Monday, November 03, 2008


AUDIO OF CONVERSATION WITH OBAMA'S KENYAN GRANDMOTHER SAYS HIS BIRTHPLACE WAS IN KENYA! WHILE SARAH OBAMA SAYS HE WAS BORN IN AMERICA. According to attorney Nick Berg he now has signed and notarized affidavits from: The Kenyan Bishop, Registar of deeds from Mombasa, and the Kenyan grandmother ALL stating that Obama was born in Kenya. Attached is the complete U. S. Supreme Court filing with exhibits and affadavits: U.S. Supreme Court Writ of Certiorari – PDF (202 KB) Exhibit Charter Schools Rainbow Edition Newsletter – PDF (658 KB) Exhibit The Star Bulletin – Obama born in different hospital – PDF (43 KB) Exhibit Plaintiff Request for Admissions to Obama – PDF (80 KB) Application to Justice David H. Souter for a stay of the Presidential Elections and/or a Temp. Injunction staying the Presidential Election pending resolution of the Writ of Certiorari – PDF (206 KB) Affidavit of Bishop Ron McRae – PDF (3707 KB) Exhibits for Affidavit of Bishop Ron McRae – PDF (178 KB) Affidavit of Reverend Kweli Shuhubia – PDF (146 KB) AND THIS IS THE LAW AT THE TIME OF OBAMA'S BIRTH WITH ANALYSIS BY JOHN SAMPSON: So much has been debated about whether or not Barack H. Obama II is or is not a Natural Born US citizen. The problem is that so many people are totally uninformed as to the law as it existed in 1961 as it relates to the transmission of citizenship to a child born outside the US or its Outlying Possessions (OLP). In an effort to clear the air, to get the FACTS out so people can clearly see the issue without opining or guessing as to the legalilties, allow me to pontificate a bit. For the record, I am a recently retired Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent, with more than 25 years experience. Part of that experience is understanding and comprehending immigraiton and nationality law which is at the center of this issue. In short, I know a "little bit" about what I speak of. In 1961, as opposed to TODAY, Section 301(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as ammended (INA) required the following: A child being born to one alien parent (ie. Non Citizen) and one citizen parent in a marital relationship, required that the sole US citizen parent to have resided in the United States for a period of ten years, five of which must have been over the age of 14. Today's version of the law has somewhat different residency requirements for the US citizen parent. But the law, as it applied on August 4, 1961, required ten years presence, five after the age of 14. Barack Hussein Obama I (dad), was a citIzen and national of Kenya. He was not, nor had never been, a United States citizen. Ergo, he is the "alien" parent in this scenario. Stanley Ann Dunham (mom) was a US citizen by virtue of having been born in the US. At the time of Barack Hussein Obama II's birth on August 4, 1961, Ms. Dunham was 18 years old, having been born in November of 1942. As such, if Barack Hussein Obama II was born outside the US or its Outlying Possessions, on August 4, 1961, then Ms. Dunham could not transmit her citizenship to her son because she failed to have accumulated the necessary physical presence requirements that the LAW (that pesky and inconvenient thing that oftentime gets in the way of "change") demanded. The earliest in which Ms. Dunham could have transmitted her citizenship to a child born outside the US would have been when she was 19 years of age, which was in November of 1961 and NOT in August of 1961, when Obama was born. It's that simple. If he was born in Kenya, or anywhere else for that matter, other than the US or its OLP's, then he is not, nor can never be, eligible to hold the office of President of the United States of America inasmuch as he does not, nor never can, fullfill the requirements of Article II, Clause V of the Constitution of the United States. It's not an optional thing, regardless of whether or not someone thinks it's fair or not. It's the law, that pesky, recurring inconvenience that seems to get in the way, time and time again. Now, the quesiton remains to be answered if he was born in Kenya or not. The State of Hawaii has weighed in and states that there is a record of Mr. Obama's birth on file in the Department of Vital Statistics. However, THAT is not enough. There are two entirely different and distinct birth documents issued by the State of Hawaii. The first is a Certificate of Live Birth which is the traditional birth certificate we all are familiar with for children born IN Hawaii. Then there is a different document entitled Certification of Live Birth, which is issued to children born OUTSIDE of Hawaii but whose birth is registered in Hawaii pursuant to a quaint and scarcely known Hawaiian law, Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8. This law allows for the registration of a birth in Hawaii for a child who was born OUTSIDE Hawaii to parents who, for the year