Posted on 10/07/2009 11:23:53 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
By Alan Keyes
October 7, 2009
Loyal to Liberty
I just received a call from Orly Taitz, my attorney in the case seeking proof of Obama's eligibility for the Office of President of the United States. Judge Carter has released a statement declaring that the dates he set for the hearing and trial on the eligibility issue are confirmed, and it will move forward as scheduled. Apparently he was not swayed by the Obama lawyer's arguments.
| Am I missing something besides sleep? No, LOL. I see Mr. and Mrs. Obama as a “groom” and “bride” who spawned a child who was the right combination of a charismatic, racecard-bearing, black and white politician — to later be picked and groomed by power brokers with vast financial backing — to trick "the teaming masses" of voters too caught up in hysteria and exuberance to notice they're being duped. In the words of Akhil Reed Amar, Southmayd Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University :
Only the Presidency and the Vice Presidency were reserved for birth-citizens, and even this reservation was softened to recognize the eligibility of all immigrants who were already American citizens in 1787—men, like Hamilton, who had proved their loyalty by coming to, or remaining in, America during the Revolution.
Why, then, did generally pro-immigrant Founders exclude later immigrants from the Presidency? If we imagine a poor boy coming to America and rising through the political system by dint of his own sweat and virtue only to find himself barred at the top, the rule surely looks anti-egalitarian. But in 1787, the more salient scenario involved the possibility that a foreign earl or duke might cross the Atlantic with immense wealth and a vast retinue, and then use his European riches to buy friends on a scale that virtually no homegrown citizen could match. There were no campaign finance rules in place then. If only Professor Amar had realized in October 2004 that Obama in 2008 would come along and REFUSE any federal Presidential campaign funds, thereby avoiding FEC audit, the Professor might have taken a different stance when testifying before Congress on the Hatch Amendment. But suffice to say that the Obots’ invoking of British and/or Pre-Constitutional Common Law, the 14th Amendment, Wong Kim Ark vs the US, US Immigration Law, and other lame excuses won't save their poster boy once Jurisdiction and Standing has been hacked into on Obama’s Eligibility suits. We've soundly defeated those arguments on this and other Free Republic threads, coming from different directions. Donofrio and Orly, despite their dislike for each other and their approach, both have part of the answer on that. Donofrio is concerned about damaging precedence by Orly — a legitimate concern that can be steered around by a knowledgeable attorney if Orly IS being led into a trap by the US Attorneys. If Orly and Kreep argue to Judge Carter about their plantiffs’ damage, I think the rest of the academic argument laid forth here will fall in place at the right time. When Donofrio gets his hands on the right kind of prima facie he needs via Hawaii UIPA requests, he'll maneuver through the judicial system very well — and VERY quickly. As for the "poor boy" who would become president under false pretenses — the jig is almost up! |
Kudos for your posts-is there now publicly available, unimpeachable ‘documentation’ that Sr. is BO’s biological father?
> is there now publicly available, unimpeachable
> ‘documentation’ that Sr. is BO’s biological father?
The ‘64 Obama divorce info has been out for more than a year.
The Kenyan birth certificate is dubious, IMO, but not disproven. It is part of Orly’s request to proceed with further discovery with Judge Carter.
However, the 1964 divorce info is more than sufficient to proceed down the path of Obmam’s disqualification as a British subject via his father.
bookmark
Thanks for all your work, especially this week.
and those photos still look stilted and staged.
Going back to bed.
Concerning the Oct.5th hearing, i am sure getting a different read on Judge Carter from earlier FR articles that week than
what i saw on the OBAMA Birth Certificate Trial UPdate of Oct 5 On Second Thought TV ^ | October 06, 2009 | William Wagener.
Orly is frustrated with Carter and “angry with” Kreep in the
vlog interview. Like she is expecting dismissal. Did y’all get that too?
As you say, “ambassador” in more recent times—I would say since maybe 1400 or 1500—means “one who is sent” or “one who speaks for the person who sent him.”
