Trade: Obama born in Kenya

Depth Trade

Experienced member
Messages
1,848
Likes
98
Evidence Obama Born In Kenya Goes Beyond 1991 Brochure
Establishment media pulls stunt in effort to diffuse ‘birther’ controversy

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Friday, May 18, 2012

The establishment media hastily seized on yesterday’s explosive story about a literary publication listing Barack Obama’s birthplace as Kenya in an effort to claim that the 1991 brochure was the “origin” of the entire ‘birther’ issue. In reality, evidence that Obama was born in the African country is abundant.

A literary agent’s promotional text for a 1991 brochure released yesterday by Breitbart.com states Obama was “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.”

Yahoo News, along with a deluge of other mainstream news outlets, responded by reporting that the document was potentially the “source” of the birther controversy and had merely been a mistake.

The literary agent who wrote the description, Miriam Goderich, now works with Dystel & Goderich agency, which lists Obama as one of its clients. Unsurprising therefore that Goderich hastily claimed listing Obama’s birthplace as Kenya was “nothing more than a fact checking error.”

However, evidence to indicate that Obama war born in Kenya is plentiful and it goes significantly beyond the 1991 version of the brochure.

- Despite claiming the passage about Obama’s birthplace being Kenya was a mistake, the listing still maintained that Obama’s birthplace was Kenya until after Obama became a U.S. Senator. “Goderich’s statement fails to explain why the “fact checking error” persisted for sixteen years, through at least three different versions of Jane Dystel’s website, and through at least four different versions of Obama’s biography,” reports Breitbart.com.

- The literary agency also updated the text in June 1998, but the part about Obama being born in Kenya was retained.

- The text was again updated in February 2005 to reflect the fact that Obama had become a Senator, but Kenya was still listed as his birthplace.

- After an April 2007 modification of the text, the passage still read Obama, “was born in Kenya.”

- As Steve Boman reveals, the Dystel & Goderich agency asks its clients to submit their own biography, meaning it’s virtually impossible the listing of Obama’s birthplace as Kenya could have been a “fact checking error” on behalf of the literary company itself.

- During a speech about HIV, First Lady Michelle Obama said she and Barack Obama “visited his home country of Kenya.” Watch the clip below.

- In 2008, Obama’s paternal step grandmother appeared to indicate publicly that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. In an interview conducted by American Christian minister Ron McRae, Sarah Obama was asked, ‘Were you present when your grandson was born in Kenya?’” McRae testified in his sworn statement. “This was asked to her in translation twice, and both times she replied, “Yes! Yes she was! She was present when Obama was born.”

- Another source who met Sarah Obama told World Net Daily, “I have keenly and attentively listened to the tape over and over again, and I can confirm from Sarah’s own confession that Barack Obama was born in Kenya in her presence.”

- A separate Kenyan government official agreed, stating, “I have listened to the tape. The preacher asked whether Barack Obama was born in Mombassa, and the translator asked the same. When she said Mombassa, it was like a surprise, and those there thought she could not have meant to say Mombassa.”

- When New York Times bestselling author Jerome Corsi traveled to Kenya to investigate the claims, he was almost immediately kicked out of the country by Kenyan officials.

- When Kenya’s National Security Intelligence Service investigated claims that Obama was born in Kenya, officials in Nairobi found “relevant birth records may have been removed or were missing.”

- Obama has deep political connections in Kenya. From 2006 onwards he rallied in support of Islamist Raila Odinga in Kenya, helping him impose Sharia law. When Odinga lost the Kenyan election in 2008, his supporters rioted, unleashing a wave of violence. Despite the bloodshed, Obama used his influence to aid Odinga in retaining his position as part of a coalition government.

For the mainstream media to imply that the 1991 brochure is the “source” of the claim that Obama was born in Kenya is completely inaccurate. Not only was that brochure updated many times right up until 2007, with the information about Obama’s birthplace being Kenya retained, but there are numerous other factors which all indicate that Kenya could indeed be Obama’s homeland.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________

Obama: First British President of the United States

Infowars.com
May 18, 2012

Back in 2004, as he prepared to run for the Senate, the Associated Press ran the headline: Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate.
Alan Keyes: Is Obama a natural born citizen?

Infowars.com ran an article by John Charlton in 2009 mentioning the post originally posted in June, 2004. It is now readily available via the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine.