immediately preceding the child's birth, claimed Hawaii as their principle place of residence. Dunham and Obama Sr. both resided in Hawaii for the year immediately preceding Senator Obama's birth. Ergo sum, his birth, even if it occurred in Kenya, could legally be registered in Hawaii, and a Certification of Live Birth could have been issued, giving the uninitiated the impression that he was born in Hawaii when in fact, he was not. It is misleading when the State of Hawaii states that they have examined Obama's birth record and it is valid. It could very well be the case. The ISSUE however, is whether or not he was born in Hawaii as he claims, or if he was born in Kenya. There is of course, a plausible scenario in which he could've been born in Kenya and yet have his birth recorded in Hawaii as having been born in Hawaii when in fact he was not. It's quite simple actually. His mother could have lied. That's right. Ann Dunham could have given birth in Kenya, brought Obama back with her to the US and then fraudulently registered the birth in Hawaii. Is it likely? Who knows? Is it possible? As Sir Aruthur Coynan Doyle has written: Once you have eliminated what is impossibe, whatever remains, however unlikely, is possible. In this case, anything is possible. And it's so unfortunate that all but one relative on Ms. Dunham's side of the family are deceased. His maternal grandmother, who he conveniently just visited in Hawaii, is the one living relative that could possibly shed light on this subject. A simple question asking her if her daughter went to Kenya prior to Barack's birth would end the speculation, assuming of course, her response is truthful. And therein lies the rub. With so much fraud being perpetrated by the DailyKOS, Stop the Smears, and others, it's difficult to believe anything at this point. And isn't it oh so convenient that Obama goes to Hawaii on October 23, 2008 and the Hawaiian Department of Health, after his visit to Hawaii, issues the statement that the document they have is legitimate. The wording of their statement leaves alot to be desired. It's a non answer to a question. Yes, the document is valid. And? Was he born in Hawaii?????? Silence. The now infamous document posted on Stop the Smears and the DailyKOS, which has been determined to be a forgery by no fewer than three court certified Forensic Document Examiners, was a Certification of Live Birth and NOT a Certificate of Live Birth or Birth Certificate. However, in an effort to obfuscate the issue, the term "Birth Certificate" has been used interchangably with "Certification of Live Birth". Assuming that Mr. Obama has a legitimate Certification of Live Birth, the question must be asked: "Why post a forgery?" The answer is as follows: A. There does not exist a legitimate, authentic birth document for Obama showing birth anywhere in the US. OR B. He does have a legitimate Certification of Live Birth issued by the State of Hawaii. However, that document shows his place of birth as being in Mombassa, Kenya and NOT in Hawaii as the forged copy claims. What is troubling and frustrating is that Obama can, and has had the ability to do so for quite some time, resolve this matter by simply providing a certified copy of his authentic birth document. The only reason that is reasonable for his failure to do so is that he simply doesn't have a document that shows he was born in the US. His documents all show birth in Kenya. As to his Indonesian passport, that, in and of itself, is problematic for Obama. In order to have obtained Indonesian citizenship, which is the only way one legitimately gets an Indonesian passport, he must have renounced his US citizenship, assuming for a moment, that he was, in fact a US citizen at any time. The fact that he renounced his US citizenship in order to obtain citizenship in Indonesian also makes him ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States under Article II, Clause V of the Constitution of the United States. Look. The facts and the law, are just that, the facts and the law. Wishing it wasn't so, being upset that the law is the way it was in 1961, wishing that people wouldn't bring that pesky inconvenient issue of the law, won't change a thing. Mr. Obama, like it or not, whether you think it's fair or not, if born outside the US, is NOT, nor never can be, eligible to hold the office of President of the United States. Period. End of discussion. IF, in fact, he was born in Kenya, as it appears he very well was, then his continued candidacy and the acceptance of campaign funds and donations, is a fraud. Furthermore, this issue is likely to throw this country into a Constitutional crisis, the likes of which we have never seen, making the elections of 2000 and 2004 look tame by comparison. And don't you think Obama knows whether or not he was born in the US or not? ALAN NOTE: and would have already proved it, if that were true?


