Again, this blog has been vindicated!

Via TheObamaFile and CDR Kerchner

Dean Haskins says we spent a very long (and hot) day talking with many people on the island (Hawaii) and filming several scenes with the “big check” that will be compiled into a video once we get home.  There was one conversation, however, that I want to share with you tonight.  We spent at least a couple hours at the Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children today.  I got a call this morning from a reporter with the Honolulu Civil Beat who wanted to interview us, so he met us at the Medical Center.  His story should run tomorrow.
 
After that interview, we went into the records office, and Miki asked to file a form to get her son’s birth records.  While she was filling out the form, I happened to overhear a woman who was sitting at a desk say something about the “race” field on a birth certificate she was preparing.  I asked her if this was the office that responsible for filling out the birth certificate information for babies born there, and she said that it was.
 
Because she had just asked something about the “race” field on the birth certificate she was working on, I asked, “Back in 1961, would anyone have ever entered ‘African’ as the race of a parent?”  She said, “No, back then they probably would have listed a black person’s race as ‘negro.'”  I asked, “So, the word ‘African’ wouldn’t have been used, because that is a nationality and not a race, right?”  And she responded, “Right.  Nowadays we can use ‘African American’ though.”  To which I added, “But, the word ‘African’ by itself has never been used as an entry for race?”  And she simply said, “No.  Never.”
 
And there you have it . . . from the folks at Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children.

There were federal regulations in place in 1961 that provided the requirements to the states for birth certificates, including the acceptable values for “Race” — enter “227” in the “Page” text box and hit “Enter.”

As this blog has repoted prior to this admission

2. Race of Father, this is an official US document and again refering back to the US Natality doumentation, on what legal entries were exceptable. African was NOT an acceptable entry.  http://www.nber.org/vital-statistics/historical/ and the 1961 Guideline http://www.nber.org/vital-statistics/historical/nat61_1.CV.pdf  Refere to Section 5 for the Technical Appendix and look under Race

Kenyan historian Ali Mazrui states Obama Kenyan Citizen

Here is an interesting article and audio.

http://www.archive.org/details/OtunnuOnLuoTribeMemberBeingElectedPresidentOct.252008

Otunnu on Luo Tribe Member Being Elected President, Oct. 25, 2008

Olara Otunnu (Harvard Law, 1978) relating the remark of Kenyan historian Ali Mazrui on the oddity that a member of Kenya’s Luo tribe (Barack Obama, a Kenyan citizen and Luo tribe member from birth) may become president of the United States before a Luo tribe member becomes president of Kenya. “Town Hall Forum: An Examination of Race, Age, Gender & Religion in the 2008 Election,” Harvard Law School Reunions, Oct. 25, 2008, 9:15 a.m. (Austin Hall, 1st Floor, West), at 60:17 mark.

Notice that it is a Kenyan historian that states Barack Obama is a Kenyan citizen and Luo tribe member from BIRTH!

US Natural Born citizen = US Citizen + US Allegiance + US Jurisdiction

Obama is a British subject, allegiance to the British Crown, under the British Nationality Act of 1948

Remember this was done BEFORE the election, but after numerous requests during the primary for Barack Hussein Obama to PROVE his eligibility per the United States Constitution. After the election the Kenyan Parliment stated the following;

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OFFICIAL REPORT

Wednesday, 5th November, 2008

The House met at 9.00 a.m.

Dr. Khalwale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir. You have heard none other than the Leader of Government Business acknowledge that because of Obama’s win in the United States of America (USA), the House is crippled.

Could we allow him to move a Motion for Adjournment so that we could also continue the celebrations of having a Kenyan ruling the USA? I humbly request!    *****[note – “having a Kenyan ruling the USA”!]

