CNN Pushing Hard to Overlook Eligibility; SPLC: “Remove Mr. Dobbs”
As the press has been hitting the Obama birth certificate pretty hard lately (hey, welcome to the show!), several concerned citizens and bloggers have noticed that the press may be over-doing their hand just a wee bit too much.
Yesterday, CNN/US President Jon Klein sent an email to Lou Dobb’s staff regarding performing research on a hard (physical) copy of the original, 1961 birth certificate (via MediaBistro.com; more story at the link):
—– Original Message —–
From: Klein, Jon (CNN)
Sent: Thu Jul 23 19:00:44 2009
Subject: Important re birth certificateI asked the political researchers to dig into the question “why couldn’t Obama produce the ORIGINAL birth certificate?”
This is what they forwarded. It seems to definitively answer the question. Since the show’s mission is for Lou to be the explainer and enlightener, he should be sure to cite this during your segment tonite. And then it seems this story is dead – because anyone who still is not convinced doesn’t really have a legitimate beef.
Thx
*****************
*In 2001 – the state of Hawaii Health Department went paperless.*Paper documents were discarded*The official record of Obama’s birth is now an official ELECTRONIC record Janice Okubo, spokeswoman for the Health Department told the Honolulu Star Bulletin, “At that time, all information for births from 1908 (on) was put into electronic files for consistent reporting,” she said.
———————
Transcript from Lou Dobbs Tonight – 07.23.09DOBBS: ….And a number of Americans are asking, why not? The left-wing media has attacked me because I simply asked the question. Meanwhile, the state of Hawaii says it can’t release a paper copy of the president’s original birth certificate because they say the state government discarded the original document when the health department records went electronic some eight years ago.
That explanation, however, has not satisfied some critics. Joining me now, Roland Martin. He’s CNN contributor, syndicated columnist. And joining us as well, Congressman Ted Poe.
In fact, HotAir.com also reported on this development (excerpted):
Bad idea. I sympathize with him wanting to protect CNN from negative press but the surest way to feed a conspiracy theory, needless to say, is to try to suppress it. This is like Roger Ailes issuing a communique ordering Fox News not to cover 9/11 Truth. What is he hiding? …
Dave Weigel, who’s been tracking the Birther phenomenon for months, floats a new story today about Team McCain having investigated the rumors last year and found nothing to them. Possible lines of Birther attack: McCain’s vetters were too dumb to find the smoking gun; even if they found the smoking gun, McCain’s eligibility was also in question at one point due to his being born in Panama so he couldn’t use it; McCain’s a RINO and wanted to lose so even if he did find the smoking gun, he probably destroyed it to help Obama out.
Whoa, stop the presses! The Hawaii Department of Health actually destroyed vital records? What else does “discarded” mean? How did that happen and by what authority?
Not only that, but now we’re supposed to be believing what’s being posted on the Internet, e.g.: the certification of live birth? And all this time I thought the press promoted the notion that you can’t trust what you find on the Internet!
Artwork courtesy TheBirthers.org
Sheesh! Don’t we have more than enough leading conclusions being bandied about the conventional press-o-sphere, much less the blosophere, to last until at least 2012? Speaking as someone who has been questioning the then would-be President’s eligibility since late October, 2008, I can say that this is a definite issue with the press.
Recently, a concerned citizen forwarded me a link to the blog WesternJournalism.com which recently posted what they’re saying is an intelligence investigator’s report:
Editors Note: In December ‘08 a retired CIA officer commissioned an investigator to look into the Barack Obama birth certificate and eligibility issue. On July 21, 2009 westernjournalism.com obtained a copy of the investigator’s report. Here is an unedited version of the report.
June 10, 2009 Report, updated July 18, 2009 [emphasis original]
The posting goes on for several pages to further consider the birth certificate aspect of eligibility.
Nevertheless, what the press is forgetting — or intentionally overlooking, as the case appears to be — is that Mr. Obama’s original 1961 birth certificate is but one part of the story.
