Eligibility Update: Obama British Subject; “Barry from D.C.;” Obamacare Opponents Birthers
John Charlton at The Post & Email posted a great analysis that explains how it’s quite possible that Mr. Obama continues to be a British subject. As the post’s conclusion reads:
The British Nationality Act of 1981 changed the nomenclature for citizenship status.
The pertinent provision of that act is found in Chapter 61, Part III, and reads as follows:
PART III BRITISH OVERSEAS CITIZENSHIP
s 26 Citizens of U.K. and Colonies who are to become British Overseas citizens at commencement.
Any person who was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies immediately before commencement and who does not at commencement become either a British citizen or a [British overseas territories citizen] [FN1] shall at commencement become a British Overseas citizen.
By “commencement”, the Act signifies Jan. 1, 1983, the date upon which it went into force.
Hence according to this Act, if Obama Jr. , did not become a Kenyan citizen, because his parent(s) did not register him as such, he would have gone from being classified a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent, to a British Overseas Citizen. If he did become a Kenyan citizen, then he became also a Commonwealth Citizen on Dec. 11, 1963, and that is the modern term for a British subject.
In summary, Obama was born a British subject, and remains either a British Overseas Citizen or a Commonwealth Citizen, that is, in either case, a British subject even today — that is, if his birth story is true. He was also a citizen of Kenya prior to age 21, and may still be one. He seems also to have been a citizen of Indonesia from 1966-1980’s, but his Indonesian citizenship status is uncertain.
The AmericanThinker.com blog continues the thought by requesting the President: “Mr. Obama: Tear Down Your Wall of Secrecy.” While I disagree with the author’s premise, the following excerpts are worth noting:
The real issue, however, is not about birthers or theories or racism or whatever else you want to add. The real issue is about the secrecy of Barack Obama, and it involves more than the release of his complete birth records. Hospital records; high school, college and law school records; transcripts; writings; and passport info have been requested, and all are being withheld by Obama. …
A normative democratic society cannot allow a president to continue to speak disingenuously about transparency while withholding basic information. …
People have asked to see the records.
That doesn’t seem to be too much to ask from a man of outspoken transparency. And these are not just any people, but citizens of the U.S., over whom he presides, who have asked. They’re not asking for the moon and the stars — just simple documents. …
Mr. Obama is the only president in U.S. history whose father was a foreign national in the U.S. on a student visa. His father was a non-practicing-Muslim-turned-atheist, and his mother later remarried another foreign national, this one from from Indonesia, who was also a Muslim. …
Mr. Obama is the only president in U.S. history to have been raised in nontraditional/non-Christian homes. Based on what he’s said, his mother was an agnostic. Obama’s grandparents, with whom he lived for a period, were extremely left-leaning in their religion and politics. As Obama admits in one of his two pre-accomplishment autobiographies, he associated with Marxists and radical leftists during his college days.
The president’s situation is remarkably unique, and his uniqueness has nothing to do with the color of his skin. People have an assortment of reasons for wanting to see Obama’s complete birth certificate and other records.
Yes, Mr. Obama has posted a bare-bones “certification of live birth” (which doesn’t name the hospital or physician), and Hawaii has confirmed that it exists. However, it is no secret that births were routinely registered in 1961 by affidavit under the laws (Act 96) of the newly admitted state. On affidavits of non-hospital deliveries, certifications of live birth were generated in Hawaii. …
You see, the issue is whether the White House will take serious the doubts and requests of American citizens or laugh at them. Some doubt his birthplace and/or eligibility; others doubt his transparency, and hence, his character.
Even if Obama was born in Hawaii, he still looks unreasonable by not releasing basic information. Maybe he is natural-born, but has a radical ideology to hide and has been counseled to seal everything in an effort to appear consistent.
Future historians far removed from the fantasy and fear of Obama will no doubt be astounded at the Obama phenomena. But they may never know of the secrets hiding in his birth, college, and/or other records. Do it for the historians, Mr. Obama: Tear down your wall of secrecy.
FoxNews.com reported that Virginia Governor Tim Kaine “received a phone call on his final radio show Tuesday from an unexpected, and prominent, listener — ‘Barry From D.C.:’”
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, asked if “Barry From D.C.” was actually the president, responded during Tuesday’s press briefing: “That would not be inaccurate.”
