Revealed: Barack Hussein Obama (Sr.)-British Passport-April 29,1959

http://www.wasobamaborninkenya.com/blog/barrack-obama-eligibility/barack-hussein-obama-sr-british-passport-april-29-1959/ ^

[matt1234]

(Obama Jr.s) Birth certificate conflicts with father’s real birthday?

Yes quite possibly. After Senior's US immigration files were released. I analyzed the docs, and wrote a summary:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2712867/posts

If you read it, you'll see that Senior repeatedly signed documents showing two different years for his birth. One of these years differs from Junior's birth certificate. Look for the yellow-highlighed boxes in the right column of the above summary.

Senior was not only a Marxist, he was a knowing signatory to false information filed with the federal government.

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

According to your summary, he sure was a fraudster. Incredible. This is what stood out for me in the thread. You wrote

“The wife in the Phillipines from whom he is separated is a U.S.C.”

Which wife?

[matt1234]

I believe it was Stanley Ann Dunham, but I cannot be absolutely sure.

[humblegunner]

“It should be noted that the website who has obtained the British Passport belongs to Lucas Smith”

First, it’s just a blog.
Second, Smith was zotted for being a scammer and a kook:

http://www.freerepublic.com/~inspectorsmith/

[Hetuck]

Thanks for connecting us to the Kenya BC thread from last year. It’s quite possible that I read it then, but sadly didn’t remember it!

Interesting hypothesis also....

[4Zoltan]

Why are the pictures of the passport in black and white (actually more sepia colored)? Where they taken in the 1960s?

[Seizethecarp]

“Thanks for connecting us to the Kenya BC thread from last year. It’s quite possible that I read it then, but sadly didn’t remember it!”

Don’t feel bad. I didn’t remember writing anything in that comment until I pulled it up in a search!

Right after Smith revealed the CPGH BC I went onto Wiki searching for international date formats by country and found that Kenya used both formats with either the month or day going first and I posted the Wiki link on Smith’s Youtube.

An aggressive Obot named Mystlyplx (sp) immediately edited Wiki to REMOVE Kenya as one of two or three countries in the world that accept both date formats...and a battle between Wiki editors ensued.

Unfortunately for the Obots there was a color-coded map of countries that used the dual formats and they couldn’t edit that and has Kenya remained coded for dual date format use for years.

Here is the current link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_format_by_country

As of today, Kenya is shown as dual use (green) on the map and in the Kenya country detail, but Kenya does not show up in the color-code list of “green” countries.

I have speculated that the dual date format acceptance in Kenya may be due to the fact that Kenya was formed from the merger of two entities, Kenya Colony and Kenya Protectorate, each of which may have preserve its own format. Nairobi is in the longer term UK administered area Mombasa is in the Protectorate area.

[Seizethecarp]

“The wife in the Phillipines from whom he is separated is a U.S.C.”

IIRC this notation was made by an INS agent in Baltimore in early 1964 shortly after Sr. was actually divorced from Stanley Ann and shortly before Sr. was deported.

Given the geographic ignorance of many highly educated Americans, this INS agent may have had a brain fart between Hawaii and the Philippines, or Sr., being a flagrant liar may have misled the agent and hid the divorce from his US citizen wife, thinking it would be better for his attempt to stay in the US to still be married, even if separated, and given a false location for her out of the country to put off further investigation that would reveal the divorce.

I have seen no evidence of any other US marriage. INS already had documented the claimed Hi marriage of Feb 2, 1961 to Stanley Ann and also the birth and name of Barry in August 1961. There was no INS follow-up for any suspicion of US bigamy on top of the suspicion that INS had documented of bigamy with the Kenyan and HI marriages.

[WildHighlander57]

“Sr.,being a flagrant liar may have misled the agent and hid the divorce from his US citizen wife,thinking it would be better for his attempt to stay in the US to still be married,even if separated,and given a false location for her out of the country to put off further investigation that would reveal the divorce.....”

That’s quite likely.

Plus we don’t have SADO’s passport info from before around 1968, so who knows, she could have visited there and SR ran with that.

Or SR just lied; looks like he did that with his age.... easy to do by a foreigner in u. S..... would take time & trouble for u.s. ins to check.