Consider the following points of interest:
- There is currently no definitive definition regarding the concept of “natural born citizen” with direct respect to presidential eligibility;
- There is currently no law that requires any candidate for any office to substantiate their eligibility. Instead, as the Candidate > Qualifications category of my site shows from many months back (as well as YourFellowCitizen.com), major political parties merely require the candidate to sign a self-ascribing document wherein they certify themselves eligible;
- Since there is no law requiring any candidate to substantiate their eligibility, there is, by definition, no law that establishes the degree to which one must substantiate one’s eligibility. In other words, nobody has ever claimed that a birth certificate presentment would be enough to substantiate eligibility. Everyone presumes that providing a birth certificate is “good enough;”
And if those three points weren’t enough, as attorney Leo Donofrio pointed out and as I reported back on November 20, 2008 in my posting, “Could FactCheck.org be Plainly Stating Obama’s Biggest Citizenship Problem?“:
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. …
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 21, 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. 4,1982.
Again, Leo Donofrio’s case is premised on Barack Obama’s citizenship at birth, regardless of what a COLB (certificate of live birth, which isn’t the full, “vault” copy) has to say. And, in theory, it doesn’t matter whether or not Barack Obama’s citizenship changed a day, month, year or years after he was born; it’s at birth, according to Leo, that counts.
If you will recall from one of Leo Donofrio’s interviews, he mentioned that even the Founding Fathers had to “grandfather” themselves into the potentiality of being President, thusly (from Article 2, Section1):
…or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…
Remember: the Founding Fathers were originally born (at birth) in another country, namely (in some cases), England. They were therefore born as His Majesty’s subjects. And, like Barack Obama, they would have had dual citizenship (for a time) as well! That’s why, according to Leo, they had to put in this clause, else they would have never qualified.
Why did this matter so much? The first Americans literally fought with blood, sweat, tears and treasure to found a new nation. The Founders didn’t want, say, an English monarch to therefore be able to take on the office of President; too much undue foreign influence. The same holds true today.
So, unless Barack Obama was born before or on September 17, 1787, he would not qualify for this clause.
Therefore, as someone who has been rather intimate with this story long before the press opened their recent brouhaha over the birth certificate, there is more to the story than simply a piece of paper. As such, I think it’s important to remind the media that they shouldn’t be overplaying their hand and, even more importantly, they shouldn’t be shunning those of us who continue to question by presenting endless diatribes of leading conclusions.
Not that I have a problem with the press finally coming on board the discussion; the water is plenty warm and I invite anyone to jump in. It simply sounds to me like folks at CNN — and perhaps other outlets (notice that FoxNews has been the one to stay away from the debate) — are attempting to circumvent the bigger issue of eligibility by trying to justify that no original birth certificate exists.
Bottom line: We’re supposed to believe that the HI DoH simply “discarded” vital records. Right. And we’re supposed to believe that what’s posted online — e.g.: the certification of live birth — is now what’s supposed to be trusted, even though we have no record of the transaction or the person(s) involved in procuring it. Right.
And yet the press is completely missing the point of what it means to be an at birth natural born citizen. That I believe!
Update: The WashingtonIndependent.com site has an interesting update from Friday afternoon regarding the above email from CNN/US President Jon Kelin, showing that Mr. Klein appears to be backing off some of his original assertions:
Greg Sargent spoke with CNN’s president Jonathan Klein about Lou Dobbs, and the demands from some liberal groups that Dobbs be punished for giving airtime and credibility to birthers.
“Look, Lou’s his own show, and CNN in general has repeatedly and thoroughly reported on the facts behind this situation,” Klein said to me, adding that Lou had merely hosted “a few conversations with people representing a wide range of opinions.”
Klein said that Dobbs has repeatedly stated that he believes that Obama was born in Hawaii, and has simply been examining the “phenomenon that for some people this won’t go away.”
