Under Seal: Document Expert Identifies Obama Birth Certificate Forger; Says Media Executives Invol

DrEugeneFixer

WarminIndy
reply to post by hellobruce

 

If Muslim law has no bearing on US law regarding wives, then just ask Betty Mahmoody who became a citizen of Iran when she married her Iranian husband. The American Consulate in Iran stated that she was now Iranian.

Not likely, considering that there hasn't been any US Embassy or Consulate in Iran since 1979.

This was just before the Iranian Revolution.

And if you don't believe about how they perceive their Sharia law, then why don't you just ask them. It's happening all over the world, even in England.

I know Muslims in Canada that are doing this, bringing one wife over, leaving three behind. And I worked with Muslim men who told me this also. It's not like I am making this statement in ignorance. I know two men from Pakistan who did tell me to my face that their wives in Pakistan had no choice when it came to the men coming here to get new wives, who would then be citizens of Pakistan under Sharia law.

And there are girls in England and Europe being kidnapped by Muslim men who then tell the girls parents that the girls are now Muslim, now citizens of the countries the men are from, and the parent are powerless. It's happening. No matter how much you like to pretend that it isn't, it is.

When I worked with these men, they came to work with women they called their wives. I asked them how they could have a wife here and a wife there, they told me simply, that's what Islam says they can do. It does not matter to them what any country's law says, when it comes to Sharia, that's more legal to them.

And since Iran was under Sharia during the Ayatollah's regime, he kind of set the laws regarding women from other countries married to men from Iran. And since the Ayatollah was in power after 1979, then it made the citizenship laws fully divested under Sharia.

You have to understand, that under Sharia, it doesn't matter where the woman is from, when she marries a Muslim man and converts, it makes her a citizen of where he is from. These are the laws in those countries, now whether or not you disagree that it doesn't matter to US law, the US law does recognize marriages abroad and that they recognize the prevailing laws of the country where the marriage took place.

As Barack Sr. was indeed married here to Stanley, he was also married at the same time in Kenya. But Stanley sought for a divorce, now how could she get a divorce on a non-legal marriage in the first place? Bigamist marriages are annulled because they were never legal. But Stanley's wasn't annulled, it was a divorce. So how is it she had to get a divorce instead of an annulment, unless the marriage was legal in Kenya?

If the marriage was recognized as legal in Kenya, then the United States law should have held its position on the legality of marriage abroad. And if they were married in Hawaii, then why have to get a divorce on a non-legal, non-binding marriage? As he was a bigmaist, he should have gone to jail for it, but he didn't go to jail, so it makes me question, how legal was the marriage viewed as?

And if there had been a divorce instead of an annulment, then it kind of indicates to me that it was legal in Kenya and the United States. She didn't seek the divorce in Kenya, but in Hawaii. The divorce documents do not even say he was already married. Hmm, interesting.

Bigamy laws

As he was a bigamist according to US laws, her marriage was null and void. So why then go through a divorce and not an annulment?

Kenya law in 1961 regarding marriage and divorce

Kenya Laws

With the promulgation of the East African Order in council of 1897 – Indian and British Acts were introduced in Kenya and the customary systems were to apply the common law of England in the East African Protectorate. T he order in council had very little application to the natives. Cases between the natives were to be settled in the native courts and the commissioner gave the courts regulations. The 1897 Act provided that matters affecting the penal status of the non Islamic natives be resolved by the law of the tribe in so far as the law would be applicable and to the Mohammedan natives, Islamic law would apply.

Therefore, under Islamic law, as Obama Sr. was a Muslim, it did apply to him.

Here is the current set of laws

Current stat e of the law in Kenya (i) Marriage and Divorce Due to the historical factors explained above, family law in Kenya is regulated under four different legal regimes, namely: African customary laws of the various cultural groups; Hindu Marriage and Divorce Act (chapter 157), based on Hindu law and governing adherents of the Hindu faith; Mohammedan Marriage and Divorce Act (chapter 156), based on Islamic law and governing adherents of the Islamic faith; Marriage act (chapter 150) and the African Christian Marriage and Divorce Act (chapter 151), governing people who choose to marry under the formal law, regardless of their cultural or religious background.

Islamic Law of Marriage

2. Establishment of Islamic society It is necessary for the accomplishment of the ends of Islamic Shari`ah that such means be available that may fulfill such ends. This would be possible only after the Islamic society comes before other nations as an ideal example and they be convinced that Islam alone is the true religion in which human relations are established in the best manner. To achieve this end Islam adopts many means. Out of those means nikah is also one such mean.