Also, as you say, the earlier etymology stresses master and servant, or ruler and subject:
ambassador: c.1374, from M.Fr. ambassadeur, from O.Fr. embassator, via Prov. or O.Sp. from L. ambactus “a servant, vassal,” from Celt. amb(i)actos “a messenger, servant,” from PIE *ambhi- “about” *ag- “drive, lead.” Cf. embassy. Forms in am- and em- were used indiscriminately 17c.-18c.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
So, certainly in the 1700s it meant primarily one who is sent. BUT, the Common Law contained traces of much earlier meanings. Indeed, the term “subject” still survives in British law, although the Queen no longer has the sort of power that monarchs once did. But Parliament or the “state” has, in effect, slipped in to replace the monarch in British legal thinking.
It is a commonplace that the American Constitutional concept of a free “citizen” is quite different from the British legal concept of a “subject.”
So, basically I would agree with you that, legally, Obama Sr. was a British subject, subject to all the laws unless and until that obligation was formally broken. Which it was not.
I’m reserving my comments until later.
Isn’t it that, if it is found that Barack Obama II was born in Kenya, which was a british protectorate at the time, in conjuction with the fact that his father was at the time also a British subject, that irrespective of him Mothers US citizenship, the child would be a british subject?
Or, are you stating that If he were Born in Hawaii, because his father was a British subject, that would automatically make him a British Subject, regardless of his mothers US citizenship.
Since there was no dual citizenship between the US and GB at that time, are you saying the GB citizenship would trump US citizenship for Obama?
I just want to be clear on this...
I agree:"... the 1964 divorce info is more than sufficient to proceed down the path of Obmam’s disqualification as a British subject via his father." However, still..., I cannot yet get on the bandwagon re. BO's parentage; there's too much hidden. No doubt his motive(s) for hiding his history is highly likely that he KNOWS he's not Constitutionally eligible for POTUS, and that there's lotsa lying, by him and others, creating his myth.
If the 3 ahead of him, are proven to be complicit in perpetrating a fraud on the US populace, it could well be that Byrd would be next in line...
This from the Moderator at the site: Link at bottom of article...
In Depth Analysis of Dual Citizenship As It Applies To Barack Obama; Obama Is A British Citizen:
This analysis is not meant to back the term “Birther” or any other meaning, but is intended to give the legal analysis of why Obama is a British Citizen and that fact cannot be denied. It is not the “where Obama was born” that is important, it is his citizenship that is in question and has always been so. If you are serious and can read this article with and open mind, proceed. If you are biased, there is nothing that can be said to change your mind. What is presented here are facts written in stone and cannot be denied. The Laws of Britain - United States and Kenya are presented. Read and understand for the final time!
Assuming that Obama was born in the United States, he was not only born a dual national of the United States and Great Britain, but at present he continues to be such. Some maintain that American law on citizenship cannot be subjected to any foreign law. But such an argument does not resolve the question of Obama’s dual nationality, for each nation has the sovereign right to make its own citizenship laws and one nation cannot deny another nation that right. This point can be better understood when we consider that McCain was born in Panama to U.S. citizen parents and U.S. citizenship law declared him a U.S. citizen even though he was born in Panama and Panamanian law may have declared him a citizen of Panama. Neither Panama nor any other nation questioned the United States’ right to pass a law that gave McCain U.S. citizenship by descent from his parents even though he was born in Panama. Great Britain, being a sovereign nation, has the same right as does the United States to pass such citizenship laws. Now let us examine the British law that applies to Obama and his father and which makes Obama a British citizen not only at the time of his birth in 1961 but still today.
The British Nationality Act of 1948 provides in pertinent part as follows:
“4. Subject to the provisions of this section, every person born within the United Kingdom and Colonies after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by birth:
Provided that a person shall not be such a citizen by virtue of this section if at the time of his birth—
(a) his father possesses such immunity from suit and legal process as is accorded to an envoy of a foreign sovereign power accredited to His Majesty, and is not a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies; or
( his father is an enemy alien and the birth occurs in a place then under occupation by the enemy.
5.—(1) 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 ....”
Under the British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama’s father became a British citizen under Section 4 by being born on the soil of an English Colony, Kenya. Under Section 5, when Obama was born in 1961 in Hawaii or some other place, he automatically became a British citizen by descent from his father who was a British citizen under Section 4.
Obama has deflected attention to his British citizenship by focusing the public’s attention on his former Kenyan citizenship. Notwithstanding what Obama may lead the public to believe, this British citizenship is not a type of citizenship that he has since lost. Moreover, this citizenship did not expire with Obama’s 21st birthday nor is it one that had to be registered in any specified period of time.
Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that: “1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya. [sic] is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall. [sic] if his father becomes. [sic] . . . a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subjection (1). [sic] become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December. [sic] 1963.” These provisions made Obama’s father and Obama citizens of Kenya, respectively. But neither Kenya’s independence from Great Britain nor the Kenyan Constitution caused Obama to lose his British citizenship with which he was born. Obama concedes that his citizenship converted from British to Kenyan but he adds that he then lost this Kenyan citizenship when he did not confirm it upon reaching the age of 21. There are no known statements from either Obama or his campaign contending that he eventually lost his British citizenship. Rather, the statements have been that his British citizenship converted to Kenyan citizenship when Kenya obtained its independence from Great Britain in 1963 and that he then lost Kenyan citizenship under the Kenyan constitution and laws when he did not renounce U.S. citizenship at age 21. But since Obama never lost his British citizenship, it does not matter that Obama may have lost his Kenyan citizenship as he contends.
Let us now see how Obama did not lose his British citizenship. The Kenyan Constitution which came into effect in 1963 at Article 97 provides the following:
“97. Dual citizenship
1. A person who, upon the attainment of the age of twenty-one years, is a citizen of Kenya and also a citizen of some country other than Kenya shall, subject to subsection (7), cease to be a citizen of Kenya upon the specified date unless he has renounced his citizenship of that other country, taken the oath of allegiance and, in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament.”
Hence, while the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults, it allows dual citizenship for children. Kenya’s Constitution does, however, specify that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possess citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship, swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya, and in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament. It may be true that Obama did not take any action to preserve his Kenyan citizenship as was required by the Kenyan constitution. But there is no evidence that Obama ever renounced his British citizenship which he originally acquired at his birth under Section 5 of the British Nationality Act of 1948. Whatever his father may have done regarding his Kenyan and/or British citizenship did not affect Obama’s British citizenship with which Obama was born. Hence, under the Kenyan Constitution, Obama presumably lost his Kenyan citizenship by not renouncing his U.S. (assuming he was born in the U.S.) and British citizenships, by not taking an oath of allegiance to Kenya, and by not registering his declaration to take up residence in Kenya. But under British law, he did not lose his British citizenship because he never renounced that citizenship.
The fact that Obama still has British citizenship is further supported by the following:
“Under United Kingdom law as it has been since the British Nationality Act, 1948, the acquisition of another nationality by a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, of whatever age, makes no difference whatever to his status as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and, therefore, he remains a British subject.
Moreover, it is not possible, under United Kingdom law, for the nationality of a child who is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies to be changed by the decision of his parents. Only the child, when he reaches the age of 21, can renounce his citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies if he is then in possession of another nationality, but during the child’s minority neither the child nor his parents can do anything to forfeit his birthright of British nationality.”
Children Bill [Lords], HC Deb 27 June 1958 vol 590 cc743-830.
“It is now the law that all persons born in the United Kingdom or its Colonies, or in countries which were Colonies at the time when they were born, have British nationality whether they are legitimate or illegitimate. . . .
Also, it is part of our law that children of a British male born abroad can have British nationality.”
British Nationality, HC Deb 16 July 1963 vol 681 cc341-3.
Additionally, if one examines the British Nationality Act of 1981, there is nothing there which shows that Obama, once having the British citizenship that he acquired by descent from his father at the time of his birth, automatically lost it at age 21. On the other hand, the act contains provisions concerning “declaration of renunciation” at Section 10, 12, and 13. Not that doing so would make Obama an Article II “natural born Citizen,” there is no evidence that Obama ever filed any “declaration of renunciation” of his British citizenship.
What does this mean? Under the Kenyan Constitution, Obama is presumably no longer a Kenyan citizen because he did not renounce at age 21 his British citizenship and his U.S. citizenship (assuming he was born in the U.S.). Obama is still however a British citizen not only under English common law (in the words of Coke and Blackstone, a natural-born subject of the United Kingdom) but also under British citizenship statutes. Neither Kenya’s 1963 constitution nor any statute erased the consequences of the British common law and nationality statutes that were in effect at the time of Obama’s and his father’s birth. Obama’s continuing British citizenship is further confirmed by English law which provides that persons born in countries which were Colonies at the time when they were born are still British citizens. Hence, Obama continues to be a British citizen despite Kenya’s independence and new constitution.