Asked if CNN is concerned that Dobbs’ repeated granting of airtime to theories the network has conclusively debunked amounts to overkill and could harm CNN’s credibility, Klein brushed off the possibility. “We respect our viewers enough to present them the facts and let them make up their own minds,” he said, adding that what Dobbs does is “his editorial decision to make.”
That … sort of walks back Klein’s internal CNN memo about Dobbs earlier today.
Update: From a concerned citizen, the Southern Poverty Law Center has officially rebuked CNN for allowing Mr. Dobbs to talk about Mr. Obama’s birth certificate. From their site, here is there official letter to Jon Klein asking for Mr. Dobb’s removal:
July 24, 2009
Jonathan Klein
President
CNN/U.S.
1 Time Warner Center
New York, N.Y. 10019-6038Dear Mr. Klein,
As an important and respected news organization, CNN has a special responsibility to ensure the accuracy of its reporting. We have written to you before about our concern that Lou Dobbs repeatedly fails to live up to this standard in his reporting on immigration. Now, Mr. Dobbs is again trading in falsehoods and racist conspiracy theories, questioning President Obama’s American citizenship.
On the July 15 edition of “Lou Dobbs Tonight,” Mr. Dobbs questioned the official certificate provided by the president and the State of Hawaii and complained that President Obama has not made public the “original document.” On his radio program, Mr. Dobbs has repeatedly questioned the president’s fitness for office, demanding he “show the documents” and, at one point, jokingly suggesting President Obama may be “undocumented.”
The truth about the president’s birth is not in dispute. It has been verified by Factcheck.org, among many other serious news organizations, and his official birth documents have been made public. CNN itself has repeatedly reported on the falsity of the claims of the “birthers,” and the network’s esteemed legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, recently called those claims “a joke.” As you know, even Mr. Dobbs’ frequent fill-in anchor, Kitty Pilgrim, debunked the birthers on the July 17 edition of Mr. Dobbs’ own CNN show. The fact that Mr. Dobbs suggests otherwise on CNN — while real CNN reporters tell the truth — is both deplorable and an embarrassment to all serious journalists.
As he has in several other instances, Mr. Dobbs, in taking up the birthers’ claims, is adopting an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory that originated on the radical racist right. As Gawker.com has reported, this particular conspiracy theory was first developed by an open anti-Semite and circulated by right-wing extremists who cannot accept the fact that a black man has been elected president of the United States. Among its adherents was neo-Nazi James von Brunn, the alleged murderer of a security guard at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., this June. Von Brunn had helped spread the birthers’ claims on the Internet and attacked the “dishonest & conspiratorial Media” for not taking them up.
This is not the first time Mr. Dobbs has pushed racist conspiracy theories or defamatory falsehoods about immigrants. We wrote you in 2007 to bring to your attention his utterly false claim that 7,000 new cases of leprosy had appeared in the United States in a recent three-year period, due at least in part to immigrants. (The real number, according to official statistics, was about 400. Mr. Dobbs took his spurious information from the late right-wing extremist, Madeleine Cosman.) In addition, Mr. Dobbs has reported as fact the so-called Aztlan conspiracy, which claims that undocumented Mexican immigrants are part of a plot to “reconquer” the American Southwest. He has suggested there is something to a related conspiracy theory that claims the governments of Mexico, the United States and Canada are secretly planning to merge into the “North American Union.” He has falsely claimed that “illegal aliens” fill one third of American prison and jail cells. And Mr. Dobbs has routinely disparaged, on CNN’s air, those who have had the integrity to point out the falsity of these and similar claims.
Respectable news organizations should not employ reporters willing to peddle racist conspiracy theories and false propaganda. It’s time for CNN to remove Mr. Dobbs from the airwaves.
Sincerely,
J. Richard Cohen
President
In short, as I’ve said before to commenters here on my site, the saga has only begun.
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
- Obama’s Presidential Eligibility: What You Need to Know
- Obama’s Sealed Background Documentation
- What’s the Difference Between a Birth Certification Versus a Birth Certificate?
