"That same act [The British Nationality Act of 1948] governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children."
That's a pretty good indication that he knows he's not a natural born citizen of the United States.
‘That same act [The British Nationality Act of 1948] governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.’
“That's a pretty good indication that he knows he's not a natural born citizen of the United States.”
Perhaps.
Or it is a clever lawyerly slight of hand creating a trap that adversaries are invited to fall into?
Notice that the Obama website doesn't say “governed the status of Obama Sr.’s child BHO II.” It only uses the non-specific term “children.”
Then if you go to the actual BNA of 1948, you find that in that act illegitimate children are explicitly EXCLUDED from the definition of “children.” BHO II could be illegitimate if his parent's marriage was bigamous due to BHO Sr.’s marriage to Kezia.
The 1948 BNA says:
“(2) Subject to the provisions of section twenty-three of this Act, any reference in this Act to a child shall be construed as a reference to a legitimate child; and the expressions “father”, “ancestor” and “descended” shall be construed accordingly.”
http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1948.htm
Obama and his legal team had two years to prepare to defend his NBC status and floating the BNA of 1948 could have been a tactic in a well-planned strategy.
It was Factcheck who obligingly lept to the conclusion that BHO II was governed by the 1948 BNA, while the Obama campaign never said it thus providing deniability to Obama.