Go to the FoxNews link for the audio.
HotAir.com reports that Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) responded accordingly in reaction to those of us who oppose the healthcare legislation currently pending in Congress:
“Voting ‘no’ and hiding from the vote are the same result. Those of us on the floor see it. It was clear the three of them who did not cast their yes votes until all 60 Senate votes had been tallied and it was clear that the result was a foregone conclusion. And why? Why all this discord and discourtesy, all this unprecedented destructive action? All to break the momentum of our new young president.
They are desperate to break this president. They have ardent supporters who are nearly hysterical at the very election of President Barack Obama. The birthers, the fanatics, the people running around in right-wing militia and Aryan support groups, it is unbearable to them that President Barack Obama should exist. That is one powerful reason. It is not the only one.” [emphasis original]
It is further reported that, when confronted with the above verbiage, the Senator denied he said what he said. However, as comedian and ventriloquist Jeff Dunham via “Walter” would say, “What happens in D.C. stays on YouTube,” the Senator is lying:
Well, golly gee. If the dear opposition commenters on my site were any indication, the so-called “birther” movement is dying. Yet, it has obviously been recently referenced on the Senate floor, of all places.
I’ll let you make of that what you will 
And lastly, WorldNetDaily reports that Hawaiian State legislators are attempting to brand geography within the State as a memorial to Mr. Obama’s birthplace (kind of makes you wonder in which hospital they’re going to put the plaque — if they actually do…?):
Hawaii’s state legislators are lining up a string of new holidays, parks and memorials to honor Barack Obama, the first American president to claim the state as his home – though commemorating his birthplace may prove difficult.
Senate President Coleen Hanabusa wants Aug. 4 to be a state holiday commemorating Obama’s birthday, reports the Honolulu Advertiser; and State Rep. Della Au Belatti is pressing for Obama’s inauguration day, Jan. 20, to be memorialized in Hawaii as Barack Obama II Ohana Day.
And though Hanabusa and Belatti are Obama’s fellow Democrats, even Republican state Rep. Gene Ward is hoping to add to the honors list.
“We’re all Americans first and then we’re Republicans and then we’re Democrats,” Ward told the Advertiser.
Ward is proposing Hawaii establish a President Barack Obama Birthplace State Park.
Only, the president has yet to reveal exactly where his birthplace is.
Blogosphere update:
Blogger Justin Riggs of YourFellowCitizen.com has recently “parked” his web site but has not deleted the previously-browsable content (much of which I’ve highlighted). At this time, he is currently working with a local legislator on a bill and intends to take his site live once again, should any action take place.
While it is not immediately known what the contents of such a proposed bill would be, Mr. Riggs has a history of researching candidate qualification statutes among the several States.
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
- The background:
- The questions:
-Phil
Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)
Photo courtesy ThePostEmail
WeimMom asks:
Probably not, seeing as al Qaida would not be formed for another five years.
Phil, this is the first time I’ve heard this.
Dr. Manning Indicts Columbia University For Treason
Was Obama in Afghanastan at an Al Queda Training Camp 1980 – 1983??
http://atlah.org/atlahworldwide/?p=3711
I found someone else who agrees with full disclosure.
Youtube video: Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer
BL, you are amusing.
elspeth says:
January 8, 2010 at 9:36 am
Yes, Black Lion, I have heard many state, “I voted for Obama and wish now that I hadn’t.”
Are you surprised?
___________________________________________________________________
Actualy no….I remember many saying the same thing when Mr. Bush was elected but he somehow won a second term. People can say whatever they want…I am more interested in the election in 2012….Will any of the 69 million who voted for President Obama vote for him again or vote for someone else….That will be when what people think really matter….
Yes, Black Lion, I have heard many state, “I voted for Obama and wish now that I hadn’t.”
Are you surprised?
elspeth says:
January 6, 2010 at 9:57 pm
69 million Americans have decided was who is currently President
…many of which have buyer’s remorse.
___________________________________________________________________
Really? So you have proof that people that acutally voted for President Obama now wish they didn’t? I think you are confusing the people that did not and would never have voted for President Obama that say that there is some sort of buyers remorse. Most people that voted for President Obama realize the dire situation the last administration under Mr. Bush left this country in and President Obama is doing what he can to rectify things.