- Keyes v. Lingle: Forensic Examiner and IT Expert Disprove Certification of Live Birth
- Obama Citizenship Facts
- The State Department and Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) Natural Born Citizen Resolution (April 10, 2008)
- Citizen Grand Jury Updates and Eligibility Lawsuit Listing
-Phil
Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)
Photo courtesy CNN
Sharon 2:
You are trying so hard to quibble your way into some sort of formal legal recognition of Obama’s dependency on Lolo Soetoro for support. It does not exist.
Stanley Ann filled out a form saying Obama was over 18 and dependent on his parents for educational support. It was a statement of contingent and voluntary fact, not some recognition of any obligation by any court. The support is not “ordered” or “required” even of Stanley Ann, let alone of Lolo.
The law you quote is completely irrelevant, and therefore your “analysis” fails.
JeffM,
What you are suggesting here is that North Korea could make every single newborn American ineligible for the presidency by also granting them North Korean citizenship. On that basis, their birth would be governed by the laws of North Korea, and under your logic, the dual allegiance would prevent them from being a natural born citizen.
This is an absurd argument. National sovereignty means that the laws of foreign countries do not come into play in the U.S., unless that foreign law is in the form of a binding treaty. And of course, there is no binding treaty on what Americans choose to consider as natural born citizenship.
Thanks for the admission that you were not telling the truth when you repeatedly said that the court had ordered Lolo Soetoro to provide support for Obama.
Because now that you are telling the truth, we can quickly see that the same analysis does not apply at all.
A person may be dependent for a lot of things for a lot of different reasons. But if that dependency is not ordered by the court, then it is not a legal obligation and your entire analysis is completely irrelevant.
***
I made a mistake about ORDERING support (I can point to one of your mistakes that was addressed on this website concerning the issue of Obama’s draft registration where you admit you were hoping something to be true that was proven not to be. Even you make mistakes.)
Obama was named a dependent of the partied for educational support, although support was not ordered. I quoted you the law on the role of the step-parent which you completely ignored. Please site the appropriate law to which you are referring that would make a step-child a dependent of the step-parent that is different than what I quoted. When parents divorce and there is a step-child, there is no legal bond between the step-parent and the step-child. The exception of dependency is in the case where the step-child RESIDES WITH the step-parent. Quote me some law please. I did so.
JeffM says:
July 28, 2009 at 3:36 pm
But alas, they didn’t state that, which means he didn’t do it. He’s still a British citizen unless he can prove he renounced his citizenship. He would have said something in fightthesmears as it’s vital information. Remember, British citizenship is very much like U.S. Citizenship: you really have to work at getting it removed.
It still doesn’t matter with regards to the Constitution. Natural Born Citizenship status is assigned at birth.
____________________________________________________________________
Jeff, nice argument but you haven’t cited anywhere in US law where it defers to the British Nationality Act or any other foreign law. Since the US Constitution does not address dual citizenship it doesn’t matter about the BNA. No legal ruling or law has ever been presented where US law regarding citizenship is affected by any foreign citizenship law. No where in the law does it state that possible British citizenship affects natural or native born status. So it doesn’t really matter what President Obama did or did not do. You have to cite relevant US law for the BNA to have effect. And there is none. As for the Soetero person, I cant comment on that because I have never seen any proof of that individual existing.
JeffM:
No you have not. I am, myself, a dual citizen from birth and my contact with the State Department in this very issue goes back more than a decade and those contacts are extensive. Do not try to BS an actual expert, Jeff. It will get you nowhere.
I am (by even the most rigid Birther definition) a natural born American citizen; i.e. I was born on US soil to two US Citizens who were, themselves, born on US soil.
I am also an Italian citizen from birth, even though I did not discover that fact until I was 40 years old.
Nothing there is true.
When in country A, everybody must obey the laws of country A, citizens or not. When in country B, everybody must obey the laws of country B, citizens or not. When in country A, though, everybody can ignore the laws of country B… citizen or not. And vice versa.
Go to Amsterdam. Get high. The US will make no effort to prosecute you when you return. They can’t.