This all leads to the question of how can Obama be an Article II “natural born Citizen” if he was at birth both a U.S. citizen (assuming he was born in the U.S.) and a British citizen which alone disqualifies him from having that status? But to make matters worse, Obama continues to be a British citizen at a time that he is currently the President of the United States. Can we reasonably conclude that the Founding Fathers, who had just fought a war with Great Britain and who did not want a foreigner to occupy the Office of President, would have allowed a British citizen, who carries that status not only from birth but also to the time he occupies the Office, to be President of the United States and Commander in Chief of its Military? Another question is how can a would-be President and Commander in Chief of the Military with current dual citizenship obtain a security clearance which he would need to access classified U.S. government information needed by him to carry out the sensitive functions of that Office?
The facts and commentary come primarily from the Legal brief presented by Mario Apuzzo, Esq...There is no doubt we have an ineligible person sitting in the White House and no one has done anything about this situation.
This spends all its effort arguing that Obama is a British citizen, a fact not in serious controversy. I think they should next write a long detailed article proving that he's male.
"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children."
SO, a man who was a subject to the British Crown would pass on this relationship to his child under common law ... NOT of the US, but of the British Crown (the United Kingdom) ...
... if granted permission (in this case, via a student Visa) from the British Crown to visit a foreign land (the United States) ...
...regardless of WHO the MOTHER is...
... and REGARDLESS of where the child was born.
BP2:
Leo Donofrio claims that Obama’s Factcheck 1948 BNA statement is “an admission against interest” that he was a British subject at birth, just like his father, and is thus ineligible for POTUS.
But did Obama actually make any such admission, or did he only invite us to jump to that conclusion while cleverly hiding his true motivation for making the statement?
Obama did NOT say “I was a British subject at birth.” Obama only said “That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children. But what other conclusion can we reach other than that Obama is a British subject? It depends on what the 1948 BNA says.
The true meaning of Obama’s statement is insidiously clever, much more so that Clinton’s “is” parsing.
What the 1948 BNA actually says is:
Section (23)
Legitimated children.
(1) A person born out of wedlock and legitimated by the subsequent marriage of his parents shall, as from the date of the marriage or of the commencement of this Act, whichever is later, be treated, for the purpose of determining whether he is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, or was a British subject immediately before the commencement of this Act, as if he had been born legitimate.
(2) A person shall be deemed for the purposes of this section to have been legitimated by the subsequent marriage of his parents if by the law of the place in which his father was domiciled at the time of the marriage the marriage operated immediately or subsequently to legitimate him, and not otherwise.
http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1948.htm
If BHO II’s birth was illegitimate on August 4, 1961 due to the bigamy of his parent’s marriage , I read BNA Section (23) to mean that he is a British subject only if his birth has been “legitimated by the subsequent marriage of his parents if by the law of the place in which his father was domiciled at the time of the marriage the marriage operated immediately or subsequently to legitimate him, and not otherwise.”
BHO Sr’s HI marriage to Stanley Ann appears to have been bigamous in both Kenya and HI. Only a divorce from Kezia and subsequent marriage to Stanley Ann would have made BHO II a British subject at birth.
Thus BHO II’s Factcheck admission of being governed by the 1948 BNA is actually an admission that he is NOT a British subject at birth and NOT a dual citizen!
The following blog post by “221b” recounts my exact experience in trying to post this issue on Leo’s blog and his refusal to allow any such postings and details the Kenya laws that appear to govern Obama Sr’s marriages to Kezia and Stanley Ann:
221b on March 13th, 2009 10:27 am
Leo Donofrio declined to add the substance of the following to his blog. Donofrio insists that certain issues must not be discussed, even if they threaten to undermine his central arguments and mean that on present evidence his case will fail. This is extremely disturbing. I leave it to others to ask why.
