFFENSIVE THAN the Marxists and Fascists in the White House.)

I have several witnesses, that have proven to me that Barack Hussein Obama II was born in Kenya.

First witness, Barack Hussein Obama II himself:

From the AP in 2004: Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate

Hmm…An AP story from 2004 entitled Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate has been discovered on archive.org by many sites (and twitter where I got this). Does this mean now that the AP is nothing but a bunch of birthers?

Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations. ...

The above artice is also found at FreedomsPhoenix.com.
They have a great spoof Birth Certificate you just gotta' see.
Also view the video at Proof Obama Admits He Was Born In Kenya.


Second witnesses, his mother and father, indirectly through their divorce papers.

Ed Hale, aprivate investigator in Hawaii, has uncovered the divorce decree for Barack Obama’s father and mother, which indicates they had “one child under the age of eighteen, born in Kenya.”
But a later Update 1/1/2009,...
"In his 7:45pm Plains Radio broadcast, this last night, Ed Hale backed down from his prior assertion of having gained even uncertain information about the Barack Sr. / Stanley Ann divorce decree containing language referring to Barack Jr. as being born in Kenya. Instead, Hale referred to an apparently tricky recollection... of an ... referring to such a document's generally referring to the place of birth of the children of the divorced parents."

I believe that "indeterminate person" probably SAW the Obama Dunham Divorce Documents BEFORE Page 11 disappeared and viewed the Kenyan Birth Cerfiticate,
thereby telling Ed Hale

"the divorce decree for Barack Obama’s father and mother, indicates they had 'one child under the age of eighteen, born in Kenya.' ".

The Obama Dunham Divorce Documents are viewable at this location.
There's a great assumption of the time lime at at link.

See the whole Obama 1964 divorce on Scribd.com or as 13 individual images below (in proper order):







I immediately called the clerk in Hawaii and asked where the extra page was. She looked, and counted, and said that there must be some mistake in the records – she counted only 13 pages that are available for reprint. I pointed out to her that the page count she sent skipped from page 10 to page 12 – page 11 was missing. To that, she suggested that perhaps the pages were simply misnumbered before they where archived into the microfiche.

I accepted her answer, not thinking much about it at the time. Perhaps it was just a clerical error in the 1960s, when hand-filed paper records and IBM punch cards were how court documents were tracked and maintained.

I have since come to learn that Obama and his team of lawyers have been working to sanitize his records since he announced that he’d run for President circa November 2004. Now in the White House, he’s still ACTIVELY blocking subpoenas for such documents as his Cambridge and Occidental College records TODAY – the same type of documents promised to be made available during his campaign. Obama and his lawyers are exceedingly adept at exploiting loopholes in Hawaiian birth certificate law to keep Obama’s past hidden from the American people.

This missing page – page 11 – very likely is a copy of the original birth certificate, based upon the prima facie timeline of the 1964 divorce. The Kenya birth certificate was likely requested on Jan 23, 1964 by either Judge King (to award custody on the next trial date), or recommended to Ann Dunham by her attorney for the ex parte divorce, where only one parent was expected to be present.

The missing page, 11, should be chronologically-numbered as all other pages were in the original docket file, by the court clerk at the time. Starting at page 8, Exhibit A is placed where it would have occurred by date in the paperwork (and appeared on microfiche), even denoting an erased, yet barely-readable “8″ on both pages of the returned notification sent to Obama SR. The missing page, numbered as page 11, would likely be a page that would have been admitted to the divorce file sometime in mid- to late-February 1964 – almost as if it were an undocumented “Exhibit B”.

