The saga of Obama's birth certificate

[onawah]

Bumping this--it looks like there may finally be proof enough, though we won't know until January. You heard it here.
See: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...=1#post1116039

[onawah]

The photographs of the Nesbitts really are convincing.
I recommend watching the first 6 minutes, but there's a rant following that

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=RVwptjfdWlo

[onawah]

Surprise! (NOT!! ) Two of those videos have been taken down that were posted here:
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...=1#post1116039
but there are some new ones here:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=4Q1m487bijU

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=BLF1iqhqisE

(This looks like very damning evidence Somebody might want to copy these--unfortunately I don't know how.)

[onawah]

Alex Jones talking with Joel Gilbert re Obama's identity
http://www.infowars.com/watch-alex-jones-show/
(I can't embed the youtube link for some reason. Google blocking infowars?)
Or: To listen, download the little file 'stream.pls' and open it in a video/audio player. The file is here:
http://projectavalon.net/stream.pls

Angela Merkel’s surprising decision to ban the burka in Germany. Documentary filmmaker Joel Gilbert will be in studio to discuss bombshell revelations about Barack Obama that he’s researched since his film Dreams From My Real Father. We also look into the war on “fake-news” and Hillary’s failed attempt at a recount.

[Satori]

Posted by Knowrainknowrainbows! (here)
Having attended/participated in a local community group wherein we "examined" the US constitution and discussed/argued interpretations of various key points, the 14th amendment was a prime example:

(The following is from http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha..._11-27.html#14)

AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

Posted by observer (here)
I object, sirdip. ^^^^

The eligibility clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 1, Clause 5) does not mention "both parents". It only refers to a "natural born citizen".

from Wikipedia - "Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as president of the United States:
Clause 5 -
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."

Various opinions have been offered over time regarding the precise meaning of a "natural born citizen". See more regarding these interpretations, here.

Bottom line: The Constitution does not mention "both parents". So, the question really reverts-back to, was he really born in Hawaii? Making the OP of this thread most relevant.

Of great interest to my group was the clause, " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Why was there a NEED to insert those words?

To further confound matters, ... consider the term "subject" ... If not subject to the jurisdiction then not a "citizen"? ... Can one be born or naturalized without being/becoming a "subject" or "citizen"?
What is meant by ... "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? The US?
Our group felt that a baby born to parents (wherein neither were US citizens) was subject to the jurisdiction of the parent's foreign country, just as were the parents.

At the time written being a subject implied being under the dominion of a ruler such as a king ... or "giving allegiance" to another ...

My grandfather immigrated in the early 1900's. I have a copy of his immigration paper ... he had to swear allegiance to the US of A and denounce the emperor.

I don't mean to muddy the waters ... I only offer additional perspective as I feel we have been "bamboozled" with "legaleze" and various interpretations/misinterpretations ...

We may be "subjects" afterall ... Whew! The plot thickens ... Now children will no longer learn cursive handwriting in school - It will be as a foreign language so they will not be able to read original documents/transcripts. They will depend upon others interpretation ... plus changes/alterations can easily be made to digital copies. :-(

Who said "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance"? Truth!!!

The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution has a highly intriguing and esoteric history. The people responsible for its promotion and adoption were, and their adherents still are, very intelligent social engineers and political scientists. It fits their long-term collectivist agenda.

One purpose of the 14th Amd was to make all persons "subject to the jurisdiction [of the US]" US citizens first and then secondarily a citizen of the state in which they reside. This was a power grab by the people running the National government, which had acquired even more power during and after the Civil War. Another purpose was to make the national debt, not just the debt incurred during the Civil War, but all national debt free from any challenge. This was another power grab and the prelude to what was to come, made most obvious in 1913 by the passage of the Federal Reserve Act and the claimed ratification of "The Law That Never Was", i.e., the 16th Amend to the US Constituion. The former creating or expanding the fiat-legal tender-funny-money monetary system, and the latter further enslaving US citizens by taxing their labor. The provision of one's blood, sweat and tears in the form of labor in exchange for compensation was well understood for hundreds, if not thousands of years, to be a tax free exchange of labor for the means of livelihood. Not so in the US after 1913.