Read the entire article I posted here:

 https://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/obama-is-a-foreign-national-and-kenya-knows-it/

The Adoption of Obama

The Adoption of Obama

 Like with ‘anything’ regarding the past of Obama, nothing should be taken for granted or on face value. Both of his books by Obama’s own words can NOT be taken literally. They are nothing more then a facade, a mask of the true background and nature of Barack Obama, created to produce the Obama effect on whomever wants to believe in unicorns and forest fairies.

 

Currently Obama refuses to release any documents regarding his past. We are to except what is written as fact, regardless if it conflicts with, or when the document is changed by necessity.

 Let us reason why Obama refuses to show where he was born.  Obama claims to have been born at the Kapi’olani Medical Center Hospital, then within months claims to have been born in Queens Hospital.

Claiming and facts are different.  Fact is that both hospitals fail to claim Barack Obama being born there as do other medical centers that have been contacted by researchers.

 We know from several separate statements made by his Grandmother Sarah that the following are known.

1. Obama was born in Kenya
2. She [Grandmother Sarah] was present at his birth

 Now, the remarks of one person might be questioned. But even back in the beginning of his campaign ads with “Kenyan-Born” crept up overseas, and the recent trip to Ghana again was riddled with “Returning to his Continent of Birth” and news video of people stating that Obama was Kenyan.

 But again, another ‘UNKNOWN’ must be included. Who was Barack Obama’s birth mother?

Just like with and I quote ‘EVERYTHING’ that is known and factual; the facts go so far and then drop off.  Again, notice the above, Obama was born in Kenya and she was there, but it stops at a critical point, who was his mother.

 Recently Barack Obama stated that he was a few months old when the Bay of Pigs invasion happened. A slip of the tongue or a genuine remark. Let’s dissect that statement with known facts. The Bay of Pigs invasion took place on April 1961. Obama claims to have been born on Aug 4^th 1961, four months after the event. What if in reality Obama was born prior to April 1961.

“Obama openly admits he is offering a psychological autobiography, not a chronological one.  The dialogue is an ‘approximation’ . . . the characters are ‘composites’ … ‘events appear out of precise chronology.'”

Let’s take another time period that Obama has placed relevance in, Nov 1960. The time period that Obama ‘CLAIMS’ his parents meet. Combine that with the statement from Grandma Sarah and you have the picture a little more clearly.

 Obama was dumped on Stanley Ann and Obama Sr took off to parts unknown and elsewhere like Harvard.

 Well if Stanley Ann Durham was NOT his mother then who was/is?

 First off, the gloves come off. We have always assumed that Stanley Ann was his mother. What if the reason Obama refuses to release his ‘RECORD’ that Hawaii has on files, is that it is NOT a Birth record, but an adoption record?

 Imagine that Obama finds his Birth Certificate in the box as described in “Dreams of My Father” and discovers that whom he thought was his mother WASN’T. Think of the resentment, the betrayal. when he’s old enough he starts using his ‘African’ name instead of his whitey name. He then goes on his travel of discovery, back to Africa to find his roots, To find his REAL mother, only Granny Sarah confirms the story. then to Indonesia to confront his mother and onto Pakistan where the real Barry finds solstice in the breeding hatred of Islam, and back to the US, and he uses the name Obama again. Dropping Soetoro as the anger against his mother is festering and now he’s Barack Obama ONLY. Created by paper once before, he re-creates himself again by using ‘HIS’ name.

 

 It also explains his white race hatred, esp. the teachings of Black theology in Wright’s Church. His non-advertising his ‘mother’s race’

 From Dreams of My Father: ‘I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.’

 From Dreams of My Father: ‘I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother’s race.’

 From Dreams of My Father: ‘There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.’

 From Dreams of My Father: ‘It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.’

From Dreams of My Father: ‘I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn’t speak to my own. It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.’

 From Audacity of Hope: ‘I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.’

 This is a perverse/warped/twisted individual outlook on his own biological mother is nothing less then alarming! It only adds to the mounting evidence that Stanley Ann was NOT his birth mother and the resentment that Barack Obama fostered because of the lies that were told to him. Stanley Ann became the evil step-mother in Cinderella and Obama’s used that fantasy to foster the hatred not only towards his mother, but also to his mother’s race.   

