Skip to comments.Obama is not a Native US Citizen
Posted on 05/14/2010 3:21:18 PM PDT by bushpilot1
Meandering through my 1928 Edition of Bouvier's Law Dictionary on page 833, Native, Native Citizen is defined:
Those born in a country, of parents who are citizens.
If Obama does not meet the standards of a native citizen how can he be a natural born citizen.
Yes indeed, and in case someone missed it there, here is the reference.
or you prefer the image:
Les consuls et vice consuls respectifs ne pourront être pris que parmi les sujets naturels de la puissance qui les nommera. Tous seront appointés par leur souverain respectif, et ils ne pourront en conséquence faire aucun trafic ou commerce quelconque ni pour leur propre compte, ni pour le compte d'autrui.
And the translation, likely by the Secretary of Congress, Charles Thomson
The respective Consuls and Vice Consuls shall only be taken from among the natural born subjects of the power nominating them. They shall all be appointed by their respective Sovereign, and in Consequence of such appointment they shall not exercise any traffic or commerce whatsoever either on their own account, or on account of any other
This definition in 5.-1st is totally consistent with what the WKA ruling actually said, not the insidious treacherous spin that Wong was determined to be NBC based on the false claim that native citizen equals natural born citizen regarding POTUS eligibility.
Do you think the opposition here will be able understand it?
I once even tried the analogy of 2 + 2 ...nothing seems to work.
Except for those years in Indonesia, part of which was spent memorizing the Koran. Forgot about that did you?
Not that it matters. Natural born, or not, is established at birth, by the circumstances of that birth. BHO's circumstance is that his father was not a citizen, not then or ever.
Correct, but if US law, via the meaning of "natural born citizen" requires that both parents be Citizens at the time of birth, then it only matters that BHO Sr was not a citizen, it doesn't matter what nation he was a citizen of. Nor does it matter if that other country claims his offspring as a citizen either. It's the lack of US citizenship that counts. The non citizen parent could be be stateless and the offspring would still not be natural born. They could and would under the 14th amendment, be a citizen, with some exceptions.
Actually the point is they were trying to extend the definition. But 5 years later realized that was improper, and settled for making the children of citizen parents who were born abroad citizens, not "considered" as Natural Born. Subsequent Supreme court cases have affirmed that those children are naturalized, because the only power congress has to make citizens is the power to define a uniform rule of naturalization. Being naturalized does not only include the individualized process of residency requirement, testing, oath taking and so forth. There are other ways defined in the Statutes.
Don't be so certain. There was a divorce, not an annulment or whatever a legal recognition that a marriage never existed. Since Stanley Ann asked for no child support or allimony (alimony was pretty standard in 1961 divorces) why would she have bothered with a divorce if they weren't married? She clearly knew of the first "wife" by that time.
But the point is, that the marriage was apparently legally recognized at the time, and thus BHO Sr would be legally recognized as the father, even if biologically he was not. A father who was not a US citizen, and who even though absent, had a great influence on BHO's outlook and attitudes. I mean he wrote, or had Bill Ayers write, a whole book about the "Dreams from my Father".
That hut is not in Kansas.
No one is saying that WKA was not a citizen, well maybe a few, but the court did not say he was a natural born citizen, and even if they had, it would have been dicta, because that status was not at issue, as it never would be except in a Presidential eligibility case. That is the only time being a "natural born citizen" is required. Otherwise citizens, natural born, born in the country, born outside to citizens, etc, all the same before the law. Naturalized citizens do have "time a citizen" requirements, but for those naturalized at birth outside the country and those born in the country of alien parents, those are met by merely meeting the age requirements. The residency requirements apply to all citizens, regardless of how they became so.
And this fits the definition of the term "Denizen" in Blackstone. A Denizen literally means resident, from the French root. And a Denizen at English Common Law had most of the citizen rights of a natural born subject - but none of the political rights, including not being eligible to high office.