So yes, they were legally married according to Kenyan law, but not US law, as he was a bigamist here. He was availing himself of Kenyan Islamic law, here in the US.

reply to post by xuenchen


I think your investigators need to check their facts. The section of law you are referring to states:

(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years

However, that is preceded by:

(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality-

Source

Receiving naturalization in another country only nullifies one's US citizenship if it is done as an act meant to renounce one's citizenship.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


good post.

and all is subject to interpretation and precedents as it would have been in the years at issue.

current laws may not have applied in the 1960's.

this is being researched.

xuenchen
reply to post by Xcalibur254

 

good post.

and all is subject to interpretation and precedents as it would have been in the years at issue.

current laws may not have applied in the 1960's.

this is being researched.

By you?

reply to post by Xcalibur254



And this is where it gets kind of sticky for Stanley Dunham. I don't think there were things that she was aware of legally, as she was just 18 years-old when Barack Jr. was born.

I don't know if she was the legal age to get married in Hawaii at that time. Her parents protested the marriage, so that is probably why they waited until she turned 18.

But I think the girl was very naive regarding laws in other countries. She moved to Seattle where people did know Barack Jr. as a month old child. But in 1961, it was still not a good thing to not be married and have a baby. So that's probably why she left Hawaii to go to university in Washington State. That seems to be a very strange move for an 18 year-old mother to leave her support system and go somewhere else with an infant.

Barack Sr. already went back to Massachusetts by that time. She obviously believed they were married, so that kind of shows a lot of naivete on her part. It took three years to get the divorce, back in Hawaii, but she had been in Washington State. Maybe there were two Anne Dunhams? It's possible, but there seems to have been only one Stanley Anne Dunham Obama.

For the times, 1961, it makes sense that from a social position, she would have to leave, that was pretty common to do back then. But I don't think she had intended to renounce her citizenship at that point, she did later though.

But if you look at this solely from a legal position, Obama Sr. committed statutory rape of an underage girl. Then married her, even though he was already married. So from a legal position, he broke two laws there. He never lived with her either.

If we went by the spirit of the law, then she was an unwed mother. But it's kind of sticky because she sought a divorce instead of an annulment which she could have easily obtained more quickly and with less process. The girl was caught up in this thing.

We have to look at her age in consideration, instead of knowing what she was like as an adult. And the fact she sent Barack Jr. back to Hawaii without her, kind of says that perhaps there was more to the story than we know. And he was called Barry Soetoro in Indonesia, which means he had been adopted by Lelo Soetoro. That's why I question when his grandparents adopted him. Did she give up her rights as a parent?

She made things really sticky when it comes to the law. I don't think she intended to when she was young, I think she just got caught up in this relationship with Barack Sr. and was naive. I have to give her a break on that one. But Barack Jr. is old enough to know what he is doing, and if he has misrepresented anything, then he should accountable for it.

reply to post by WarminIndy


This has been looked into time and again. The courts have ruled on it again and again. He's eligible. He's President. Can we please draw a line under this silly argument and stop wasting time on it?

chiefsmom
Not sure if I believe this still, but, I do find this case interesting. So, Mr. Voigt knows who made the forgeries? I guess, if it were me, I wouldn't just be worried out the name getting out. He may want to hire some security for himself.

Possibly, but it is also entirely possible that some unknown faction was using Obama to further their goals and the fact that he was not a United States Citizen was useful to them, because it gave them pull over him once he got into office. They could remove him at any time by revealing it, but they also didn't want others to reveal it because that would take away their power.

What I'm saying here is, now that Obama's job is done, the faction he's working for doesn't care about protecting the legitimacy of his Presidency anymore.

They are ready to throw him under the bus, whether that means allowing the truth about his origins to be known or even assassinating him. He was apparently played by someone.

AngryCymraeg
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

This has been looked into time and again. The courts have ruled on it again and again. He's eligible. He's President. Can we please draw a line under this silly argument and stop wasting time on it?

Hmm, then why do people challenge Mitt Romney, John McCain and Ted Cruz?

The Democrats challenge theirs, so they are hypocrites. If the concept applies to Obama, then there should be no challenge under the same principle for anyone else.

Do you support the new challenges against Ted Cruz, and to what are you appealing in that? Because he's Republican, then he should be challenged? Hmm, let's challenge just the Republicans, but not the Democrats, is that how it works in?

reply to post by Indigo5


Why does it bother you so much? If you think there isn't a problem why do you have to put people down who don't have your point of view? I think you are worried that there is a problem with his background.

WarminIndy

AngryCymraeg
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

This has been looked into time and again. The courts have ruled on it again and again. He's eligible. He's President. Can we please draw a line under this silly argument and stop wasting time on it?

Hmm, then why do people challenge Mitt Romney, John McCain and Ted Cruz?

The Democrats challenge theirs, so they are hypocrites. If the concept applies to Obama, then there should be no challenge under the same principle for anyone else.

Do you support the new challenges against Ted Cruz, and to what are you appealing in that? Because he's Republican, then he should be challenged? Hmm, let's challenge just the Republicans, but not the Democrats, is that how it works in?