There are TWO ways Obama’s parents can be PROVED LEGALLY UNMARRIED, with consequences that would dramatically affect deliberations in eligibility hearings. ON CURRENT EVIDENCE such hearings would never find against Obama:
a British citizenship under the UK Nationality Act 1948 transmitted automatically ONLY TO CHILDREN OF A LEGITIMATE MARRIAGE. Obama’s father was already married in Kenya before he came to America. The marriage was by native custom. In British Kenya in 1961 “customary marriage” for black Kenyans was absolutely legal. Customary marriage for white Kenyans was not permitted: their marriages required official licenses and generated certificates. These two forms of marriage could not be contracted simultaneously to different spouses: that was bigamy under the Kenya Marriage Act, Chapter 50, 1902 and the Kenya Penal Code of 1930, Section 171. Customary marriage was very public, invariably polygamous, and very legal — in British Kenya. The question is: what was the status of Kenyan customary marriage in America in 1961 ? Common law marriage had no official status in Hawaii in 1961 (or now). PROBLEM: Would a perfectly legal British Kenyan customary marriage (between Obama Sr and his wife Kezia Grace), which had no official certificate, be ruled by a US court in 1961 as being “common law” ? If it would, Obama’s parents were legally married under US law (if they did legally contract a marriage); if Obama Sr’s customary marriage would NOT have been ruled “common law”, if Obama Sr’s very Kenyan, very respectable, and eminently lawful customary marriage (to a doctor’s daughter) would have been deemed legal under US law (had authorities here and Ann Dunham herself known about it !), Obama’s parents COULD NEVER HAVE BEEN LAWFULLY MARRIED by any authority within US jurisdiction. We do know that it was Ann Dunham-Obama herself who left Obama Sr in August 1961 and only returned to Hawaii in 1963, many months AFTER Obama Sr left Hawaii for Harvard. Under these circumstances if Obama Jr was born in Kenya, just one year’s residency in America was all his mother needed to transmit US citizenship; though it should be said, he could never possess natural born citizenship. Conversely, if Obama’s parents are deemed by US authorities to have been legally married ONLY in America, then his mother did not have sufficient residency to transmit US citizenship if he was born in Kenya; and again Obama could never possess natural born citizenship.
b Obama’s father contracted a customary marriage in Kenya, perfectly legal there, several years before coming to study in Hawaii. Obama Sr then contracted (if he did) a second marriage with Ann Dunham in Hawaii in 1961. Polygamous customary marriage was legal for black Kenyans in British Kenya. PROBLEM: It was not legal under the British Kenya Marriage Act 1902 and Kenya Penal Code 1930 to mix the two types of marriage. American marriages were recognized foreign marriages and governed by statute, whereby “NO marriage in Kenya shall be valid…where either of the parties…is married by native law or custom to any person other than the person with whom such marriage is had”: ie for one customarily married any statutory spouse must be the customary spouse - thereby outlawing statutory polygamy. This means that Obama Sr’s Hawaiian marriage (if real) to Ann Dunham was BIGAMOUS AND ILLEGAL IN KENYA UNDER BRITISH LAW. While birth in Kenya would necessarily have entitled Obama Jr to British citizenship immediately, an Obama Jr birth in America to bigamous parents could never bestow British citizenship upon him, because at no time would Britain have regarded Obama Jr as the child of a marriage that was legitimate under British Kenyan law. Marriage (incontrovertibly bigamous) in the US for Ann Dunham and Obama Sr without a Kenyan birth for Obama Jr, or merely an American birth for Obama Jr, are both deadly poison for Leo’s brief.
http://decalogosintl.org/?p=256
Further support for the legitimacy of Kezia’s marriage to BHO Sr in Kenya comes from Kezia herself. She is alive and her testimony that they were married in 1957 is firsthand, not hearsay. The Daily Mail story writer below says:
"Until now, Barack Snr has been portrayed as a bigamist and a drunk."
It is not clear where that characterization came from in this newspaper story, but if it came from Kezia, she herself considered him a bigamist. Stanley Ann is reported by Kezia to have become great friends with her (they both suffered from the bigamy) and Kezia claims Obama and Michelle have a warm 20 year relationship with her and her other children of BHO Sr. which shows Obama’s full knowledge of the bigamy.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-506338/Barack-Obamas-stepmother-living-Bracknell-reveals-close-bond---mother.html#ixzz0Tay946aW
It certainly is in serious controversy, and has been all along. I know I've been saying this since last year, myself, as have several others.