[WildHighlander57]

“I have seen no evidence of any other US marriage. INS already had documented the claimed Hi marriage of Feb 2,1961 to Stanley Ann and also the birth and name of Barry in August 1961. There was no INS follow-up for any suspicion of US bigamy on top of the suspicion that INS had documented of bigamy with the Kenyan and HI marriages.”

And the Kenyan - Hawaii marriage issue was brought to the attention of the ins by an irate person (can’t remember if they were in Kenya or Britain) I think it was the Kenyan lady’s mom?

[Seizethecarp]

“And the Kenyan - Hawaii marriage issue was brought to the attention of the ins by an irate person (can’t remember if they were in Kenya or Britain) I think it was the Kenyan lady’s mom?”

IIRC, in 1961 it was U of HI administrators who processed Stanley Ann’s withdrawal from university due to pregnancy and shot-gun marriage who alerted INS to the Kenyan marriage.

In 1964 it was the mother of Ruth Baker who begged INS to deport Sr. and may have mentioned bigamy, but INS said that Baker was an adult and they couldn’t overtly deport him for that reason, although he was also implicated in getting an African student pregnant resulting in spiriting her to the UK for an abortion. Harvard and INS conspired to have Sr. deported (probably illegally) because he was such a scoundrel and danger to US women.

Despite being a sociopath, Sr. was so “likeable” (like his son) that he seduced Ruth Baker into following him back to Kenya where they partied their brains out until she got pregnant with Mark!

[WildHighlander57]

Thanks for sorting that out, I had meshed the two incidents together.

[bluecat6]

“...you can’t have your U.S. citizenship taken away from you by an act if your parents or the citizenship laws of another country.”

Yes, you can. But you have the right to gain it back at the age of majority.

Can we stop this lie?

[WildHighlander57]

See post #33, has links to the INA rules in effect when 0 was born, and updates from 1965 (which just affected quotas).

There are some categories of people where they could lose it and then have to do something at majority to regain it.

See for example section 301 a) 7) and section 301 b)

Other sections of interest:

Section 308

cases where nationals and citizens are different.

Section 309 a) and c) talks about children born out of wedlock.

[WildHighlander57]

Also see Section 349

Loss by native born or naturalized citizen.

If I read it correctly, people under 21 would not lose it.

[Drew68]

It should be noted that the website who has obtained the British Passport belongs to oft-convicted scam artist and banned Freeper Lucas Smith, the fellow who presented fabricated the authentic looking quickly discredited, error-ridden and clearly fake Kenyan Birth Certificate for Barack Obama Jr. with the ink baby footprint on the front.

Fixed a few things for you.

[Drew68]

Second, Smith was zotted for being a scammer and a kook:

Ah, yes. The great plantain thread.

I wonder how ole' Inspector Smith is doing these days? Last I heard he was cooling his heels in an Arizona jail cell for parole violation after having given away for free his famous CPGH birth certificate (that he had previously tried to auction on eBay for a cool million). Wonder if he's back to chillin' in the Dominican Republic, uh, I mean "Kenya"?

He did provide us with paintings of a naked Orly Taitz (demonstrating a dubious artistic talent on par with his skills as a document forger). For this, we owe him our gratitude.

[SvenMagnussen]

“BHO is a U.S. citizen at birth. As a child you can’t have your U.S. citizenship taken away from you by an act if your parents or the citizenship laws of another country. He may have acquired Indonesian citizenship (and a passport to boot). But in doing so, he didn’t lose his U.S. nationality.”

We know Obama lost his U.S Citizenship because in was in the Federal Foster Care system 1971 to 1979. Only foreign nationals could be in Federal Foster Care during the 70s. State-based welfare agencies could not provide services to foreign nationals during the 70s because it was against Federal Law.

Permanent resident aliens are entitled to receive a SSN if its applied for and are required to register with Selective Service if they are a male between the ages of 18 to 25.

[WildHighlander57]

Thanks for the info!

I need to see if this version is any different from the version that came out in 1965ish.

p.s

Did you get the private reply/mail that I sent?

[SvenMagnussen]

It is now well settled that anyone may renounce his United States citizenship.