Not quite. If one or both partners believed the marriage was legitimate, then it is Putative Marriage A real world example is one were a guy was shot down over Vietnam and declared to be KIA, whose wife then married his comrade in arms. They had several children together. Those children are considered legitimate, and there was no crime (bigamy is a crime). I forget how it was sorted out. Definitely an awkward situation.
But back to BHO, if Stanley Ann thought BHO Sr was legally able to marry her, and their is no indication that she did not so believe, then at least from her point of view, the marriage would fit the definition at the link above:
Three circumstances must concur to constitute this species of marriage. 1st. There must be a bona fides. One of the parties, at least, must have been ignorant of the impediment, not only at the time of the marriage, but must also have continued ignorant of it during his or her life, because, if he became aware of it, he was bound to separate himself from his wife. 2d. The marriage must be duly solemnized. 3d. The marriage must have been considered lawful in the estimation of the parties, or of that party who alleges the bona fides.A marriage in which these three circumstances concur, although null and void, will have the effect of entitling the wife, if she be in good faith, to enforce the rights of property, which would have been competent to her if the marriage had been valid, and of rendering the children of such marriage legitimate.
The 14th amendment doesn't define or redefine "natural born citizen" it doesn't even mention it. The real purpose of the 14the amendment was to prevent states from denying citizenship to newly freed blacks. It made *all persons* born in the US citizens. It also made "all persons naturalized in the US" citizens. It made neither class of citizens natural born.
The term could be redefined from it's original 1787 meaning, but the amendment would be very specific. "All persons ... new criteria... are natural born citizens of the United States. Just because the 14th uses the words born and citizen, doesn't mean it's redefined "natural born".
It's fine, the same thing, in both images and text, is on the libaray of Congress website. See my post 301 on this thread.
He would have written cityons naturels, but sometimes things are just understood in the context of the paragraph. In that case the paragraph/section was talking about Citoyens/Citizens, so that is what the adjective "naturels" had to be modifying (in the grammatical sense, as El Lobo Azul, (meaning the Blue Wolf, with Azul modifying Lobo) . It was certainly not modifying "subjects"/"sujects", which does not appear in the section.
So.....can't come out to play really means you will come out to play (oops..I mean spread propaganda and play the role of Tokyo Rose)
Talking in the third person for a while must have scrambled your brain.
Black is white....Up is down....is that what you want us to believe?
Are you being intentionally ignorant?
We are discussing here the meaning of an adjective. The OED (You should look at it sometime in a library, if you ever go.) is a history of the English language and so gives examples of when specific usage of words and phrases entered the language. In order to show how an adjective is used, you kinda have to use nouns. (Like, duh.) The relevant usage examples of natural-born and native-born entered the language as modifiers of the noun subject.
“Obama as you know, inherited a foreign allegiance to another country at birth, therefore, he cannot be an natural born US Citizen.”
An earlier poster rejected the idea that anyone was saying Obama isn’t President due to his feudal loyalty to QE2 - yet here you say it.
I guess you can feel free to try to continue to convince folks that Obama’s loyalty to England disqualifies him. What you won’t be able to do is stop them from laughing in your face...
“Forgot about that did you?
Not that it matters.”
Didn’t forget. Didn’t forget that I spent 2 years living in Taiwan, and another couple living in Iceland, all before I was 12. But by anyone’s definition, I’m still a NBC.
Yes, but are you a Manchurian Usurper?
1 Part of the question concerning Vattel is, “When the writers of the Constitution wrote NBC, were they thinking of Vattel or common law?”
NBS was a standard legal phrase in English law, and multiple courts have found that the meaning of NBC was carried over from NBS.
Had they been thinking of Vattel, they would have written, “He must be indigenous...”, that being the phrasing used by Vattel.