And, before you claim that the Obama campaign openly admitted this, you need to understand that, no, the Obama campaign did no such thing.
Look for the various published accounts associated with or relied upon by that campaign, and see the smoke and mirrors. The weirdly Orwellian Factcheck.org, which was the primary reference used by that campaign and by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, to this day, states the following:
______________________________________________________________________
When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom's dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.'s children:
British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): 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, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.
Obama's British citizenship was short-lived. On Dec. 12, 1963, Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:
1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963...
2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.
As a citizen of the UKC who was born in Kenya, Obama's father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UKC status at birth and given that Obama's father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), it follows that Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship after 1963. So The Rocky Mountain News was at least partially correct.
i>But the paper failed to note that the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya's Constitution specifies that at age 23, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1984.
Corrected (Sep. 3, 2009): Our original article incorrectly stated that then-Sen. Obama lost his Kenyan citizenship on Aug. 4, 1982. The correct date is Aug. 4, 1984. The Kenyan Constitution required Obama to choose whether to keep either his U.S. or Kenyan citizenship upon his 21st birthday, which was in 1982. But we initially missed that the Constitution provided him a two-year window for making that choice. So Obama did not lose his Kenyan citizenship until his 23rd birthday in 1984. We have updated the item to reflect this.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html
______________________________________________________________________
So, where in all of this, do you see any admission of the consequences, of the very English common law natural-born subject status, that you oddly seem to believe defines our own citizenship status in this country, mlo?
Where is it? Nowhere to be found. "Factcheck" claims that Obama's British citizenship was "short-lived."
On to another Orwellian little exercise in sleight-of-hand, let's take a look at FightTheSmears.com:
_______________________________________________________________________
Smears claiming Barack Obama doesn’t have a birth certificate aren’t actually about that piece of paper — they’re about manipulating people into thinking Barack is not an American citizen.
The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.
http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html
_______________________________________________________________________
Now, what does this passage not say, mlo? Does it completely avoid making any claim of Barack Obama being a natural-born citizen? Why, yes it does completely evade the matter, which is the only thing that matters in the whole controversy, whether Barack Hussein Obama, II meets the natural-born citizen requirement for eligibility to the office of President.
Next, we have BarackObama.com. No mention whatsoever:
There has been very serious controversy all along, mlo. You cannot point me to one single source even tangentially associated with Barack Obama or his Presidential campaign, that stated he was currently a British citizen. Not one. You can't even point me to one single source associated with Obama in any way, that stated, point-blank, that he is a natural-born citizen.
Despite your lengthy tenure here on FR, you're sounding less like a Constitutionalist and more like an apologist. How can any conservative, Republican or otherwise, state that our President being a foreign citizen is not a serious matter? For one, it precludes his having been born with the status required in order to be eligible to that Office, and for two, it seriously compromises that Office with divided allegiances.
Children Bill [Lords], HC Deb 27 June 1958 vol 590 cc743-830.
“It is now the law that all persons born in the United Kingdom or its Colonies, or in countries which were Colonies at the time when they were born, have British nationality whether they are legitimate or illegitimate. . . .
Also, it is part of our law that children of a British male born abroad can have British nationality.”
This cite was included in the text to which you responded, Seizethecarp.
How about you actually go read that debate.
Not there.
It comes from a 1963 debate. Go read it.
Children of a British male born abroad can have British nationality..IF CERTAIN CONDITIONS ARE MET.
But hey, believe whatever you want.
A few people arguing something on the internet doesn't make something "in serious controversy". But you miss the point anyway.
It does not matter whether or not Obama was born with dual citizenship. Argue about how many angels fit on the head of a pin all you like, the Obama campaign wrote something that everyone understood to mean he had British citizenship. Who cares? It doesn't change anything.
Btw, why don’t you actually go read the law..instead of a reading a debate...would you believe Nancy Pelosi’s explanation of what is the health care law right now in a debate or would you actually read the law.
You're going to have to provide a source showing just what the Obama campaign wrote, that everyone understood to mean that he had British citizenship, mlo. The laughably-named "FactCheck.org" stated that his British citizenship expired.
Many people care, it's quite obvious. You don't, and it's quite curious.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.