 This also clears up, the Dr Rodney West story that was floated around just prior to the inauguration. Dr Rodney West, whom the Obots touted as the Dr who first spanked Obama NEVER came forward and said that he delivered him. When he [Dr Rodney West] was still alive during the beginning of the campaign no mention was ever made.  Dr Rodney West would also have all his patient records as an infant and possibly for his mother. SO we have the Dr, who died last year who like the hospital has NEVER stepped forward and confirmed ANYTHING.

 And lastly the documents that Kenya has stated they have sealed are explained. The birth certificate that was generated by law when Barack Obama was born in Kenya has his real birth’s mother name and that is why they have protected it from seeing the light of day, as it contains a name other then Stanley Ann Obama.

 Here are the official State of Hawaii guidelines concerning adoption records.

 http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0020_0005.htm

  §338-20.5  Adoption; foreign born persons.  (a)  The department of health shall establish a Hawaii certificate of birth for a person born in a foreign country and for whom a final decree of adoption has been entered in a court of competent jurisdiction in Hawaii, when it receives the following:

      (1)  A properly certified copy of the adoption decree, or certified abstract thereof on a form approved by the department; and

      (2)  A copy of any investigatory report and recommendation which may have been prepared by the director of social services; and

      (3)  A report on a form to be approved by the department of health setting forth the following:

          (A)  Date of assumption of custody;

          (B)  Sex;

          (C)  Color or race;

          (D)  Approximate age of child;

          (E)  Name and address of the person or persons adopting said child;

          (F)  Name given to child by adoptive parent or parents;

          (G)    True or probable country of birth.

 Or this;

 http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0021.htm

     §338-21  Children born to parents not married to each other.  (a)  All children born to parents not married to each other, irrespective of the marriage of either natural parent to another, (1) on the marriage of the natural parents with each other, (2) on the voluntary, written acknowledgements of paternity under oath signed by the natural father and the natural mother, or (3) on establishment of the parent and child relationship under chapter 584, are entitled to the same rights as those born to parents married to each other and shall take the name so stipulated by their parents or, if the parents do not agree on the name, shall take the name specified by a court of competent jurisdiction to be the name that is in the best interests of the child.  The original certificate of birth shall contain the name so stipulated.  The child or children or the parents thereof may petition the department of health to issue a new original certificate of birth, and not a duplicate of the original certificate that has been amended, altered, or modified, in the new name of the child, and the department shall issue the new original certificate of birth.  As used in this section “name” includes the first name, middle name, or last name.

     (b)  The evidence upon which the new original certificate is made, and the superseded original certificate shall be sealed and filed and may be opened only upon order of a court of record.

     (c)  If the child’s natural parents marry each other and desire to change the child’s name, the child’s name may be changed and a new original certificate of birth prepared.

    (d)  Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the power of the courts to order the department to prepare new certificates of birth under section 584-23. [L 1949, c 327, §25; RL 1955, §57-24; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; am L 1967, c 6, §2; HRS §338-21; am L 1975, c 66, §2(4); am L 1980, c 153, §5; am L 1983, c 65, §2; am L 1986, c 287, §1; am L 1987, c 100, §2; am L 1988, c 141, §27; am L 1993, c 131, §3]

           The true or probable country of birth shall be known as the place of birth, and the date of birth shall be determined by approximation.  This report shall constitute an original certificate of birth; and

 (4)     A request that a new certificate of birth be established.

 Attorney General Opinions

  Department of health’s preparation of a new birth certificate pursuant to paternity orders.  Att. Gen. Op. 87-6.

