Kenya: Authorities Release Barack Obama’s “Real” Birth Certificate

Nairobi | The Office of the Principal Register of the Nyanza Province, in Kenya, has finally released 11 exclusive documents concerning Barack Obama’s alleged birth and early childhood in the country.

These official papers had been requested for years by the Tea Party Patriots, an American conservative organization, to no avail, but the Kenyan Supreme Court recently ordered authorities to release the documents, based on a law on “access to information.

These files, if they turn out to be verifiable, could mean that Mr. Obama had no legal right to become the American president under the country’s law.

The papers released today suggest that Barack Obama was actually born on March 7, 1960, in Lamu, Kenya, more than a year before his father moved to Hawaii, where he allegedly met his mother.

This contradicts most of the documents presented by the presidential office over the last years, suggesting that either the American or the Kenyan papers are actually faked.

The official version of Barack Obama’s birth presented by the White House in the past was that he was born on August 4, 1961, at the Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital (now called the Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women & Children) in Honolulu, Hawaii.

His parents were Ann Dunham, from Wichita, Kansas, and Barack Obama, Sr., a Luo from Nyang’oma Kogelo in the Nyanza Province, in what was then the “Colony and Protectorate of Kenya”.

Mr. Obama Senior was attending the University of Hawaii at the time, where he supposedly met Ms. Dunham.

A Kenyan publication, The Standard, had reported in 2004 that Obama was “Kenyan-Born”, but the lack of proof presented had led the rest of the mediatic world to dismiss the article has fake or unfounded.

Jim Geraghty of the conservative website National Review Online may have sparked further speculation on June 9, 2008, when he asked Obama to release his birth certificate.

Geraghty wrote that doing so could debunk several false rumors circulating on the Internet.

Such rumors were very numerous at the time, covering many topics.

These included namely: that his middle name was originally Muhammad rather than Hussein; that his mother had originally named him “Barry” rather than “Barack”; and that Barack Obama, Sr. was not his biological father, as well as the rumor that Barack Obama was not a natural-born Citizen.

Mr. Obama and the White House had given no answer whatsoever to that request, choosing to simply ignore the question, but had finally released some documents that were allegedly Mr. Obama’s birth certificate in two different forms.

The release of these certificates had seemed to put an end to the rumors at the time, but it is to be expected that the “Kenyan documents” will fuel a whole new wave of rumors and conspiracy theories.

7 Comments on "Kenya: Authorities Release Barack Obama’s “Real” Birth Certificate"

  1. Barack Obama (born 1961), 44th president of the United States, was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to a U.S. citizen mother and a British subject[99][100][101] father from what was then the British Kenya of the United Kingdom (which became the independent country of Kenya in 1963). Before and after the 2008 presidential election, arguments were made that he is not a natural-born citizen. On June 12, 2008, the Obama presidential campaign launched a website to counter what it described as smears by his opponents, including conspiracy theories challenging his eligibility.[102] The most prominent issue raised against Obama was the claim made in several lawsuits that he was not actually born in Hawaii. In two other lawsuits, the plaintiffs argued that it was irrelevant whether he was born in Hawaii,[103] but argued instead that he was nevertheless not a natural-born citizen because his citizenship status at birth was governed by the British Nationality Act 1948.[104] Most of the cases have been dismissed because of the plaintiff’s lack of standing; however, several courts have given guidance on the question.

    A three-member Indiana Court of Appeals stated: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born Citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Ind.App., Nov 12, 2009) 916 N.E.2d 678 at 688[55] Administrative Law Judge Michael Malihi in Georgia decided a group of eligibility challenge cases saying “The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that the children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of Ankeny persuasive.”[105] Federal District Judge John A Gibney, Jr. wrote in his decision in the case of Tisdale v. Obama, “The eligibility requirements to be President of the United States are such that the individual must be a “natural born citizen” of the United States … It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens. See, e.g. United States v. Ark [sic] …”[106]

    On October 31, 2008, Hawaii Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino issued a statement saying, “I … have personally seen and verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”[58][107] On July 27, 2009, Dr. Fukino issued an additional statement saying, “I … have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.”[108]

  2. These are the only 2 requirements for president at least 35 years of age, and a natural born citizen. Obama was not investigated because he provided the necessary proof as everyone needs to do.

    No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated that “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens”.

    Natural born citizen .. never has been clearly defined other then that. “it does not require both parents”

    No more proof is needed then what was supplied and let Obama run in the first place.

  3. Debbie Warren | May 30, 2014 at 6:41 pm | Reply

    Obama needs to be put in Gitmo with the other Terrorist that killed Americans

  4. Arnie Rosner | May 30, 2014 at 6:19 pm | Reply

    Obama is a Muslim Terrorist.

  5. Vattel’s Influence on the term a Natural Born Citizen

    What is a natural born citizen? Where did the framers come up with this term? Where was it used before? So many questions, and the answers are right there if anyone wishes to search out the truth.

    The term Natural born Citizen appears in our Constitution, in Article 1, Section 2, with these words, “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”

    Before the Constitution the closest reference we have to Natural Born Citizen is from the legal treatise “the Law of Nations,” written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758. In book one chapter 19,

    § 212. Of the 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.”

    Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equalfooting with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to thePresidency.

    To add further proof to the intent of the Founding Fathers literal meaning of Vattel’s definition of a natural born citizen being born of two citizens, and in the country itself, and wanting a natural born citizen having no other claim to his loyalty except that of the United States of America, in 1795 the Congress amended the Naturalization Act of 1790. The Naturalization Act of 1795, which was also signed by George Washington, recognized Blackstone’s commentaries on English Common Law, making children born overseas in the lands under British rule, British Subjects. Even if their parents were American. This act removed the words natural born from children born overseas of American parents, so that no other potentate could lay claim to this person, and thus establish “a presence of influence” in the Executive Branch. It was the intent of our Founding Fathers to “naturalize at birth” these children, but not give them the status “natural born citizens.” Also in this act of 1795, we see the importance of complete allegiance to the United States for all people naturalized, as this is the first appearance of the oath of allegiance “to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whereof such alien may at that time be a citizen or subject.” This oath is still in effect today.

    • § 214. Naturalization.
      A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called naturalization. There are some states in which the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, — for example, that of holding public offices — and where, consequently, he has the power of granting only an imperfect naturalization. It is here a regulation of the fundamental law, which limits the power of the prince. In other states, as in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalize a single person, without the concurrence of the nation, represented by its deputies. Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.

      This means that your interpretation of Vattel is crud out of luck, as Vattel clearly stated that there are places where his rule did not apply

      Also, the phrase “parens” in french does not mean parents, but blood relatives.

      AND “Indegenes” in French was not ever translated as Natural Born Citisens in Vattel till 10 years after the US constitution was drafted. And the one case that mentions Vattel, wqhich was in 1810, does not translate “indegenes” as natural born citizen.

      So 3 strikes and you are out

    • Also, Vattel said flat out that all it took was birth on soil to be an “ingegenes” in England in 214.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.