100 Senators, 435 Congresspeople, 9 SCOTUS justices, former VP Cheney, and over 300 electoral voters all decided that the President was eligible. Why? Because if they felt otherwise they all had a remedy under the US Constitution to question his election or his eligibility. They did not. So according to the US Constitution President Obama is the legal and lawful President.
All of the individuals mentioned above and the voters they felt that PRESIDENT Obama was eligible to be President. Why? Because he meets the qualifications as set forth by the US Constitution. Period. There are no other eligibility requirements. The Constitution gives 3 requirements for eligibility to be President and President Obama meets all of them. It is only the 1% of so called eligibility deniers that feel otherwise….
…many of which have buyer’s remorse.
It’s not what you’re called, it’s what you answer to. Madea
Black Lion,
The only thing that 69 million Americans have decided was who is currently President. Mr. Obama’s eligibility is another matter entirely, and voting for an individual has zero bearing upon that same individual’s fitness for office.
-Phil
Black Lion says:
January 6, 2010 at 2:44 pm
“You talk to me like you know me as a birther.
No. I talk to you as someone that has points of view similar to theirs. If you are not one then good for you.”
OK. It’s time for definitions. What’s a birther?
It was my understanding that a birther is a pejorative label used by Obama supporters for someone who believes Obama was born in Kenya. Now it seems to be used as a pejorative label for anyone who:
1. Believes Obama was born in Kenya
2. Isn’t sure Obama was born was born in Hawaii
3. Believes Obama was born in Hawaii but thinks he should release a copy of his original birth certificate
4. Believes the definition of natural born citizen involves more than just being born on American soil.
5. Believes the issue should be settled in court
Did I miss any? Then all of the above are accused of being kooks who believe in the conspiracy theory that was invented by Obama supporters and assigned to originally to item 1 above people. The theory involves Obama’s mother knowing her son would be President someday and therefore faking newspaper birth announcements to cover his foreign birth.
In any case, if people are going to be called names, at least they should know what it is they are being called.
elspeth says:
January 6, 2010 at 12:28 pm
Black Lion,
You talk to me like you know me as a birther.
No. I talk to you as someone that has points of view similar to theirs. If you are not one then good for you.
Did you miss the part about me being a humble citizen who wants the matter settled?
And did you miss the part when I stated that 69 million Americans have already decided that the matter is settled?
Newsflash: I don’t care where Obama was born!
OK. But since he was born in American it makes him a natural born citizen. There is no legal requirement for him to disclose anything other than proof of where he was born. And the COLB is that proof.
Lumping me with those who do does what exactly?
Nothing.
I am upset that a simple matter is dividing the country when the man can just pony up and prove what he is saying is true. It’s a “D’oh” moment for me.
OK. But again most Americans disagree with you. They don’t have a problem with what he has presented and have no desire to see any additional information.
And, thank you for allowing me to have my opinion, even if you have to label it “strawman attempt”.
You’re welcome. That is what makes us Americans.
Have a nice life, Black Lion. You deserve it!
I have a great life and I do deserve it.
Full disclosure!
Already happened.
elspeth
PS Cute of you to use my words against me on the Rep. Deal post.
Thanks. There I agree we need full disclosure from Deal.
Black Lion,
You talk to me like you know me as a birther.
Did you miss the part about me being a humble citizen who wants the matter settled?
Newsflash: I don’t care where Obama was born!
Lumping me with those who do does what exactly?
I am upset that a simple matter is dividing the country when the man can just pony up and prove what he is saying is true. It’s a “D’oh” moment for me.
And, thank you for allowing me to have my opinion, even if you have to label it “strawman attempt”.
Have a nice life, Black Lion. You deserve it!
Full disclosure!
elspeth
PS Cute of you to use my words against me on the Rep. Deal post.
elspeth says:
January 6, 2010 at 10:19 am
Black Lion,
There is nothing wrong with respecting Phil or enjoying debate, but when you say something like “strawman attempt” and don’t explain what you mean when asked, you fall into the category of troublemakers from the opposition.
I am but a humble citizen with no other interest than seeing this matter settled. And, it can be simply.
If you personally know the “100 US Senators, 435 Congressmen, former President Bush, former VP Cheney, and all 9 SCOTUS justices” and their motivation, great! Give us the lowdown on why they are ignoring a growing number of the citizens who elected them.