Here is the text from the AP:

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

Charlton writes:

This report explains the context of the oft cited debate, between Obama and [Alan] Keyes in the following Fall, in which Keyes faulted Obama for not being a “natural born citizen”, and in which Obama, by his quick retort, “So what? I am running for Illinois Senator, not the presidency”, self-admitted that he was not eligible for the office. Seeing that an AP reporter is too professional to submit a story which was not based on confirmed sources (ostensibly the Obama campaign in this case), the inference seems inescapable: Obama himself was putting out in 2004, that he was born in Kenya.

Obama conceded in October of 2004 during a debate with Alan Keyes that he is not a natural born citizen. C-Span aired an uncut version of the debate in April of 2005.

In 2008, Keyes filed a lawsuit in California challenging Obama’s right to serve as president. The suit demanded Obama produce a valid birth certificate. The Third District Court of Appeal threw the lawsuit out in October, 2010.

Obama’s birth in Kenya makes him a British subject. In 1961, Kenya was still a British colony. The British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5) states:

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, Obama is the first British president of the United States.
 
"In reality, evidence that Obama was born in the African country is abundant.
In other words, Obama is the first British president of the United States."

It beggars belief that people are so small minded that someones arbitrary birth place is such an issue.
Its almost as if notions of intellect, knowledge, charisma, humanity are secondary to which bit of land you happen to born on.

Does it matter?
 

It really only mattered BEFORE he was elected President. Why people are continuing to persist with this nonsense is beyond me. Also, it has been accepted for many years here that a child born abroad where at least 1 parent was a US citizen is recognized as a US citizen. That is shown here to be the generally accepted doctrine:
The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. The Congressional Research Service has stated that the weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion indicates that the term means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth," including any child born "in" the United States, even to alien parents (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.[1]

So it really doesn't matter except to those who have nothing better to do.

Peter
 
I wouldn't touch this trade either way myself. The liquidity is terrible.
 
Note I'm going out so don't have time to fully address your ridiculous american politics however under your Requirements it would make him the second British president Washington being the first
 


Obama’s birth in Kenya makes him a British subject. In 1961, Kenya was still a British colony. The British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5) states:

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.


Absolute nonsense, if that were the case the UK would be full of people from Africa, the Caribbean and Pakistan.
 
It really only mattered BEFORE he was elected President. Why people are continuing to persist with this nonsense is beyond me. Also, it has been accepted for many years here that a child born abroad where at least 1 parent was a US citizen is recognized as a US citizen. That is shown here to be the generally accepted doctrine:


So it really doesn't matter except to those who have nothing better to do.

Peter

Seems a strange way of going about things, wouldn't you think they would have all this eligibility stuff sorted out beforehand.
 

Attachments

  • OBAMA.jpg
    OBAMA.jpg
    6.3 KB · Views: 433
secondary to which bit of land you happen to born on.

Does it matter?

When it comes to war I suppose it would.

Since when have US politicians cared about the Constitution? It seems to be more of an inconvenient document to them now.
 
Is it really that hard to understand the reasoning to this ???????????????????
No wonder both our cultures are on the verge of losing everything, absolutely un-fcking believable!

Joseph Story (1779-1845), an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (1811-1845), wrote in his 1840 guidebook to the Constitution, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, about the natural-born-citizen clause:

It is not too much to say that no one, but a native citizen, ought ordinarily to be intrusted with an office so vital to the safety and liberties of the people.[28]

Those same words, using the same significant synonym "native citizen" for "natural born citizen" also appeared in his 1834 work The constitutional class book: being a brief exposition of the Constitution of the United States: Designed for the use of the higher classes in common schools.[29]

Alexander Porter Morse, the lawyer who represented Louisiana in Plessy v. Ferguson,[30] wrote in the Albany Law Journal:

If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, “no person, except a native-born citizen”; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth. It may be observed in passing that the current phrase “native-born citizen” is well understood; but it is pleonasm and should be discarded; and the correct designation, “native citizen” should be substituted in all constitutional and statutory enactments, in judicial decisions and in legal discussions where accuracy and precise language are essential to intelligent discussion.

On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding officer of the Convention:
Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.[12]

There is no proof that deliberations took place at the convention on the subject of the letter. While the Committee on Detail originally proposed that the President must be merely a citizen as well as a resident for 21 years, the Committee of Eleven changed "citizen" to "natural born citizen" without explanation. The Convention accepted the change without further debate.
 