 Case Notes

   Legitimacy or illegitimacy fixed at birth and cannot be changed by subsequent legislation.  3 H. 459; 4 H. 548.  Prior to amendment of Act 71, L 1907, children of adulterous intercourse not legitimated by subsequent marriage of parents.  4 H. 292; 17 H. 45, 415, aff’d 210 U.S. 149.  Legitimation by subsequent marriage.  29 H. 258, aff’d 16 F.2d 273.

   Child begotten and born out of wedlock even though legitimated by statute on marriage of parents, is not “lawfully begotten child” within meaning of will.  14 H. 271.

   Presumption of legitimacy is not conclusive, but rebuttable.  30 H. 574.  Evidence to rebut presumption.  49 H. 273, 414 P.2d 925.

   Effect of legitimation on necessity of father’s consent to adoption of child.  52 H. 395, 477 P.2d 780.

 In short the ‘Adoption of  Obama’ into the marriage of Obama/Durham created on paper, the “Aug 4^th 1961 in Hawaii” existence of the one known as “Barack Hussein Obama” born of a foreign and British ‘subject’ Barack Obama Sr and others unknown in Kenya.  This fulfills the puzzle in a complete circle. But it also mandates that as long as Barack Hussein Obama can confuse and claim to be born in Hawaii or at least to a US Citizen mother, then a certain number of the public will be slumbered into believing a ‘Native’ Citizen is eligible for the Presidency, where as a foreign born, with foreign parents leaves no doubt that Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro aka Barry Durham aka Barry Obama is exactly who he ‘CLAIMS’ he is, at the moment he’s claiming it, but in no way a ‘Natural Born’ Citizen as required by the United States Constitution.

Is a long form Birth Certificate fraud possible?

There is much speculation that Obama is working on a Long Form Birth certificate. That a typewriter from the period late 1950’s to the early 1960’s has been found, along with paper from the same era. That the forgery is waiting to be correctly “aged” to pass any forensic document specialist examination.

 A long form released by Obama will not answer ANY questions or validate what is already known. Let me explain.

 Obama has already admitted the following and this is not disputed;

 “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

 Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

 Thereby admitting he was a British subject. Also from his own web-site the following and notice the wording.

 Hi everyone!

People who are determined to keep us divided start these rumors about Barack’s birth certificate to manipulate us into thinking he is not an American citizen.

The fact is Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.

Learn the facts and see the birth certificate for yourself:

http://my.barackobama.com/birthcertificate

 Together we can make sure these negative and divisive attacks don’t affect this election.

Thanks for your help.

The long form Birth Certificate would have the following information, including the Doctor, nurses, witnesses, birth order, # of siblings, place of birth, mothers and father’s residence and occupation.

This would only open additional questions, that would be harder to cover-up and manipulate.

 1. They would have to disclose their residence. The residence that has been disclosed has been proven to be in question, as neighbors who were there at the time, did NOT recall the Obama’s or an inter-racial couple. The Obama’s would have stood out in the early 1960’s. Unlike the current inter-racial acceptance, in the late 1950’s and 60’s the inter-racial couples stood out and would have been remembered.

 2. Race of Father, this is an official US document and again refering back to the US Natality doumentation, on what legal entries were exceptable. African was NOT an acceptable entry.  http://www.nber.org/vital-statistics/historical/ and the 1961 Guideline http://www.nber.org/vital-statistics/historical/nat61_1.CV.pdf  Refere to Section 5 for the Technical Appendix and look under Race.

Then why if the long form is different, why the short form that was supposed to be filled in from information on the long form is different?

 3. Age of mother? Was Obama’s mother listed a different age, then her legal age, to protect against a felony charge of rape. Remember this is the early 1960’s and not today.

 4. Signature of attendent? This can be crossed referenced to duty logs and employment records. The name can NOT be pulled out of the air. They already attempted this with a Dr that retired in 1956. If there is a different name, another re-flag.

 The State of Hawaii also allows for ONLY one, attendent verification, and it can be either a Mid-wife, Doctor, Doctor’s Oderly [sp], or even other.