If not, then please stick to what you do know personally, and I (for one) would enjoy your comments a lot more than I do.
And since you mention your respect for Phil, I assume you know he is an IT guy. One thing I know about IT is logic prevails. There is nothing logically about the situation surrounding Obama. If you truly respected Phil, you would respect that, too.
In other words, you don’t make sense, man.
Full disclosure!
elspeth
____________________________________________________________________
Elspeth, first of all let me define the meaning of strawman for you. A “Straw man” is a rhetorical technique (also classified as a logical fallacy) based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. My point was your argument was illogical on its face and you were attempting to confuse the issue. If you disagree then fine. But to take not understanding that and equating it with a certain person’s personal attack because he happens to be salty is a real stretch.
All of those politicans are ignoring the small less than 1% of the population’s dissatisfaction with the election because they understand the law for the most part. Every one of them had an opportunity to say something after the election and did not. Everyone of them had the right to dispute the electoral results and did not. They like a majority of Americans believe that the President was born in HI and is eligible to be President of the US. What they say when they are pandering to get votes and what they say on the record are 2 different issues altogether.
How about you worry about your comments and I worry about mine. Any statement of fact I make I source. If you don’t like it then that is fine. That is your choice.
And I do realize that Phil is an IT professional. What is your point. The birthers have a very loose relationship with logic. For them to think that somehow a pregnant woman is going to travel over 10,000 miles to a third world country when the trip was not direct, there was no jet travel, it would take 3 days, and the cost was prohibitive is not only illogical, it borders on ridiculous. The only illogical think surrounding President Obama are the dubious claims of the birthers.
Make no sense? The birther fantasies make no sense. If you sold their theories to Hollywood, it would get laughed at for lack of credibility.
Full disclosure? How about some legally admissible proof? Please just one piece. We implore you. Until then the movement looks like a bunch of cranks. Nothing personal.
Black Lion,
There is nothing wrong with respecting Phil or enjoying debate, but when you say something like “strawman attempt” and don’t explain what you mean when asked, you fall into the category of troublemakers from the opposition.
I am but a humble citizen with no other interest than seeing this matter settled. And, it can be simply.
If you personally know the “100 US Senators, 435 Congressmen, former President Bush, former VP Cheney, and all 9 SCOTUS justices” and their motivation, great! Give us the lowdown on why they are ignoring a growing number of the citizens who elected them.
If not, then please stick to what you do know personally, and I (for one) would enjoy your comments a lot more than I do.
And since you mention your respect for Phil, I assume you know he is an IT guy. One thing I know about IT is logic prevails. There is nothing logically about the situation surrounding Obama. If you truly respected Phil, you would respect that, too.
In other words, you don’t make sense, man.
Full disclosure!
elspeth
Phil says:
January 5, 2010 at 11:45 pm
Black Lion lies,
Let’s get back to sticking with the facts, shall we? There’s really no need to repeatedly call any commenter a liar. If you think they are lying, saying it once is sufficient.
Thank you.
-Phil
___________________________________________________________________
Phil, thanks. But we both know who the person is that posted that. He has decided to make it personal instead of engage in debate regarding the facts and what he disagrees with. That is his MO. Which is fine. I won’t rise to the bait. I respect you and your blog too much to do that. Have a great day.
Black Lion lies,
Let’s get back to sticking with the facts, shall we? There’s really no need to repeatedly call any commenter a liar. If you think they are lying, saying it once is sufficient.
Thank you.
-Phil
Black Lion is a habitual liar.
POSTS NOTHING BUT LIES.
“Yes, Mr. Obama has posted a bare-bones “certification of live birth” (which doesn’t name the hospital or physician),
FACT- ONLY AN IMAGE HAS BEEN POSTED AND THAT IMAGE HAS BEEN ALTERED AND SUSPECT.
and Hawaii has confirmed that it exists.
BLACK LION LIE #2 – HAWAII STATES THEY HAVE RECORDS. MORE THEN ONE, AND THEY HAVE NOT CONFIRMED THAT THE COLB IS AUTHENTIC.
BLACK LION IS A LIAR.