Here’s a very plausible timeline merging the 1964 Obama Divorce papers and new Kenya birth certificate:

Jan 20 (Mon) – divorce request is filed by Stanley Ann D. Obama

Jan 23 (Thur) – divorce orders for trial are given by Judge King at chambers

(note – if the judge, or Ann Dunham’s attorney, told her to order the Kenya birth certificate, it would have been mailed 10,000 miles away, to the “Coast Province” Registrar’s office of the “Republic of Kenya”, likely arriving around the first week of February 1964 to be processed)

Jan 28 (Tue) – Gail A. Watanabe, presumably an assistant of Ann Obama attorney George Kerr, mails the notification for trial to Obama SR (her affidavit is signed Feb 3 and filed)

Jan 30 (Thur) – via Air Mail, notification of trial arrives at Obama SR’s Cambridge, Mass, address. The 10-day “knock and nail” notification would have expired on Sun, Feb 9. Therefore, the next trial date would have been automatically set, per Judge King’s instructions, for the first Tuesday, 30 days later, on March 3

Feb 10 (Mon) – allowing for a 10-day “knock and nail” notification for trial, Obama SR’s trial notification would have been retrieved by the US Post Office on this date, to be mailed back (as events turned out – UNSIGNED by Obama SR) to Hawaii as an exhibit for trial

Feb 17 (Mon) – the Obama Kenya birth certificate is signed by the “Coast Province” Deputy Registrar, to be mailed back to Hawaii for receipt by Ann Obama and/or her attorney
(note: mail time would have ranged from a few days (Air Mail) to a couple of weeks (ship), arriving back in Hawaii in the last week of February to first week of March 3 (Tue). Based upon Judge King’s Jan 23 orders for the next trial date, “at 9:30 a.m. on the first Tuesday after thirty (30) days have elapsed from and after the date” that Obama SR would have been served with the notice of trial. That notification came back, unsigned, by Obama SR, so Ann’s attorneys surely requested, and received Default Judgment for the divorce in her favor for “grievous mental suffering”

Mar 5 (Thur) – trial takes place in favor of divorce in Hawaii, placing custody of Obama JR to his mother by default
(note: the trial was likely rescheduled 2 days after the automatically set date of Mar 3, possibly for the convenience of the judge and/or parties)

Mar 20 (Fri) – the divorce decree is signed by Judge King


In Hawaii, birth certificates are not Public Record. If the Kenya birth certificate was a part of the divorce decree, it may have been pulled out at the end of the trial, or more recently by a watchful archivist or attorneys wishing to remove unfavorable information about Obama.
To date, despite other honest attempts to refute the Kenya birth certificate, such as dealing with when the “Republic of Kenya” came into existence as a republic have been “un-bunked.” Dishonest alterations of the Kenya birth certificate have been maliciously created by sites such as Democratic Underground, designed to discredit the Kenya birth certificate – they’ve been un-bunked as well.

Having not actually seeing the Kenya birth certificate, and it’s chain of evidence, no intellectually-honest person can say if it’s real or not. By the same token, none of us have seen or touched the short-form “Certification of Live Birth” that has appeared on Obama’s “Fight the Smears” or FactCheck.org websites.

No one can confirm the chain of evidence of Obama’s “Certification of Live Birth” that has appeared online, which is the abbreviated-version of Obama’s true, 1961, original long-form(s) “Certificate of Live Birth” and associated vital statistics records. Even the Hawaii Department of Health directly refuses to verify Obama’s online COLBs.

Third witness, is Barack Hussein Obama II's grandmother,Sarah Hussein Obama:
View the video Barack Obama - Born in Kenya II at Youtube.com.

Did Obama's grandmother say he was born in Kenya?The Oct. 16, 2008, telephone interview was conducted by American Christian minister Ron McRae, who describes himself in his affidavit as an overseer of the Anabaptist Churches in North America and a "Presiding Elder on the African Presbytery."

McRae, who called from Detroit, says Sarah Obama was in a public setting with several hundred people listening to the telephone call on a speakerphone. The interpreter was Vitalis Akech Ogombe, the community chairman of Sarah Obama's village of Nyang'oma Kogelo in Western Kenya, 30 miles west of the Lake Victoria-city of Kisumu.