2 Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Vattel was commonly translated NBC prior to the Constitution. One would still need to ask if NBC is rooted in common law as a legal term, or if one sentence in a philosophy book is the limit of what was intended. And to date, the courts have been pretty consistent in looking to common law - where it was an established phrase - rather than one sentence in a book.
Vattel never tried to address what it would mean if an alien father had a child by a native woman, and the child was raised as a native independent of the absent father. That wasn’t his purpose in writing.
Philosophically, a native or indigenous person is someone born in the country of native parents. He was trying to show that meant the natural allegiance was to that country. He wasn’t concerned with Indians, illegitimate children, anchor babies, tourists passing thru, etc. He didn’t need to be. He wasn’t trying to write law.
To remove Obama, you don’t need a little evidence, you need enough to overturn an election based on a fact that everyone knew, and no one with standing (legislature, state official, Congress, other candidates, etc) thought disqualifying.
To prevail in court, you need to show that Vattel was not AN influence, but the only possible source of meaning - and I think you will admit that is not the case. No court will touch it if they have an out. And they do - an interpretation prevalent for over 100 years, rooted in the common law that preceded the Constitution.
“Yes, but are you a Manchurian Usurper?”
Ah yes...another well thought out and reasoned response.
Here is my answer - if I am, then so are Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh. And I’ll choose their company over an Internet poster called Canedawg.
So, you condone Ozero’s failure to produce his authentic long form birth certificate, in spite of the turmoil it is causing?
Your posts seem pretty dumb, ya know.
What I condone - IF you would bother with reading before posting - is the idea that Obama can be President even with a foreign born father. In that, I’m in agreement with about 99.5% of the world.
“Your posts seem pretty dumb, ya know.”
I’m devastated. Now I’ll probably spend the rest of the week as an emotional wreck...
BS. It's not how Obama or anyone else feels to any particular country knucklehead. What disqualifies Obama as an NBC is being born a Kenyan and receiving a foreign citizenship at birth from his father. He doesn't get a choice. Obama is not and never will be a natural born US citizen.
You can laugh all you want - we know and you know you are wrong. There are Constitutional Scholars that say the same as I do. For instance this guy:
"Dr. Edward J. Erler, a political science professor at Cal State San Bernardino, has spoken out against the political malaise and the popular misconception that has blossomed around the continued awarding of citizenship to virtually anyone born in the country. Echoing the sentiments of Eastman, Erler points out that the framers of the 14th Amendment sought to reassure the Congress in 1868 that the citizenship provisions did not covernor were they crafted with the intent to grantcitizenship to the children of foreign nationals born in the United States. Specifically, the myriad of Native American tribes were not covered under the citizenship clause because they clearly owed allegiance to their tribes and therefore were not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government a clear indication Erler says that jurisdiction is indeed contingent on exclusive allegiance. And a childs allegiance must follow that of its parents during its years as a minor."
Such a marriage does not create dual citizenship for the children under the BNA of 1948, which appears to have been the concern of the founders.
While the wife may enforce property rights, the UK, after proper discovery in Kenya and HI, would likely decline to consider BHO II to be one of the children of BHO Sr that was actually “governed by the BNA of 1948”, as Obama’s campaign so cleverly dangled before the opposition like a red flag in front of a bull.
Why would Obama’s campaign dangle this UK statute out to the public in a statement obviously drafted by lawyers if they didn't have an back door escape? Note that the campaign only said the BNA of 1948 governed BHO Sr’s children, NOT BHO II specifically.
It was Factcheck, not Obama’s campaign that jumped to put forward the assumption that BHO II specifically was a UK subject at birth. That assumption is based on a non-bigamous marriage, which the 1948 BNA’s governance specifically excludes, but Factcheck didn't examine that issue before they declared BHO II to be a UK subject at birth.
If a bigamous marriage were introduced into evidence, BHO II would not be a UK subject at birth and would not be a dual citizen and no violation of that aspect of the founder's intent. Of course, as yet there has been no SCOTUS ruling on point to Obama’s fact set, so I am only speculating.