Attachments

  • 500px-NaturalBornCitizenClause.jpg
    500px-NaturalBornCitizenClause.jpg
    7.9 KB · Views: 341
Mitt Romney has webbed feet, but he can still run.
yes, Romney's father was born in mexico and McCain was born in panama.
See the pattern? we've been infiltrated and the powers that be want to put in some one with compromised loyalties.
 
How many people are purely one nationality these days anyway?
Who cares about something that is beyond your control.
People can fight and shout about injustice (or alledged injustice) all they want.

Conversely, they can also just go with the flow and just deal with the effects of
economic or political situations.
I'm too old to give a f**k for "fighting the power".
Maybe I'm wrong, personally I think its a waste of time and energy.
I don't care, I've found its the best way to be for me.
Just my worthless 2c.
 
How many people are purely one nationality these days anyway?
Who cares about something that is beyond your control.
People can fight and shout about injustice (or alledged injustice) all they want.

Conversely, they can also just go with the flow and just deal with the effects of
economic or political situations.
I'm too old to give a f**k for "fighting the power".
Maybe I'm wrong, personally I think its a waste of time and energy.
I don't care, I've found its the best way to be for me.
Just my worthless 2c.

It's worth quoting a post from duc in response to this.

ducati998 said:
Possibly. Those with an entrenched ideology, those immune to logic, unable to reason will remain true to their ideology. I suggest that we are not really aiming at them at all, rather, we aim to educate the 'neutrals' who are as yet undecided, but are looking for the correct theory.

The 'opponents' are providing nothing of substance. Their rhetorical arguments contain zero theory, heuristic generalizations, logical fallacies. All they provide is an opportunity to explode their ideological position through failure to respond with theory, concrete examples and generally evading the issues raised. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence will see through the evasions.

jog on
duc
 
It's worth quoting a post from duc in response to this.

Yeah, true.
All I'm saying is I don't care, there no money in it :)
Analysing and debating it gains me nothing.
Just my personal view.
For me the time is better spent doing something else :)
 
Is it really that hard to understand the reasoning to this ???????????????????
No wonder both our cultures are on the verge of losing everything, absolutely un-fcking believable!
....

The Constitution is replete with "amendments", so is not set in stone. The notions of citizenship will change, since the world is more inter-connected than ever before.

Culture is also a constantly evolving creature.
It is within living memory that US "culture" had enshrined within it the notions of "whites" and "coloureds". That has, thankfully, changed. (at least on paper)
The idea that the culture that anyone arbitrarily is born into is the "best" one, and worth protecting, over anyone elses, is the product of a provincial mind.

The Chinese culture, for example, is the single, longest continuous culture in human history, and has seen the rise and fall of many empires.
It had ships that would have dwarfed european ones, they had writing and science when the europeans were still grunting around in animal skins.
Just about ALL the history taught in schools is euro or US-centric.
This naturally gives a distorted view of achievements, etc.

The sooner the US slips beneath the waves, and is consigned to the dustbin of history, the sooner we can build a future that isnt predicated on the robbery of other countries resources.
Come to think of it, even natural born US citizens, once they get enough money, seek to live in such a way as to give nothing back. Parasitism is the default condition of the US and americans.
Even the true-blue "royalty" of america avoid taxes, and seek to bleed their nation and fellow citizens of their money, and off-shore it.
So much for patriotism.
 
Yeah, true.
All I'm saying is I don't care, there no money in it :)
Analysing and debating it gains me nothing.
Just my personal view.
For me the time is better spent doing something else :)

Agree with this 100%....there's no cash in the analysis and intense debate on these matters. I've been blessed to live [not visit] in quite a few countries of the world and its pretty clear that at the end of the day, character and intelligence is all that matter. There's more to everything than you think you know and there are alot of exceptions to the 'rule'. Globalization is unstoppable and will be reflected in every part of our lives going forward....citizenship, business, tourism, communication etc. Best to get with and profit of your edge. Just my thoughts.
 
Agree with this 100%....there's no cash in the analysis and intense debate on these matters. I've been blessed to live [not visit] in quite a few countries of the world and its pretty clear that at the end of the day, character and intelligence is all that matter. There's more to everything than you think you know and there are alot of exceptions to the 'rule'. Globalization is unstoppable and will be reflected in every part of our lives going forward....citizenship, business, tourism, communication etc. Best to get with and profit of your edge. Just my thoughts.

I've lived in two different countries, not a few, but still. If there is more to everything than you think you know, what is the harm in trying to discover it through analysis and intense debate? If character and intelligence is all that matters why are you promoting ignorance?
 
Top