Michael said...

It appears that the links to the documents are requiring authorization. I'm, of course, very interested to see these documents. Could you fix the website/links?

smrstrauss said...

Re Obama being born in Kenya:


If Obama had been born in Kenya, there would be a record of his mother arriving in Kenya in the archives of the Kenya government.

I assume that they call the Kenyan government department or agency that checks arrivals the Immigration Department. Whatever they call it, all governments record arrivals and departures. And they are likely maintain those records and have them open as public documents, as we do in the USA.

The critics of Obama who allege that he was born in Kenya, have not shown anything like this. All they would have to do is to go to those files in Kenya and show that Obama’s mother had been in Kenya in 1961.

I listened to the tape and it is not clear that Obama's grandmother understood the question. The translator (who is also apparently a relative) says repeatedly that Obama was born in Hawaii.

The officials in Hawaii say he was born in Hawaii.

The certificate of live birth has been accepted as legal proof of Obama's birth in Hawaii by a court in Virginia. (Yesterday. See:

Unless you can PROVE that Obama was born in Kenya, this is an absurd claim.

And so is the claim that the governor of Hawaii, who is a Republican, ordered that Obama's birth certificate be sealed. (She didn't, that was simply mis-reporting by a group claiming to be a news agency. The facts are that all birth records are sealed. She made no special order to seal.)

After Berg, several other cases against Obama on the natural born citizen issue were brought in other states. There were several cases.

While some of them just did what the Berg case did, which was to rule that Berge had no standing to sue, some of the others looked at the “evidence” - and concluded that the stuff was absurd.

In Ohio, for example the judge (magistrate) said:

“(Neal) presented no witnesses but himself. From that testimony, it is abundantly clear that the allegations in [Neal]’s complaint concerning “questions” about Senator Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen” are derived from Internet sources, the accuracy of which has not been demonstrated to either Defendant Brunner or this Magistrate … Given the paucity of evidence… this Magistrate cannot conclude that Defendant Brunner has abused her discretion in failing to launch an investigation into Senator Obama’s qualifications to hold the office of President of the United States. ” See:

In Virginia, which was just ruled on yesterday, the judge went further and said that the certificate of live birth was good proof that Obama was born in Hawaii, and there was NO proof presented that he was born anywhere else.

Here is a report from a web posting that is not official, of course, but it seems accurate mainly because the fellow who posted it was AGAINST Obama. He is disappointed, but accepts the ruling. You can find this post at : (

(Note that sometimes the author correctly puts COLB correctly and sometimes he types it as CLOB, but he means certificate of live birth throughout.)


The Court made the following findings:

1. The Certification of Live Birth presented to the court is unquestionably authentic.

The court noted that the certification had a raised seal from the state of Hawaii, had a stamp bearing the signature of the registrar of vital statistics. The court found “wholly unpersuasive” any of the internet claims that the birth certificate was altered in any way. Furthermore, the document itself was accompanied by an affidavit from the State Health Director (of Hawaii) verifying that the document is an authentic certification of live birth. The court held that there could be no doubt that the document was authentic unless one believed that the state of Hawaii’s health department were in on an elaborate and complex conspiracy – and that there is not a shred of evidence that this is the case.

2. The Certification of Live Birth establishes that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen.

The affidavit of the State Health Director states that the information on the CLOB is identical to the information on the “vault” copy of the birth certificate, and that both documents establish that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu. The Court noted that the CLOB is valid for all citizenship purposes. The court noted our argument that the COLB is not valid for determining citizenship, but referred us to Hawaiian law that states otherwise. “There is no difference between a certificate and a certification of live birth in the eyes of the state. For instance, either can be used to confirm U.S. citizenship to obtain a passport or state ID.” The court found that Hawaiian law makes the COLB valid for all purposes with the exception of determining native Hawaiian heritage for certain state and federal benefits. The court held that if Mr. Obama were born elsewhere and the birth registered in Hawaii, the “place of birth” line on the COLB would reflect that fact. The court stated that there could be no doubt that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii and that any argument to the contrary was fanciful and relied on completely unsubstantiated internet rumors.