Because they all had - on the face of it - possible eligibility issues. But the courts once again did their work, ruling that they were/are eligible. Case closed. Do you hear anything about those cases now? No. But we still hear yet more drivel about Obama. He's the President. It's a legal open and shut case. But still the birthers claim that it's an issue. It's not!

catt3
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Why does it bother you so much? If you think there isn't a problem why do you have to put people down who don't have your point of view? I think you are worried that there is a problem with his background.

A general dislike of willful ignorance.

reply to post by buster2010


If you were to read the OP, you would see that this 'rebuttal' is completely invalid, and only runs on the faulty logic of trust in a circle-jerk of validations...

VeritasAequitas
reply to post by buster2010

 

If you were to read the OP, you would see that this 'rebuttal' is completely invalid, and only runs on the faulty logic of trust in a circle-jerk of validations...

Correct...If only people would cease trusting countless verified facts, documents, testimonies, logic and the false premises of time and space..it would become clear that President Obama was born in Kenya!

AutumnWitch657
reply to post by Rosinitiate

 

Yes all those things are real. Well except for the NWO. BUT the rest is real Oklahoma bombing real, Assassination of JFK real, terrorists brought down the towers that's real. What's your point. Barack Obama is not real ?

ZIIIIIIIIIIIIIIING -

Oh man you got me.

Yes, my school records are sealed until an employer wants to see my real performance and many job apps say records will be required. I think applying for President of the United States should allow us to see school records, criminal records, financial records to see if they are who they say they are and have achieved what they claim to have achieved as well as not beholden to someone say for financial reasons.

Bush's records were released and everyone on the "left" went gaga over what a poor student he was. I personally couldn't stand the silver spoon frat boy skull and bones guy, but we did see a lot more on Bush's past than we ever saw on Obama. Hell, the media didn't even want to ask the questions. Chris Matthews was too busy getting that thrill up his leg.

The scholarship Obama got to go to school was for FOREIGN students. That tells you right there that he was not an American when in college.

He looks a lot more like Frank Marshall Davis than his "daddy" Mr. Obama from Kenya. Gee, he spent 3 days a week with Mr. Davis and Mr. Davis had soft porn images of Obama's mamma. And then there was the strange poem he wrote apparently for little Barry.

You can ignore the facts about Obama's seemingly hidden past, but I will take Obama's word for it,

Barack Obama: 'The only people that don't want to disclose the truth, are people with something to hide."

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


I am officially nonstarring your post (I like the concept) and then walking away giggling.

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


I am curious with the new announcement by the mods about making us keep to non personal attacks etc if they are going to reign in some of you who disagree with people and do nothing to point out the errors, but just throw mud around and speak in a derisive manner.

Since you cannot refute me intelligently, I will thus deduce that you just don't like post that show these truths about Obama and the best you can do it try to get your fan boys to imitate this behavior in hopes of shutting us up. You sir are the one who has no leg to stand on in this debate.

UnifiedSerenity
Yes, my school records are sealed until an employer wants to see my real performance and many job apps say records will be required.

You do not need any records to become President - just check the Constitution, where does it state a President must supply any records?

I think applying for President of the United States should allow us to see school records, criminal records, financial records to see if they are who they say they are and have achieved what they claim to have achieved as well as not beholden to someone say for financial reasons.

That may be what you want - but funny how you never demanded those records for any Previous President, only Obama.... why is that?

Bush's records were released

Illegally, and only 1 record....

but we did see a lot more on Bush's past than we ever saw on Obama.

When did Bush release his birth certificate?

The scholarship Obama got to go to school was for FOREIGN students.

Once again, that was a April fool's joke, and birthers still fall for it.
www.snopes.com...

That tells you right there that he was not an American when in college.

No, that proves you are gullible and fall for April fool's jokes, years after they have been shown to be a joke

Mr. Davis had soft porn images of Obama's mamma.

Once again you must make crap up!

UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by AngryCymraeg

 

I am curious with the new announcement by the mods about making us keep to non personal attacks etc if they are going to reign in some of you who disagree with people and do nothing to point out the errors, but just throw mud around and speak in a derisive manner.

Since you cannot refute me intelligently, I will thus deduce that you just don't like post that show these truths about Obama and the best you can do it try to get your fan boys to imitate this behavior in hopes of shutting us up. You sir are the one who has no leg to stand on in this debate.

No, you are the one who doesn't have a leg to stand on. You're claiming that Obama Senior isn't the real father of Obama Junior and also that Obama Junior went to a school for foreign students - which, as HelloBruce just pointed out, was an April Fool. Here's the link again just in case.
I am getting both amused and disgusted by the repeated attempts by birthers to rehash arguments that have been debunked again and again. Hence the derision.

AngryCymraeg
I am getting both amused and disgusted by the repeated attempts by birthers to rehash arguments that have been debunked again and again. Hence the derision.

That is all they can do - the other alternative is for them to admit Obama is the legal President, and he was elected twice.... a reality they just refuse to accept!