See Right of Expatriation, 9 Op. Att'y Gen. 356, 358 (1859) ("the general right, in one word, of expatriation, is incontestible"); Savorgnan v. United States, 338 U.S. 491, 497 (1950) ("Traditionally the United States has supported the right of expatriation as a natural and inherent right of all people."); Nishikawa v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 129, 139 (1958) (Black, J., concurring) ("Of course a citizen has the right to abandon or renounce his citizenship"); Lozada Colon v. United States Dep't o.f State, 2 F. Supp. 2d 43, 45 (D.D.C. 1998) (assuming that "an individual has a fundamental right to expatriate").

It was once thought that, because the Naturalization Clause contained no express provision for Congressional power to expatriate a U.S. citizen against his will, no such authority existed. U.S. Const. art. I, SS 8, cl. 4. As Chief Justice Marshall stated in dictum in Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738 (1824), "[a] naturalized citizen . . . becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national legislature is, to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual." Id. at 827. In Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958), the Court found an inherent federal power, beyond the express terms of the Constitution, to forcibly expatriate U.S. citizens, as a necessary attribute of sovereignty. See id. at 57 (concluding that power to expatriate necessarily arose out of federal power to conduct foreign relations (citing United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 318 (1936))). That view was abrogated, however, in Afroyim. See Afroyim, 387 U.S. at 257 ("This power cannot, as Perez indicated, be sustained as an implied attribute of sovereignty possessed by all nations. . . . Our Constitution governs us and we must never forget that our Constitution limits the Government to those powers specifically granted or those that are necessary and proper to carry out the specifically granted ones.").

Under the Court's current jurisprudence, the Naturalization Clause empowers Congress to expatriate U.S. citizens without obtaining their consent, but only with respect to naturalized citizens who fall outside the protection of the Citizenship Clause. Individuals not protected by the Citizenship Clause acquire U.S. citizenship, if at all, solely by an act of Congress enacted pursuant to the Naturalization Clause, and not pursuant to the Constitution itself. See Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 830 (1971) (Citizenship Clause does "'not touch[] the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization'") (quoting United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 688 (1898)); see also note 6. With respect to such individuals, Congress's power under the Naturalization Clause includes the power to set conditions subsequent to naturalization, failure of which may result in expatriation without consent. See Bellei, 401 U.S. at 834 ("it does not make good constitutional sense, or comport with logic, to say, on the one hand, that Congress [in exercising its authority under the Naturalization Clause] may impose a condition precedent, with no constitutional complication, and yet be powerless to impose precisely the same condition subsequent").

By its express terms, the Citizenship Clause does not protect persons who acquire U.S. citizenship by virtue of being born abroad to parents, at least one of whom is a U.S. citizen, because such persons are not "born or naturalized in the United States." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, 1 (emphasis added). See Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 827 (1971).

Afroyim, the Court had held precisely the opposite view - namely, that nothing in the Constitution prevents U.S. citizens from forfeiting their citizenship, against their will, for voluntarily engaging in certain kinds of conduct, such as voting in a foreign election. That view was restated most recently in Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958). See, e.g., id. at 58 n.3; id. at 61; see also Mackenzie v. Hare, 239 U.S. 299, 312 (1915); Savorgnan, 338 U.S. at 499-500. Three justices who dissented in Perez, however, concluded that the Citizenship Clause prohibits expatriation absent the citizen's assent. See Perez, 356 U.S. at 66 (Warren, C.J., dissenting). In 1967, the Court expressly overruled Perez by a 5-4 vote in Afroyim. See Afroyim, 387 U.S. at 257 ("we reject the idea expressed in Perez that . . . Congress has any general power, express or implied, to take away an American citizen's citizenship without his assent"); id. at 262-63 (noting that primary purpose of the Citizenship Clause was to prevent Congress from stripping blacks of U.S. citizenship). Not a single justice suggested a return to Perez when the Court revisited the issue of expatriation in 1980. See Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980).

The statute's list of acts of expatriation appears to be exhaustive. See 8 U.S.C. 1488 (2000) ("The loss of nationality under this part shall result solely from the performance by a national of the acts or fulfillment of the conditions specified in this part."). But see Kawakita, 343 U.S. at 731-32 (declining to resolve whether other acts of expatriation may be available).

Additional restrictions on expatriation, not apparently relevant here, are enumerated in 8 U.S.C. 1483 (2000). First, "[e]xcept as provided in paragraphs (6) and (7) of section 1481(a) .