Roger Ailes, Rush and Coulter do their homework and may view the NBC issue to be a trap because the bigamy could well negate Obama’s dual citizenship status at birth.
Obama was confident that he could deflect a challenge to his NBC status caused by his UK subject father, and he was right. He gamed the system though distortion and complicity of the MSM, Hillary, McCain and all of the elites, especially in taking advantage of superficial ambiguities in the WKA decision that can be twisted to support a conclusion that Wong was NBC. Obama was inaugurated in spite of a public declaration leading to an assumption that he was a subject of the Queen at birth.
What Obama is obviously NOT confident about is the “born on US soil” aspect of his NBC status.
Regarding the bigamy aspect, from what I’ve read, there is a lot of murkiness surrounding 0bama Sr’s marraige to Kezia, dates of their first son’s birth, when 0 Sr left for the US, whether they had a legal marriage at that time or ever, etc.
Their intent went to foreign influence, not merely dual nationality. I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that BO is not influenced by his father's nationality.
But you may be right about them throwing out that bone, to distract from the real meat.
There are conflicting dates regarding Kezia in newspaper interviews and in Dreams Obama claims that only the children of the Ndsandjo marriage were able to prove their mother's marriage and to inherit from BHO Sr. I regard anything Obama says in Dreams as highly suspect.
What seems most likely to me is that Kezia’s tribal marriage was legal and recognized in UK Colonial Kenya under the Marriage Act of 1902 and that bigamy was unlawful under that act EVEN FOR MUSLIMS!
See Kenya Marriage Act of 1902 paragraph #49:
49. Whoever contracts a marriage under this Act, being at the time married in accordance with native law or custom or in accordance with Mohammedan law to any person other than the person with whom such marriage is contracted, shall be guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
The best account I have found regarding the Kezia-BHO Sr marriage is from the Daily Mail:
“Barack was also worried about what his father would think because I was so young, but he gave us his approval. He sent my mother and father 14 cows for my dowry.
“Barack’s father was only a cook so it was a big sacrifice. Very soon after, we were married.”
That was January 1957. Kezia and Barack Snr set up home in Jericho, a section of Nairobi created for government employees, and began a family.
First son Roy was born in March 1958. Kezia insisted: “Barack was a good husband.”
It was not long before Barack’s potential was noticed by his employees and he was offered a scholarship to the US.
By the summer of 1959, he was bound for Hawaii, leaving Kezia three months pregnant with Auma.
Kezia said: “I went with him to the airport. He gave me a cuddle and I was crying.
“He said, ‘Bye bye, see you later when I come back.’”
Instead, Barack Sr met Barack Jr's mother, Ann, in Honolulu. She was an 18-year-old fellow student from Kansas and within months they were united in what appears to have been a bigamist marriage.
Without proper discovery in a court of law and unfettered access to documents and witnesses in Kenya and HI, we won't know the legal truth of whether Obama was a UK subject at birth.
The translation is in the footnotes, thus what was immediately above them doesn’t necessary relate to them, and in this case, it didn’t.
Of course they did, because there were no English citizens at that time, only subjects. But that does not mean that "natural born citizens" have the same requirments relative to birth in the country or outside it to other natural born citizens, as "natural born subjects" had. Changing the one word changes the meaning of the "term of art". In English or French. The representatives of the French Monarchy wrote "sujects naturels" in that treaty of commerce with the fledgling US (in conjunction with French speaking US diplomats, most likely Ben Franklin himself, who was at the time the US ambassador to France), while Vattel wrote "naturels" while writing of "cityons" and did so earlier than that treaty was written.
CCK and Keflavik?
< But by anyones definition, Im still a NBC.
Yes you are, assuming you were one before moving there. I just could not figure out why you said he was raised in the US, since we know he spent several of his most formative years in Indonesia, living and going to school with the Indonesians, and going to Mosque with his Indonesian stepfather. Hardly the same thing. But still not disqualifying if he had been an NBC to begin with.