 5. The name of the hospital would also have to be identided, again the staffing records, and employment records and Doctors Staff, would have records.  Both hospitals that Obama has stated where he was born, has denied that both his mother and he were ever a patient.

 6. The Doctor would be identified.  There was a story already that Rodney T. West, M.D. was the doctor that delivered Obama. However after only a few hours that story was debunked as false, as Doctor West retired in 1956.  However one important note would be the following;

 Rodney West, 97, died February 24, 2008. in his native state, Hawaii, where he lived and worked for his entire career. According to the Honolulu Advertiser newspaper, West was born in Wailuku, Maui, and earned his MD from Northwestern University School of Medicine in 1934. He completed his internship and residency at Queen’s Hospital in Honolulu, the state’s largest private hospital . Called into active duty with the U.S. Navy in the fall of ‘1941, West was stationed at Pearl Harbor

 If Dr. West did in fact deliver Barack Obama on Aug 4^th, 1961, why did he NOT confirm it when he was alive? Barack Obama was already campaigning and stating he was born there, and Dr. West could have been asked. Just like his grandmother a convenient passing at a time, when questions were being asked, and yes, I was one that debunked the story and it was pulled after only a few hours.

 Not to mention, with the doctor when identified, he would also have personal records, and documentation.

Anyone relating to this Doctor, would gladly go back into the records and prove they were the first to slap Obama around.

 Again these are just the tip of the iceberg. As they are still a smoke screen as Obama does not, can not, NOR ever be Constitutionally eligible.

 Obama as stated above, was British at birth. Adopted by a foreign national in a foreign country. Re-entered the US illegaly, used forged papers to gain employment in this country!

 Those that have been to this site, already know the difference between a “NATIVE BORN” and a “NATURAL BORN” citizen are. So for those who would like a short course, here are the definitions:

 “Native Born” Citizen – Anyone born in the United States

 “Natural Born” Citizen – Born in the United States of parents who are citizens. Notice the parents being plural. Read the expanded legal definition at https://nobarack08.wordpress.com

 So is a long form Birth Certificate fraud possible? Yes it is, but again it would only open more questions then it would answer.  Personally there is strong and compelling evidence not limited to the following; 

1. the actions of Barack Obama to seal all his records, spending close to $1 million at this time to prevent his long form from being released

2. the fact that Hawaii can hold a foreign birth certificate as a vault copy and register the birth, even a foreign birth in the State of Hawaii.  Section 7c on the Hawaii form is for this. 

3. the fact that there are documents in Kenya that have been sealed. Why would Barack Obama have any records or documents in Kenya.

 the birth certificate on file in Hawaii can easily be the Kenyan long form, with or withoput an affidavit. That affidavit only needs to be from one person.

The State of Hawaii has also maintained the following:

They have one on file

They have NOT released any information that it contains

They have NOT stated that it is a Hawaiian Birth Certificate that they have, nor have they stated that they have one document or several documents that comprise the record.

The State of Hawaii does not even state they have a request for the COLB that was handled by FactCheck,  where as again, multiple documents were photographed. One without the SEAL and another with a SEAL.  Again, impossible as the State of Hawaii can ONLY release the document with the SEAL and signiture. So how did FactCheck have two different documents. I believe that they printed out the COLB that was posted on Fight the Smears, photographed it and in the process applied the SEAL that is seen on it, not realizing that the SEAL was different. [As shown in another post here] and then released the images without realzing they posted evidence of document forgery.

Also as proof that the State of Hawaii requires an application for the request. Go to the following site: http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/vital_records.html scroll to the bottom and see the request form. http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/pdf/birth.pdf As a side note, the State of Hawaii would also have the request from Obama for the one that he released last year 2008. Maybe the State of Hawaii can confirm they have THAT request on file and can produce THAT request also.