As far as the question of how one can be born or naturalized in the US but not be subject to its jurisdiction, the scenario that comes immediately to my mind, but which may not be what the drafters of the 14th Amnd had in mind, is where a person born (or naturalized) in the US has expatriated and renounced US Citizenship. In that case, one would not be subject to the jurisdiction of the US for most civil law purposes, including taxing one's income. But, one could be subject to US criminal jurisdiction for crimes committed against the US, even if committed on foreign soil. This is especially true since the so-called laws passed after 9/11.

[Bill Ryan]

.
Here's Joel Gilbert's 2012 documentary about Obama's real origins, Dreams from My Real Father (http://obamasrealfather.com) :

• Dreams From My Real Father (2012).mp4 (mp4, 97 mins, 479 Mb)

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by onawah (here)

Alex Jones talking with Joel Gilbert re Obama's identity

Yes, excellent. I recorded and edited Joel Gilbert's contribution, minus commercials and some of the more major diversions.

This is 55 mins long, but an excellent recap summary starts at 35:25, and many people without so much available time could begin right there. Joel Gilbert, who is very concise and articulate, spells out the entire story.

http://projectavalon.net/Joel_Gilber...6_Dec_2016.mp3

[turiya]

So far, I've seen half of Joel Gilbert's documentary... taking a break thus far, and will see the rest of it shortly...

Regarding Joel Gilbert's interesting documentary about Obama's real origins... there is a segment of Obama's life that Joel appears to not have any record of... and that was his mid to late teens, when he attended Punahou School in Honolulu...



Pastor David James Manning of his Manning Report has interviewed a woman by the name of Mia Marie Pope who says she had known Obama in Hawaii. Its an interesting interview. There's only her testimony within the interview that substantiates her claim... that Obama was known as a pathalogical liar back in the day that she had come to know him. What she has to say in this interview just might fill in a part of what this individual is about & could add a valuable part of what Joel Gilbert provides in his documentary.

Mia Marie Pope's information also goes along with the information found in the Press Conference that Larry Sinclair had given prior to his mysterious death...

Part 1
Mia Marie Pope Ousts Barack Obama
as a Foreigner on the Manning Report
(Published on Nov 6, 2013)

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=GEB-jl4DDhU

__________________________

Part 2
Mia Marie Pope Strikes Again
(Published on Feb 19, 2015)

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=b-_nM89ThFU

__________________________

Larry Sinclair Press Conference about
Gay Love Affair with Barack Obama
(Published on Jul 30, 2013)

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=8kbhkFrrxNs

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by onawah (here)

Alex Jones talking with Joel Gilbert re Obama's identity

Yes, excellent. I recorded and edited Joel Gilbert's contribution, minus commercials and some of the more major diversions.

This is 55 mins long, but an excellent recap summary starts at 35:25, and many people without so much available time could begin right there. Joel Gilbert, who is very concise and articulate, spells out the entire story.

http://projectavalon.net/Joel_Gilber...6_Dec_2016.mp3

I pared the show right down in my mp3 edit ^^, but the entire thing (including images and documents which Joel Gilbert presented) is here. It may well be worth watching for serious students of Obama's true heritage.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=jyQrn2_Nh6M

[onawah]

Ordinarily I would dismiss much of this article:
http://endofwesternciv.blogspot.com/...rld-order.html
...as the ravings of a sick mind, but after reading up more about Obama, I think there is some wisdom therein about his place in history as the Illuminati could perceive it, enamored as they are with repeating rituals, numerology, symbolism, etc. etc.
I can see how the author could have arrived at the conclusion that, assuming Obama was Akhenaten who tried to unite Egypt under the "One God" , he would be seen by the Illuminati as their perfect tool for ushering in the New World Order plan to make Islam (which is constantly proclaiming there is but one God) the world religion.
It does follow a weird kind of logic.
And the current influx of Islamic immigrants into Europe, the US, etc. would certainly seem to further that plan and support the theory.

[Bill Ryan]

.
Doug Hagmann interviews Susan Daniels, the investigator who did the initial investigation into Obama's social security number. (Date of interview: 27 Sept, 2016)

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=5CRE1V0nyJQ

[turiya]

Years ago (it was in the '90s) I was doing quite a bit of research on the Income Tax & where the notion came from whereby MOST individuals that worked within the bureaucracy 'believed' that it was an absolute requirement for a American citizen to provide a Social Security Number.