SA was 17 when BO was conceived, her birthday being November 29th, '42. By the time they were "married" she would have been 18, and was almost 3 months shy of 19 on BO's indicated birth date of Aug. 4, '61. Fortunately for BHO Sr, the age of consent in Hawaii was 14 at that time, so no statutory rape was involved.
Of course if that had been my 17 y/o daughter, a shotgun might have been involved, irregardless of the ethnicity of the scallywag.
It shouldn't matter. If BHO Sr is the acknowledged father, then BHO Jr was not born of two citizen parents. OTOH, if Frank Davis or Malcom X or some black sailor was the father.. and the birth certificate reflects that, or doesn't show a father at all, then Junior is an NBC. But unless it shows a name other than Barack Hussien Obama II, that would seem unlikely.
I've been going to libraries since oh about 1958 or so, maybe a little longer. There was a nice, if small, Carnegie library a block from my elementary school. My wife is a college professor, and the school where she is a department chair has a very nice library, much larger than a school their size would normally have. Don't go so much anymore, since most of what I want to know I can look up on line. I do recall going through two different collections of Thomas Jefferson's papers in their "stacks", trying to verify a quote, which is most likely a bogus one.
The (not for profit) research institute I work for has a pretty large library. The US Army command where I'm currently assigned also has a small library. Neither have just technical materials though I doubt the latter has the OED though, the former might.
So yes, I am familiar with libraries. Just a wee bit.
Would anyone beyond SADO’s parents be motivated to conceal the pregnancy of SADO and the birth of a biracial baby to (hint hint) to a recently arrived foreign exchange student funded by a leftist philanthropic literacy communist (KGB infiltrated) front organization???
"ProLiteracy noted that its predecessor organization, Laubach Literacy International, along with literacy pioneer Elizabeth Mooney, provided foreign aid money for President Obama's father, Barack H. Obama Sr., to continue his studies in the U.S. Before attending the University of Hawaii, Obama Sr. had been working for the Kenyan Government Literacy Project under the direction of Mooney. He co-authored three books on literacy in his native Luo language, which were used to teach Kenyans about health, agriculture and citizenship."
Would those motivated to conceal such a wanton indiscretion by a high-profile student that they were sponsoring (whose transportation to HI they had funded) be perhaps motivated to arrange a secret marriage in Feb of 1961 (vital record index released by HI) followed by a free trip for the new goo-goo-eyed African-besotted bride back to Kenya (perhaps being unaware of Obama Srs. bigamy) to deliver the potentially disastrous for public relations baby there out of sight where little BHO II would be unlikely to cause condemnation of the whole African Student Airlift???
Means, motive, opportunity is there for SADO to be FULLY FUNDED take a nice slow boat-ride to Kenya (or even a jet or turboprop) soon after Feb 1961 BY HERSELF (or with a chaperon) leaving BHO Sr. to uphold the good intentions and good name of the literacy project and free to further plans of the pan-African/pan-Global Marxists for Obama Sr.'s role in post-colonial Kenya intact!
You see, my personal library has the 20 volume 2nd edition of the OED. It probably means something, but I'm not quite sure how to express it.
Living in Indonesia isn't disqualifying, nor is going to a mosque nor having an Indonesian stepfather - who probably had far more influence on Barry than Barack Sr.
In honesty, being a NBC probably was a poor idea for how to ensure loyalty to the USA, although it may have made some sense for the first 100 years. Beyond that, the electorate SHOULD prevent America-haters from becoming President, but JFKerry and Obama are evidence that a large part of our population hates America, or feels guilty for American success.
I don't have an ounce of white guilt in me, so that may be why I don't understand the election of Obama. It is beyond me how anyone could be tempted to ever vote for anyone who attended Rev Wright's church - not for President, not for trash collector!
