Obama was named a dependent of the partied for educational support, although support was not ordered.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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???.

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.

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.

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.

If we recall President Obama would no longer be considered a citizen of the UK or Kenya. Due to the following…

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.

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.

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.

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.

Headliner with much more on this due soon.

-Phil

Sorry, H.D. Even though the court didn’t order support, it noted that the child over 18 is still dependent upon the PARTIES for education. Same analysis applies.

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.

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.

1. Dual citizens are also required to obey the laws of both countries.

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?

2. Dual citizens must show allegiance to both countries, hence the word citizen, which is derived from the Latin word civis, meaning inhabitant.

Again, false. See answer to your point one above.

3. It’s impossible to be the leader of one nation while having to follow the laws of another nation under its conscript of authority, unless that nation rules the other nation by colonization or other similar doctrine. One could try, but the authority would be communitive in nature. By law, the U.K. currently controls the Executive Branch as their citizen to whom has to answer to the Royal Crown is currently administrating the United States.

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.

4. Dual citizens are foreigners in both nations. For example, in the U.S. Soetoro would be a U.S. citizen and a british foreign national. In the U.K., Soetoro would be a British citizen and a U.S. foreign national.

So what? As long as one of those statuses includes natural born American citizen, Obama is eligible to be POTUS.

As such, that’s exactly what Natural Born Citizen means: being born to a nation to which you owe no foreign allegiance to at birth. Otherwise you will be a supreme authority and a minion at the same time, something Soetoro is currently exhibiting.

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.

HD…You just made our case….

if you think so, then I must assume that you do not actually understand your own case.

that is why the FRAUD can not be POTUS…..AT birth….he was bound by british citizenship because his father was not a US citizen and therefore took on the british citizenship of his father….

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.”

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.

brygenon [wrote],

Ann Coulter weighed in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfTHQUYvwBM (Eligibility comes up around 6:15 in.)

And as I have repeatedly said before, if you think that the eligibility issue is settled in your mind, then good for you.

As for the rest of us who continue to question this President’s eligibility, that’s our right to have an opinion (regardless of how wrong individuals in the opposition think it is) and it is obviously other individuals’ prerogative to believe as they wish about those who question.

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?

Opinions are definitely like butt holes — everyone has one.

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.