Natural Born Citizen legally defined

There has been much debate as to whether the term “Natural Born Citizen” has ever been legally defined or will some court have to finally define it, such as the Supreme Court of the United States.  The term “Natural Born Citizen” is a requirement for only two positions within our government, President and Vice-President.  What did the Founding Father’s and Framers of the United States Constitution mean to do or accomplish by placing this requirement for the highest office?

First off, let us look at what the Framer’s used as a guide.

The Founding Fathers of the United States, used Vattel’s Laws of Nations as their guide and reference to meanings and definitions within our Constitution. 

The myth that the founding of American Republic was based on the philosophy of John Locke could only have been maintained, because the history of Leibniz’s influence was suppressed. The American Revolution was, in fact, a battle against the philosophy of Locke and the English utilitarians. Key to this struggle, was the work of the Eighteenth-century jurist, Emmerich de Vattel, whose widely read text, The Law of Nations, guided the framing of the United States as the world’s first constitutional republic. Vattel had challenged the most basic axioms of the Venetian party, which had taken over England before the time of the American Revolution, and it was from Vattel’s The Law of Nations, more than anywhere else, that America’s founders learned the Leibnizian natural law, which became the basis for the American System.

Benjamin Franklin’s (a signer of our Constitution) letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775
“I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own public library here, and send the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author”?

I am sure most reading this will know who Benjamin Franklin was. However one reference will not squell the unbelief that Vattel’s Laws of Nations, is not clear enough. So do a search on Laws of Nations and you will get HUNDREDS of responses. http://rs6.loc.gov/ammem/hlawquery.html This from the Library of Congress.  Another excellent post is the following; The concept of judicial review, which Hamilton had championed in Rutgers v. Waddington, was included in the U.S. Constitution. In {The Federalist Papers,} No. 78, “The Judges as Guardians of the Constitution,” circulated as part of the debate over the new Constitution, Hamilton developed a conception of constitutional law which was coherent with Vattel’s conception. Hamilton stated that it is a “fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness.” However, the Constitution can only be changed by the nation as a whole, and not by the temporary passions of the majority or by the legislature. Both to protect the Constitution, but also to ensure just enforcement of the law, the independence of the judiciary from the legislature and the executive branch is essential. The judiciary must be the guardians of the Constitution, to ensure that all legislative decisions are coherent with it. This idea championed by Hamilton, that the courts ensured that the Executive and Legislative branches followed the Constitution, was later established as a principle of American jurisprudence by Chief Justice John Marshall

Again proving the Constitution, it’s meaning, it’s wording , and it’s definitions were clearly a result of being referenced to Vattel’s Laws of Nations. So what does the Laws of Nations say about a “Natural Born Citizen”?

Vattel in Bk 1 Sec 212, states the following. 

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

As I have stated before and will state here again.  Barack Obama, he has admitted being a British citizen at birth. From his own web-site,  “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

How can a British subject at birth, be free from any foreign influence as described by John Jay in the following; 

The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand’s Records, Volume 3]
LXVIII. John Jay to George Washington.3
[Note 3: 3 Documentary History of the Constitution, IV, 237.]
New York 25 July 1787

Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

Again Alexander Hamilton (a signer of our Constitution) in the Gazette of the United States, published in Philadelphia, on June 29, 1793 “The second article of the Constitution of the United States, section first, establishes this general proposition, that “the EXECUTIVE POWER shall be vested in a President of the United States of America…The executive is charged with the execution of all laws, the law of nations, as well as the municipal law, by which the former are recognized and adopted.”

“The Law of Nations” provides the Constitutional definition of a “natural born citizen, historical records reveal that Vattel’s work was quoted at the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787, various State Constitutional Conventions, and was also referenced in a 1785 letter by John Jay regarding a diplomatic matter.

Should any court finally decide that there IS ample evidence that Barack Obama is not qualified to hold the Office of the President of the United States, they will have to rely on Vattel as the defining definition and argument, and stare reality in the face that not only is Barack Obama unqualified, but that he is not even a US Citizen.