My Filipina wife and I have a pretty comfortable life now, but we also worked our tails off. I worked 12 hour days as normal in my military career, and was deployed 5-6 months each year for much of it. My wife put in 20 hour days going to nursing school, and trying to learn medicine in her third language...while raising teenage kids while I was in Saudi or Turkey.
We don't have the life we now have because I'm white or because she is brown. We've worked and saved, lived in rentals much of our life, bought cars for cash and drove them until we literally gave them away. We don't have TV and maybe once a month eat out at a place where the meals top out at $12...so what makes others think we've 'won life's lottery'?
I paid $4000 in property taxes last year while home schooling my youngest daughter at our own expense, and on Tuesday, AZ has a ballot initiative to increase the sales tax 18% 'for the children'! The local school district gives free laptops to kids, and then wonders why they can't make ends meet????
We just sent $5000 to my wife's family in the Philippines so they can buy farm land and WORK their way out of poverty. THAT is charity I understand - not giving to bums who sit on their butts and wait for the next handout!
No, I don't understand modern America. The average credit card debt is around $8000, but since half of cardholders don't have debt, that means about half of them have CC debt of $15,000+. They spend evenings watching American Idol and playing video games, then wonder why they aren't getting ahead in life. Then they vote for someone who they KNEW hated America, and capitalism, and freedom, who wants America weak and wants to actively kill anyone who survives an abortion - WHY??????????
The problem with Obama isn't his Kenyan father. It is his marxism and class hatred and racial hatred - and ALL of that was KNOWN beyond doubt BEFORE the election!
I don't understand it, but it won't be beaten in the courts. If we don't win at the ballot box, there will be nothing left to 'win'. The courts won't save us.
Sorry for the rant. It is largely immaterial to the discussion, but my wife is sleeping after working her 12 hour night shift and I'm left thinking about how much my country changed during my 52 years. My Dad entered the military as a teenager in WW2, and worked his way up to Colonel with a HS education. Had he lived, I don't think he would recognize the country anymore...
In a flight suit in Taichung 1965:
Being a tourist with my sister 1965
Playing this hypothetical out, SADO may have found that life for a white wife of a native Kenyan in tribal UK Colonial Kenya was not as romantic as it had appeared in her imagination, and perhaps she found out about Kezia as well.
Perhaps SADO bolted back to the US shortly after Obama II was born in Mombasa. But she perhaps had been told and understood that it would be highly damaging to BHO Sr and his sponsoring literacy foundation for her to appear back in HI with baby Barack. So perhaps the foundation and her parents arranged for her to return not to HI but to WA where she and her family had friends and she could resume her schooling until BHO Sr was safely out of HI with his degree. And then when BHO Sr leaves HI in 1962 she almost immediately returns to HI! Dovetails nicely, I think.
Bless you, Mr. Rogers. Don’t let these people get you down.
Two citizen parents on US soil is certainly the well-documented primary definition of NBC that I favor as well, but what is the intent of that language if not primarily to exclude foreign sovereign influence, as John Jay wrote to Washington?
If BHO II was a confirmed legal dual US citizen and subject of the Queen at birth, I am confident that SCOTUS would rule him to NOT be an NBC at least on a 5-4 decision.
I am not confident that they would apply that ruling retroactively to Obama, but the intent of the founders seems clear that they did not want, at a minimum, the foreign influence of claims of a foreign sovereign on the POTUS as would be the case if Obama was legitimate UK subject at birth as well.
I don't think I can say with confidence how SCOTUS would rule if SADO was legally single and BHO II only had a unitary US citizenship through his mother and NO claim of a foreign sovereign on him because of bigamy.
With an illegitimate father, any foreign influence would only be a weak influence from his illegitimate father and not a sovereign influence under the 1948 BNA. Such an illegitimate foreign influence would not be legally enforceable in any way by the father or the UK.