As a dual citizen I held one of the highest security clearances possible, as I had actual, personal custodial responsibility for American nuclear weapons on foreign soil. You continue to reveal that you, honestly, have no idea what you are talking about.
The irony is delicious. “Quo warranto” says exactly nothing about about “why the leader of a sovereign nation can’t be a minion of another sovereign nation.” I recommend Wikipedia right back at ya.
Black Lion said:
Thanks for bringing up this excellent recollection of Soetoro in his prior argument.
Unfortunately British Citizenship law doesn’t work that way. Here’s why:
1. The only way for a person under the age of 21 in Kenya not born in Kenya or living in Kenya to lose their British Citizenship was to claim allegiance to Kenya after 1963 and before their 21st birthday, or have a parent obtain permission from the Kenyan government(see Kenyan Constitution)
2. As such, Soetoro would have had to have explicitly denounced his British Citizenship after the age of 18 at any of the many British consolates or embassies across the globe (See British Nationality Act 1948)
That’s WHY the Kenyan Constitution stated for anyone under the age of 21 that they must declare allegiance to Kenya to be Kenyan in the first place. What Soetoro and his merry band of attorneys said was that he immediately gained Kenyan citizenship in 1963, inferring he lost his British citizenship, which is completely false. He simply was not old enough to lose his British citizenship because Britain doesn’t allow renouncement until adult age.
But alas, they didn’t state that, which means he didn’t do it. He’s still a British citizen unless he can prove he renounced his citizenship. He would have said something in fightthesmears as it’s vital information. Remember, British citizenship is very much like U.S. Citizenship: you really have to work at getting it removed.
It still doesn’t matter with regards to the Constitution. Natural Born Citizenship status is assigned at birth.
Regarding dual citizenship and dual allegiance and the “requirement of following the laws and instructions of both nations and their leaders. That means if there is a law requiring them to do something in country A which is not prohibited in country B, they must do what A requires. And when a law in country A is prohibited in country B, then we have a huge mess on our hands”, this is only relevant if the individual would still be considered a dual citizen.
If we recall President Obama would no longer be considered a citizen of the UK or Kenya. Due to 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.
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 21, 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. 4,1982.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html
So President Obama would no longer have dual citizenship because he never swore an oath ot Kenya at the age of 21. So due to that he has no dual allegiances which would cause any problems. So the theory regarding the issue with security clearances would be moot for President Obama.
HistorianDude,
I have confirmed my information with the U.S. State Department regarding dual allegiance and the requirement of following the laws and instructions of both nations and their leaders. That means if there is a law requiring them to do something in country A which is not prohibited in country B, they must do what A requires. And when a law in country A is prohibited in country B, then we have a huge mess on our hands.
If you want more information, just visit the Soetoro-loving Wikipedia for the answer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_citizenship
Now, if dual citizenship affects a citizen’s security clearance, why in God’s green earth would we want that person to be Commander in Chief of the largest Military in the world???. The same applies to conscription and a whole host of other scenarios, like being hauled away for tax evasion.
Natural Born citizen = no allegiance to foreign countries at birth
Brush up on the term “quo warranto”. It explains why the leader of a sovereign nation can’t be a minion of another sovereign nation. And you might want to give the State Department a call. They’ll give you the rundown on what it means to be a dual citizen and why it’s ill-advised.
But hey, we have an ill-advised usurping Unconstitutional “leader” of this nation right now, so this is par for the course anyway.
Sharon 2,
Headliner with much more on this due soon.
-Phil
Sharon 2:
Thanks for the admission that you were not telling the truth when you repeatedly said that the court had ordered Lolo Soetoro to provide support for Obama.
Because now that you are telling the truth, we can quickly see that the same analysis does not apply at all.
A person may be dependent for a lot of things for a lot of different reasons. But if that dependency is not ordered by the court, then it is not a legal obligation and your entire analysis is completely irrelevant.
JeffM:
Everything in your post appears to be a figment of your imagination. Certainly nothing in any of your points can be traced back to actual law.