3. For that reason, 8 U.S.C. §1401(g), which at the relevant time provided as follows:

“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: ***(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:…..
is irrelevant to this matter, as Mr. Obama was conclusively born in Hawaii.

4. Mr. Obama did hold dual citizenship in the U.S. and Kenya until he became an adult. When Barack Obama Jr. was born Kenya was a British colony. 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: “British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.” In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UK. Obama’s UK citizenship became an Kenyan citizenship on Dec. 12, 1963, when Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. The court noted that Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:

1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…

2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.
Thus the court held that as a citizen of the UK who was born in Kenya, Obama’s father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UK status at birth and given that Obama’s father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), thus Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship in 1963.

However, the court further held that the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya’s Constitution specifies that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya. The court held that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama has ever renounced his U.S. citizenship or sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.

The court held that there was no legal requirement that Mr. Obama renounce his Kenyan citizenship or affirm his U.S. citizenship in order to maintain his status as a natural born citizen.

5. Mr. Obama did not lose his U.S. Citizenship based on the acts of his parents, including adoption by an Indonesian citizen. The Court held that no action taken by the parents of an American child can strip that child of his citizenship. The court cited to the 1952 Immigration & Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, Sections 349 and 355, which was in effect in the late 1960s when Obama went to Indonesia, and which stated that a minor does not lose his US citizenship upon the naturalization of his parents or any other actions of his parents, so long as the minor returns to the US and establishes permanent US residency before the age of 21. Thus the adoption of Obama did not serve to strip him of his U.S. citizenship. The fact that Indonesian law does not allow dual citizenship is irrelevant, as U.S. law controls. Furthermore, the Court held that traveling on a foreign passport does not strip an American of his citizenship. The Court noted first that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama traveled on an Indonesian passport (Mr. Berg and others we reached out to for evidence never provided any evidence of this claim or any other of the claims we could have used some proof of.) Nonetheless, the court held that such travel does not divest an American of his citizenship.

The Court makes other holdings and findings that I won’t bother you with here. Needless to say, the decision is wholly against us. The court finds the claims against Mr. Obama’s citizenship “wholly unpersuasive and bordering on the frivolous, especially in light of the complete absence of any first-hand evidence on any critical issue” and further classifies it as “conspiracy theory of the lowest sort, fueled by nothing than internet rumor and those who truly want to believe egging each other on.”

I like the part about “conspiracy theory of the lowest sort.”

smrstrauss said...

This just in:

Tuesday, November 4, 2008 - 11:53 PM EST | Modified: Wednesday, November 5, 2008 - 0:57 AM

Obama to be 44th president of the United States
Dayton Business Journal

Sen. Barack Obama has been declared the winner of the race for president of the United States by several news organizations, and his Republican rival Sen. John McCain has given his concession speech at a rally in Arizona.

As of 11:45 p.m., it was projected that Obama had 338 electoral votes, well beyond the 270 needed. That makes him the first African-American to be elected to the White House.

As president-elect, Obama addressed a crowd estimated at about 100,000 people in Chicago at about midnight and said change is coming to America. Obama said he was going to be president of not just the "blue states" and "red states," but of all of the United States of America during an acceptance speech that had many in the crowd with tears streaming down their faces.

In a concession speech in Arizona, McCain praised Obama's successful campaign and called on Americans to work together to tackle the country's issues.

Thor said...


Mberenis said...

Did you hear the good news? Obama is making it better for us already! Most people don't realize how much money there is out there. During economic times like this, there is more money to be had than ever. Because of the bailouts and economy, lenders are bending over backwards to bail you out too. Believe it or not, there is people getting tons of cheap money nowdays to start businesses, buy homes, pay off debt, and more. Bailout is for YOU

sm said...