This makes for a much weaker case than if his parents were married and he was actually governed by the BNA of 1948 at birth. So to me it clearly does matter whether his parents were legally married in a non-bigamous marriage.
If Obama was born in Kenya, nearly all but the most die-hard Obamabots would agree that he is not NBC, which is why I believe he is blocking access to the likely evidential foundation of such a case against him, that being his HI vital records.
The only part that does not sound credible to me is her going to Kenya by herself with O Sr. If the scenario happened as you describe, perhaps he would have accompanied her, stayed a while and then returned to HI?
From everything I’ve read over the last two years, I think it more likely than not that 0thugga was born in Mombasa.
“The only part that does not sound credible to me is her going to Kenya by herself with O Sr. If the scenario happened as you describe, perhaps he would have accompanied her, stayed a while and then returned to HI?”
There is virtually little or no record or accounts on the whereabouts of SAD after she graduated from high school until August of 1961. 99% percent of that time she could have been anywhere.
Given that most colonists had been born English subjects and children of British (or other foreign) subjects it's going to take a bit to figure that out.
I suspect he probably meant not someone who'd been born outside of the colonies. Gates and Lee had been born in Britain, Montgomery in Ireland, Mercer in Scotland, Lafayette, de Kalb, von Steuben, Kościuszko, Pulaski on the European continent. With all those more or less foreign generals and colonels in the army would it really matter so much where Greene's or Morgan's or Knox's or Putnam's father or mother had been born?
"The society that developed in the Chesapeake was so unique that British officials often made explicit distinctions between the English-born and the natives or "creoles born in Virginia.
Reminiscent of what was going on in the Spanish colonies at the same time.
But did we really adopt the Spanish distinction between creoles and peninsulares and simply flip it upside down?
Living in Indonesia isn't disqualifying, nor is going to a mosque nor having an Indonesian stepfather - who probably had far more influence on Barry than Barack Sr.
Never said it was, and I agree, at least in part. Barry himself seems to have made his image of BHO senior a big influence on his life.
How do you solve a problem like Stanley Ann? How do you hold a moonbeam in your hand?
I believe that U HI transcripts show BHO Sr completing his Spring ‘61 semester while SADO dropped out after the Fall 1960 semester.
If Sr. finished the Spring semester in May 1961, he and SADO could have returned to Kenya at that time but she would have been 6 mos pregnant as opposed to only 3 mos pregnant in February.
There was an historic pre-independence political upheaval in Kenya in early 1961 culminating in a huge celebration on August 14 with the release from prison of Jomo Kenyatta by the British colonial authorities...10 days after BHO II was born!
The court sentenced Kenyatta on April 8, 1953 to seven years imprisonment with hard labor and indefinite restriction thereafter. The subsequent appeal was refused by the British Privy Council in 1954.
Kenyatta remained in prison until 1959, after which he was detained in Lodwar, a remote part of Kenya.
The state of emergency was lifted in December 1960.
On Feb 28 1960, a public meeting of 25,000 in Nairobi demanded his release. On April 15, 1960, over a million signatures for a plea to release him were presented to the Governor. On May 14, 1960, he was elected Kanu President in absentia. On Mar 23 1961, Kenyan leaders, including Daniel arap Moi, later his long time Vice President and successor as president, visited him at Lodwar. On Apr 11 1961, he was moved to Maralal with daughter Margaret where he met world press for the first time in eight years. On Aug 14 1961, he was released and brought to Gatundu to a hero's welcome.
Perhaps Obama Sr. and his bride were funded to travel together both to allow him to participate in the agitation to get Kenyatta released as well as to remove SADO and evidence of his indiscretion from HI.
With Kenyatta's release on August 14, BHO Sr would be free to resume his studies in HI as an untarnished worthy recipient of literacy foundation funding, while SADO returned to WA safely out of HI public scrutiny and a potential Africal Airlift scandal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.