As a final note concerning the Supreme Court and Laws of Nations, I direct you to the following;

The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot’s Debates, Volume 3]
Saturday, June 21, 1788.

Page 564

There is to be one Supreme Court–for chancery, admiralty, common pleas, and exchequer, (which great eases are left in England to four great, courts,) to which are added criminal jurisdiction, and all cases depending on the law of nations–a most extensive jurisdiction. This court has more power than any court under heaven. One set of judges ought not to have this power–and judges, particular, who have temptation always before their eyes. The court thus organized are to execute laws made by thirteen nations, dissimilar in their customs, manners, laws, and interests. If we advert to the customs of these different sovereignties, we shall find them repugnant and dissimilar. Yet they are all forced to unite and concur in making these laws. They are to form them on one principle, and on one idea, whether the civil law, common law, or law of nations. The gentleman was driven, the other day, to the expedient of acknowledging the necessity of having thirteen different tax laws. This destroys the principle, that he who lays a tax should feel it and bear his proportion of it. This has not been answered: it will involve consequences so absurd, that, I presume, they will not attempt to make thirteen different codes. They will be obliged to make one code. How will they make one code, without being contradictory to some of the laws of the different states?

Allow me to make one more reference;

The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot’s Debates, Volume 4]
Seamen’s Bill.–For the Regulation of Seamen on Board the Public Vessels, and in the Merchant Service of the United States.
House of Representatives, February, 1813.

Mr. SEYBERT. The Constitution of the United States declares, Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies, throughout the United States.” Sir, the rule only relates to the mode; it is only operative during the nascent state of the political conversion, and it ceases to have effect the moment after the process has been completed. Your Constitution only recognizes the highest grade of citizenship that can be conferred. The alien is thus made a native, as it were, and is fully vested with every eight and privilege attached to the native, with the exception impressed on the Constitution Your statutes cannot deprive any particular species of citizens of the right of personal liberty, or the locomotive faculty, because the Constitution does not characterize the citizens of the United states as native and naturalized. Our great family is composed of a class of men forming a single genus, who, to all intents and purposes, are equal, except in the instance specified–that of not being eligible to the presidency of the United States. The only exception to the rule is expressed in the Constitution. If other exceptions had been contemplated by the framers of that instrument, they would also have been expressed. None other having been expressed, he said, it followed that your legislative acts could not make individual exceptions touching the occupation of a citizen. All freemen, citizens of the United States, may pursue their happiness in any manner and in any situation they please, provided they do not violate the rights of others. You cannot deny to any portion of your citizens, who desire to plough the deep, the right to do so, whilst you permit another portion of them the enjoyment of that right.

 

Mr. ARCHER. The framers of our Constitution did not intend to confine Congress to the technical meaning of the word naturalization, in the exercise of that power–the more especially when the comprehensive word rule was made use of. The principle upon which the power was to be exercised was left to the judicious exercise of Congress; all that was required was, that the rule should be uniform throughout the states. In the grant there is no other specification, as to the exercise of it, than that of its uniformity. The term naturalization was borrowed from England. It must be understood here in the sense and meaning which was, there attached to it. Whether it was absolute or qualified, it was still a naturalization. But the grant of a power in general terms necessarily implied the right to exercise that power in all its gradations. It Was in the political as it was in the natural world: the genus included the species. Besides, the power to naturalize was an attribute to sovereignty. It was either absolute or qualified; and if the grant to Congress only implied a power of unlimited naturalization, the power to qualify existed in the states or in the people, for what was not specifically granted was reserved.

In treating of the executive power, the Constitution defines the qualifications of the President. It declares that he should be a natural-born citizen, or a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution. This article is unquestionably no limitation of the power of Congress upon the subject of naturalization. It was impossible to abridge a specific grant of power without a specific limitation, and the article alluded to could not be tortured, by the most ingenious mind, to diminish, even by implication, the authority of Congress upon a subject to which it was totally irrelevant.