RE “Barry From DC”, if you listen to the audio, it is the radio host who says “Barry From DC” and President Obama immediately says “Well actually this is the President of the United States calling”. The radio station said they pre-scheduled a call with President Obama when Kaine was there. To imply the President of the United States cold-called, or prank-called a radio station is silly. Obama never called himself “Barry from DC”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVkoufCv1Ng
Love the Dick Whitman name- the fall season is too short and there is too long of a wait until the next one rolls around …
“In fine, we understand by an essential error, that whose object is some necessary circumstance in the affair, and which for this very reason has a direct influence on the action done in consequence thereof; insomuch, that were it not for this error, the action would never have been done.
Hence this is denominated likewise an efficacious error.
By necessary circumstances, we are to understand those which are necessarily required, either by the very nature of the thing, or by the intention of the agent, formed at the proper time, and made known by suitable indications.
It was thus, for instance, an essential error in the Trojans, at the taking of their town, to shoot their darts against their own people, mistaking them for enemies, because of their being armed after the Greek manner.
Again; a person marries another man’s wife, supposing her to be a maid, or not knowing that her husband is still living: this regards the very nature of the thing, and is of course an essential error.”
Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui, The Principles of Natural and Politic Law [1747]
………………………………………………………………
What, the ignoring of required circumstances may have unintended consequences…?….I’m shocked……..
The moron from hawaii states that we are all United States citizens first. I, Roderick, am a United States citizen and have all the proof in the world as I have 2 parents that will vouch for that and all documentation necessary for it in obtaining my United States passport (which includes by the way a Birth Certificate with an embossed seal). And I quote “America at times has been arrogant” spoken by the wannabe president. Oh shut up ‘bama boy and don’t try to correct me. Your disapproval rating is climbing, you are a phony, you hate white America and you don’t deserve a single thing in life because you haven’t earned it.
In general, there are very few people from former British colonies that still have British nationality. This is no surprise; the UK has no desire to see millions of people from these colonies suddenly show up on its doorstep. So most Independence Acts passed by the UK allowed only a small number of people to keep their British nationality.
As far as I know, the main classes of such people are
(1) Those who have links to the UK (eg born in the UK and then moved to a colony).
(2) Those who fell through the cracks and did not qualify for citizenship of the newly independent country. Most of these people are people born in India/Pakistan and then moved to Africa and did not qualify for either Indian/Pakistani citizenship nor citizenship of the newly independent African nation. (When Idi Amin expelled the Indians from Ugana in the 70s, they ended up in the UK, which prompted the UK to further tighten its immigration laws).
(3) Those from colonies that had special exceptions. For example, Penang and Malacca did not become independent, but were made states of Malaya (now Malaysia). Reservations about becoming part of a Muslim country led to special provisions for CUKCs from Penang and Malacca to keep their British nationality after Malayan independence. Similarly, those from Hong Kong were given a chance to register for a special category of British Nationality that there are allowed to keep for life.
Phil says:
January 5, 2010 at 1:18 pm
I’m going to work backwards from what I’ve quoted from your response.
We have privacy laws in America for the fact that we have agreed as a society to disallow (as much as possible) individuals from accessing private information for the purposes of malevolent behavior.
However, since there currently are no laws that determine exactly how and to what extent presidential eligibility is to be determined, and since we know that there is such a thing as presidential eligibility, I’m a little confused on how you’ve single-handedly determined what should or should not be included in such a substantiation.
Remember, just because the eligibility issue may have not been broached before (or very rarely) or that some were satisfied with the documentation (as I’ve noted previously on my site) made available by past candidates and Presidents doesn’t say anything except to say that someone has, in fact, revealed (excellent word choice in light of privacy laws) their background documentation, to a greater or lesser extent.
I will whole-heartedly agree with anyone in the opposition that Mr. Obama is not legally obligated to show any documentation; as I’ve just mentioned, there are no such laws governing this domain, to date. At the same time, the Constitution does have a presidential eligibility clause, and that clause has no statute of limitations, and if federal law does not exist to enforce the clause, then, necessarily, it is the obligation of the States and/or the People to enforce that law (via the 10th Amendment, specifically).
-Phil
___________________________________________________________________
Phil, we do have Presidential eligibility requirements as you have mentioned above. It is set forth in the US Constitution. It requires the President to be a natural born citizen (born in the US according to the SCOTUS in WKA), be over 35 years of age, and to live in the US for 14 years. President Obama has met all of those requirements. That is the extent of the requirements for being President.