"In the ensuing public conversation, I asked Ms. Obama specifically,
'Were you present when your grandson was born in Kenya?'"
McRae testified in his sworn statement.
"This was asked to her in translation twice, and both times she replied, "Yes! Yes she was! She was present when Obama was born."

Watch and LISTEN to the video BARACK OBAMA - BORN IN KENYA - The Documentary - STUNNING!
and prove it to yourself.
Also watch Affidavit and Tape-Proof Obama Born in Kenya.

The fourth witness, Tim Adams,

"Barack Obama was definitely not born in Hawaii as the White House maintains, and that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Obama does not even exist in the Aloha State."

(It is now confirmed by Hawaii that Tim Adams did indeed work as a senior elections clerk in 2008)

Election official: I'd testify Obama not born in Hawaii

"The things I've said, I don't mind testifying in court," Tim Adams, the senior elections clerk for the city and county of Honolulu in the 2008 campaign, told WND in an exclusive interview.

"I was working there, and this is what it was. I'm not a lawyer, just a civil servant. I know what I know. I know what I was told by the hospitals and by my supervisors."

"There is no birth certificate," he said. "It's like an open secret. There isn't one. Everyone in the government there knows this."

"I had direct access to the Social Security database, the national crime computer, state driver's license information, international passport information, basically just about anything you can imagine to get someone's identity," Adams explained. "I could look up what bank your home mortgage was in. I was informed by my boss that we did not have a birth record [for Obama]."

At the time, there were conflicting reports that Obama had been born at the Queen's Medical Center in Honolulu, as well as the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women and Children across town. So Adams says his office checked with both facilities.

"They told us, 'We don't have a birth certificate for him,'" he said. "They told my supervisor, either by phone or by e-mail, neither one has a document that a doctor signed off on saying they were present at this man's birth."

To date, no Hawaiian hospital has provided documented confirmation Obama was born at its facility.

Adams, 45, stressed, "In my professional opinion, he definitely was not born in Hawaii. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that he was not born in Hawaii because there is no legal record of him being born there. If someone called and asked about it, I could not tell them that person was born in the state."

WND confirmed with Hawaiian officials that Adams was indeed working in their election offices during the last presidential election.

"His title was senior elections clerk in 2008," said Glen Takahashi, elections administrator for the city and county of Honolulu.

Adams oversaw a group of 50 to 60 employees and was responsible for verifying the identity of voters, especially absentee voters.

"If you're working in the civil service and you say this, you're done," Adams said. "Don't expect to have a good career, especially since the governor is on the other side. Embarassing them is not good for your career."

The Fifth witness, Michelle Obama.

Watch the video Michelle Obama Admits Kenya is Barack Hussein Obama's Home Country.
Watch the second video, Michelle Obama - Barack Is A Kenyan - Obama Birth Certificate.flv.

From Former Obama Supporters: "Michelle Obama in her own words admits that Barack’s home country is Kenya.
When you hear the MSM report that the Obama Birth Certificate issue is a non-issue and not valid to be debated,
they are telling us an outright lie.
The Constitution states plainly that a person must be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN to hold the office of POTUS.
When the MSM reports to the public that this is a non-issue or a settled issue
and the people that care about this are “Crazy Birthers” or “Flat Earthers”
they are simply trying to make a valid issue go away."

The Sixth Witness, Kenyan Ambassador Peter Ogego:

Watch Kenyan Ambassador Admits Obama Was Born In Kenya.

The Seventh Witness, James Orengo (the Kenyan Parliament Minister of Lands):

Watch Kenyan Parliament Minister Says Obama was Born in Kenya!!.

The Eighth Witness, Lucas Daniel Smith,

Watch and learn.
Barack H Obama Born in Kenya The REAL Birth Certificate AT LAST!.wmv

(Just click on them for the source information.)



And finally, an outstanding video to watch,
(Revised) Kenyan Parliament Minister Says Obama was Born in Kenya!!

Case CLOSED!!!

---