It was during this time that I stumbled across a document / manual published by an obscure man entitled "Social Security Number Not Required". Very much interested in becoming more knowledgeable about this particular subject, I purchased it. I sent a check, I think it was for not a small amount, but from the examples I read about this publication, it looked like it was pretty thoroughly researched, as it had all kinds of Federal Regulations that were listed within it.

Anyway, after listening part way through the Doug Hagmann interview of Susan Daniels, when she talked about knowing from which State Obama's Social Security Number was issued, I remembered that there was a section within this manual that had outlined this particular data - notably, it was the first three digits of the SSN that told from what State the individual acquired his number.

I just located this pdf file and found a few images of this manual. Cover page is as follows (note: the name of the author is Not listed - for good reason) :

And, on Page 171 it begins listing what the digits mean - starting with the first three digits that designate from where the Social Security Number is issued...

Someone that is not familar with this numbering system would not have a clue about what the numbers meant. But as Susan Daniels had said in her interview... having done thousands of searches, she would have easily seen that something was very odd regarding Obama and the Social Security number that he was associated with - regarding the State of issue & Obama's places of residence.

Interesting interview, thanks for posting...

[Chester]

Posted by Tangri (here)
I have only one objection to the first post

Religion discussion is irrelevant to the subject person's legality. American constitution does not allow its foreign country born citizens become a president of United of America. It is not mentioned to the skin color or religious background of candidate. Put it(religion definition of a person) in a legitimate argument is irrelevant.

I disagree. And here is why.

The details involved in making the case that "possibly" fraud has occurred does not involve the US jurisdiction alone. It also involves Kenya and Indonesia where religion may very well (and from my understanding DOES) have an impact on what happens regarding an individual's name that would be placed on a birth certificate as well as who their legal parents may be. So in my opinion, the religious component is likely relevant to the point and in fact integral.

[Tangri]

Posted by Sam Hunter (here)

Posted by Tangri (here)
I have only one objection to the first post

Religion discussion is irrelevant to the subject person's legality. American constitution does not allow its foreign country born citizens become a president of United of America. It is not mentioned to the skin color or religious background of candidate. Put it(religion definition of a person) in a legitimate argument is irrelevant.

I disagree. And here is why.

The details involved in making the case that "possibly" fraud has occurred does not involve the US jurisdiction alone. It also involves Kenya and Indonesia where religion my very well (and from my understanding DOES) have an impact on what happens regarding an individual's name that would be placed on a birth certificate as well as who their legal parents may be. So in my opinion, the religious component is likely relevant to the point and in fact integral.

Of course you can be disagree with my post, but it does not change my claim's integrity (my post's intend). My post's words were logical and admissible. You are twisting my words, "religious component" work-less because he is not a claimed Muslim(you need to be a Muslim to understand that) and it is not contradicted with constitution. Probably you would(-might) definitely understand this part of the logic .)

Look below statement , Do you see any religious quotes there?

Qualifications for the Office of President
Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

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.
Term limit amendment - US Constitution, Amendment XXII, Section 1 - ratified February 27, 1951
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

http://www.presidentsusa.net/qualifications.html


The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated "children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens."
http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/...-born-citizen/


Ahha!, now we can talk lies, frauds , his presidential readiness processes,... but again, not his religious and/ or his sexual preferences.

[Chester]

Posted by Tangri (here)

Posted by Sam Hunter (here)

Posted by Tangri (here)
I have only one objection to the first post

Religion discussion is irrelevant to the subject person's legality. American constitution does not allow its foreign country born citizens become a president of United of America. It is not mentioned to the skin color or religious background of candidate. Put it(religion definition of a person) in a legitimate argument is irrelevant.

I disagree. And here is why.

The details involved in making the case that "possibly" fraud has occurred does not involve the US jurisdiction alone. It also involves Kenya and Indonesia where religion my very well (and from my understanding DOES) have an impact on what happens regarding an individual's name that would be placed on a birth certificate as well as who their legal parents may be. So in my opinion, the religious component is likely relevant to the point and in fact integral.