None of the documents that the so called birthers have requested are germane to the requirement of being President. That is how I came up with my statement. Unless someone can show me where a person’s kindergarten records or college transcripts are required, then they are irelevant. If Congress and the Supreme Court are satisfied with the current requirements, then why should I think otherwise. No legitimate person has had a problem with any of the background documents that has been submitted by the President. It is only a small number of people that seem to have an issue. The vast majority thought otherwise as evidenced in the election of 2008.
People assume some sort of ignorance on the part of the founders. They realized that the people would ultimately be the judge of someone’s fitness to be President. That is why they gave the American people the right to vote. And that vote was excercised.
The so called list is protected by privacy. Privacy laws exist no only to protect people from malevolent behavior, but from unwarrented inquiries also. Those documents on the list are private and no ones business. That is why the President has not released any of those documents and no court will ever force him to.
Dick Whitman says:
January 5, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Black Lion;
Here are the procedures for a minor to renounce their U.S. citizenship when they are outside of the country.
US State Department Foreign Affairs Manual
Renunciation of U.S. citizenship and minors:
(1) Consult CA/OCS/ACS:
Whenever you receive a request to renounce from a minor you immediately must contact CA/OCS/ACS.
CA/OCS/ACS will not approve a Certificate of Loss of U.S. Nationality (CLN) for a minor without the concurrence of CA/OCS/PRI, and appropriate consultation with L/CA;
(2) Voluntariness and intent: Minors who seek to renounce citizenship often do so at the behest of or under pressure from one or more parent. If such pressure is so overwhelming as to negate the free will of the minor, it cannot be said that the statutory act of expatriation was committed voluntarily. The younger the minor at the time of renunciation, the more influence the parent is assumed to have. Even in the absence of any evidence of parental inducements or pressure, you and CA must make a judgment whether the individual minor manifested the requisite maturity to appreciate the irrevocable nature of expatriation. Absent that maturity, it cannot be said that the individual acted voluntarily.
Moreover, it must be determined if the minor lacked intent, because he or she did fully understand what he or she was doing. Children under 16 are presumed not to have the requisite maturity and knowing intent;
(3) Interviewing a minor: When conducting the initial interview with a minor and during the renunciation procedure, you should have at least one other person present. The parents and guardians should not be present. As noted, the interview should take place in the presence of the consular officer and a witness, preferably another consular officer, another Foreign Service officer (nonconsular) or locally engaged staff (LES). You should also explain that upon reaching the age of 18, the minor has a six-month opportunity to reclaim U.S. nationality. See 7 FAM Exhibit 1292, A Sample Letter to Accompany CLN for Minor Renunciants, which should be provided to minor renunciants together with an approved CLN;
(4) Consular officer’s opinion: You should fully document every interaction with the minor and explain in your consular officer’s opinion the reasons you believe that the minor is, or is not, mature
enough and sufficiently knowing to renounce.
___________________________________________________________________
Sven, you do realize that no matter how many times you post something it doesn’t make it true. Obama was 6 when he went to Indonesia and 10 when he returned to Hawaii. If you think that some Consulate official would take a renounciation of US citizenship of someone that young you are delusional. There is no record of him or anyone at that age ever attempting to renouce their US citizenship nor any record of the US accepting it.
In addition you might want to read what you posted. It says ” Children under 16 are presumed not to have the requisite maturity and knowing intent”. Which means that any Consular official would probably not accept a so called renounciation of someone between the ages of 6-10. Sorry, that dog won’t hunt….Entertaining as usual Sven.
elspeth says:
January 5, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Black Lion,
I think it is wonderful you are satisfied.
So what are you doing hanging out here and commenting about those who are not?
And, please, if you would, explain the strawman comment. The term confuses me.
elspeth
PS Obama is hiding everything. Full disclosure.
________________________________________________________________
Thanks. I think it is wonderful I am satisfied also.
Obama is hiding nothing. The privacy laws of the United States of America protect him and all Americans. It is none of anyone’s business.
I post here because I like civil debate and respect Phil. Is there something wrong with that?
Yes I am satisfied. Just like all 100 US Senators, 435 Congressmen, former President Bush, former VP Cheney, and all 9 SCOTUS justices. They belive they have had full disclosure. Why should I disagree?