False. Most dual citizens don’t even know they are dual citizens. How could they be required to obey laws of which they are completely unaware?
Again, false. See answer to your point one above.
Then it is a good thing that Obama has no obligation to follow the laws of another nation, let alone the British Crown. Neither does any other dual citizen.
So what? As long as one of those statuses includes natural born American citizen, Obama is eligible to be POTUS.
No, that is not what natural born citizen means.
Natural born citizen means what it has always meant according to the British Common Law adopted by our founding fathers at the framing of the Constitution, and formally adopted by the reception statutes of 49 out of our 50 states.
Born on national soil. Full stop.
Jacqlyn Smith:
if you think so, then I must assume that you do not actually understand your own case.
Nonsense. At birth he was “bound” by nothing in the British Law. He had no obligation to Britain whatsoever. If Britain (or Iceland or Bolivia or Kazakhstan) considered him also their citizen by accident of their own internal laws, how good for them. United States law does not care. According to United States law, it doesn’t matter.
Your very weird contention that American laws are inferior to those of all other nations is curious coming from someone who claims to be “a patriot.”
Sue—-Nothing that you posted here makes the FRAUD in our White House a “natural born” citizen….you can deny all you want but most of America does not trust this IMPOSTER who is ruining our country and taking us into bankruptcy…..all of this is by plan and you and the other OBOTS who post here are complicit in the biggest HOAX ever committed to America and her people. The FRAUD’S approval rating is tanking faster than a submarine…..the REVOLUTION is in sight!!!
JohnM, let’s get a few things straight.
1. Barack Obama is not currently a British Citizen. Therefore, Britain has absolutely no control over Barack Obama. What you’re stating is that a country has control over someone who has never lived in their country, 30 years after they gave up any sort of citizenship from that country?
2. Dual Citizenship does not bar natural-born citizenship. Read the case of Perkins v. Elg. Elg had dual citizenship at one point in her life, and yet was declared by the Federal Court (which was affirmed by the Supreme Court) as a “Natural-Born Citizen”. Therefore, your little theory of dual citizenship means hogwash according to the United States Supreme Court. Dual Citizens can be Natural-Born Citizens.
3. If you want your theory to match Perkins v. Elg, you’ll of course state that it only means dual citizenship can be obtained later in life. But ultimately that destroys your argument of it, because wouldn’t someone who was naturalized by a country be more loyal to the country than someone who has never set foot in a country, but his father was a subject of one of their colonies?
4. While you state that you want U.S. independence, what you’re actually stating is that every other country has veto power over who can and cannot become President of the United States. All they have to do is declare them a citizen, and all of a sudden, you’re stating that they can’t be President. I find it very disturbing that you’re giving every other country veto power over who and who cannot be President.
Phil says:
I can’t tell why you think that’s a response to what I wrote. As I’ve said when these things have come up, Holocaust denier, Moon-landing deniers, and Obama-eligibility deniers all have a right to their opinion, even though they are spouting nonsense already thoroughly debunked.
Near as I can tell, Phil, you want to disagree about the “already thoroughly debunked” part, but since you get trounced so badly on that, you simply pretend the issue is your right to your opinion. “That’s our right to have an opinion,” you write. Sure, but why present that as a response to me? When did I ever say otherwise?
Brilliant, Phil: an irrelevant scatological cliche. The one thing I like about you is the extent to which you let us obots comment on your blog, but you routinely censor out higher-minded stuff than that when it comes from my side.
Looking through a glass darkly at AKA Obama’s BC
Sue says:
July 27, 2009 at 9:44 pm
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090727/BREAKING01/90727082/Obama+Hawaii+born++insist+Isle+officials
Obama Hawaii born, insist Isle officials
That statement is still just about as clear as mud.
SEE HERE: http://www.westernjournalism.com/?page_id=2697
If Dr. Fukino made that statement, then I see a waiver of privacy to view the actual certificate and any supporting documents, as well as the answer to Phil’s question regarding who requested the COLB.