Of course you can be disagree with my post, but it does not change my claim's integrity (my post's intend). My post's words were logical and admissible. You are twisting my words, "religious component" work-less because he is not a claimed Muslim(you need to be a Muslim to understand that) and it is not contradicted with constitution. Probably you would(-might) definitely understand this part of the logic .)

Look below statement , Do you see any religious quotes there?

Qualifications for the Office of President
Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

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.
Term limit amendment - US Constitution, Amendment XXII, Section 1 - ratified February 27, 1951
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

http://www.presidentsusa.net/qualifications.html


The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated "children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens."
http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/...-born-citizen/


Ahha!, now we can talk lies, frauds , his presidential readiness processes,... but again, not his religious and/ or his sexual preferences.

My opinion only -

Regarding claiming or not claiming - Since when should anyone take the word of a pathological liar as honest and true? Obama "chose" to make people think he is a "Christian" all and only for political purposes. Obama chose to distance himself from Islam for the same reason. IMO Obama is no Christian and is no Muslim. Obama has chosen to be a tool and served reasonably well, yet... maybe not good enough. IMO also - Obama is not going away and Micheal is surely a potential tool in the toolkit of a shadow group struggling to retain power.

Regarding religion including the "religion" of atheism, thought systems, philosophies, etc. - it is clear (at least to me) that the influences of religion, et al. are joined at the hip with every other major facet of life despite what ideological opinions and/or governmental formation documents wish to be true or wish to impose.

Ignoring this sets one up for making erroneous conclusions based on incomplete informational considerations.

The result of doing this is that folks make poorer decisions and in some cases, these decisions have wide ranging effect impact many of us and/or all of us.

Obama (and many many others in all walks of life) uses religion et al. to achieve their individual or group goals which often contradict the tenets of the very religious/philosophical tool they employ.

Just to make sure folks here know my position regarding the making of sexual preference and sexual behavior an "issue" ...

My personal view is -

What one does in one's bedroom with anyone of reasonable capacity to know what they are involving themselves in and who have given their consent and who are of reasonably equal capacity to make their own decision (such that domination manifesting as coercion is not involved) should never be attacked verbally much less regulated. This is how I view the issue regarding sex.

That is why I am sad that Obama and Micheal have not been able to be honest that s/he's a tranny (if this is actually true - some make odds pretty high that it is indeed true).

It is also my opinion that if s/he is groomed well over the next 8 years, she would be the dems best shot for regaining the presidency.

[conk]

http://www.wnd.com/2016/12/investiga...ication-image/

The Arizona sheriff is still on the case, unrelentingly.

[Eric J (Viking)]

Video in the link.

Former President Barack H. Obama had a slip of the tongue during a speech in Kogelo, Kenya today.

“Now, three years ago, I visited Kenya as the first sitting American President to come from Kenya,” he said.

https://twitter.com/ArizonaKayte/sta...13988174311426

Viking

[Noelle]

Here is a better quality version of the speech. It appears to come from the source of the video, SABC News. The part of the speech referenced in the OP begins at about the 5.50 min. mark. The background screen is curious to me.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=VarqWJl1boc

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Q said he would be trying to claim Kenyan citizenship before it was all said and done.

Saturday May 19 2018
Trump's top diplomat calls Kenya's Uhuru Kenyatta

NEW YORK.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has assured President Uhuru Kenyatta of the country's continued support for Kenya's security and economic development.

On Friday, Mr Pompeo and President Kenyatta also discussed “shared goals of countering terrorism, promoting regional security and ensuring good governance,” the State Department's spokeswoman said in a summary of a telephone call the top US diplomat made to the president.

http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/Nation...n53/index.html

Could just be coincidence but I find the timing very interesting.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

I didn't see this particular clip posted here yet but some of the videos above are 404'd:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=wocHuPmBDsM

Posted by Tangri (here)
[
The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated "children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens."
http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/...-born-citizen/

Here's the problem. The Naturalization Act of 1790 was just a regular piece of legislation voted upon by the Congress, and not a constitutional amendment. So, first of all, the Naturalization Act of 1790 is easily open to change later (and our most recent overhaul of immigration began in the 1960's). A second problem is that this same Naturalization Act of 1790 specifices that only whites can become citizens of the United States. So we are obviously not still going by that standard either. Why pick other parts of it to go by now?