Black Lion,
I’m going to work backwards from what I’ve quoted from your response.
We have privacy laws in America for the fact that we have agreed as a society to disallow (as much as possible) individuals from accessing private information for the purposes of malevolent behavior.
However, since there currently are no laws that determine exactly how and to what extent presidential eligibility is to be determined, and since we know that there is such a thing as presidential eligibility, I’m a little confused on how you’ve single-handedly determined what should or should not be included in such a substantiation.
Remember, just because the eligibility issue may have not been broached before (or very rarely) or that some were satisfied with the documentation (as I’ve noted previously on my site) made available by past candidates and Presidents doesn’t say anything except to say that someone has, in fact, revealed (excellent word choice in light of privacy laws) their background documentation, to a greater or lesser extent.
I will whole-heartedly agree with anyone in the opposition that Mr. Obama is not legally obligated to show any documentation; as I’ve just mentioned, there are no such laws governing this domain, to date. At the same time, the Constitution does have a presidential eligibility clause, and that clause has no statute of limitations, and if federal law does not exist to enforce the clause, then, necessarily, it is the obligation of the States and/or the People to enforce that law (via the 10th Amendment, specifically).
-Phil
Black Lion;
Here are the procedures for a minor to renounce their U.S. citizenship when they are outside of the country.
US State Department Foreign Affairs Manual
Renunciation of U.S. citizenship and minors:
(1) Consult CA/OCS/ACS:
Whenever you receive a request to renounce from a minor you immediately must contact CA/OCS/ACS.
CA/OCS/ACS will not approve a Certificate of Loss of U.S. Nationality (CLN) for a minor without the concurrence of CA/OCS/PRI, and appropriate consultation with L/CA;
(2) Voluntariness and intent: Minors who seek to renounce citizenship often do so at the behest of or under pressure from one or more parent. If such pressure is so overwhelming as to negate the free will of the minor, it cannot be said that the statutory act of expatriation was committed voluntarily. The younger the minor at the time of renunciation, the more influence the parent is assumed to have. Even in the absence of any evidence of parental inducements or pressure, you and CA must make a judgment whether the individual minor manifested the requisite maturity to appreciate the irrevocable nature of expatriation. Absent that maturity, it cannot be said that the individual acted voluntarily.
Moreover, it must be determined if the minor lacked intent, because he or she did fully understand what he or she was doing. Children under 16 are presumed not to have the requisite maturity and knowing intent;
(3) Interviewing a minor: When conducting the initial interview with a minor and during the renunciation procedure, you should have at least one other person present. The parents and guardians should not be present. As noted, the interview should take place in the presence of the consular officer and a witness, preferably another consular officer, another Foreign Service officer (nonconsular) or locally engaged staff (LES). You should also explain that upon reaching the age of 18, the minor has a six-month opportunity to reclaim U.S. nationality. See 7 FAM Exhibit 1292, A Sample Letter to Accompany CLN for Minor Renunciants, which should be provided to minor renunciants together with an approved CLN;
(4) Consular officer’s opinion: You should fully document every interaction with the minor and explain in your consular officer’s opinion the reasons you believe that the minor is, or is not, mature
enough and sufficiently knowing to renounce.
Black Lion,
I think it is wonderful you are satisfied.
So what are you doing hanging out here and commenting about those who are not?
And, please, if you would, explain the strawman comment. The term confuses me.
elspeth
PS Obama is hiding everything. Full disclosure.
elspeth says:
January 5, 2010 at 11:55 am
Black Lion,
If your child were to announce he/she wanted to wed someone who hid as much as Obama has, there’s no way you could convince me you wouldn’t call for full disclosure.
This is the presidency, and not your future in-law.
The more he hides, the more should be revealed. When it comes to Obama, when questions are posed, more questions arise. I think it is quite likely that facts about Obama’s past will be exposed that not even he knows.
End it all with full disclosure!
I can’t imagine why you think full disclosure is a bad thing. Actually, I don’t want to. The only things that come to mind when I do imagine why anyone would want to keep Obama’s records hidden is too scary for me.
Simple: full disclosure. Hate me, cuss me, call me names, but it won’t change a thing. He can end this simply. The question is, why doesn’t he? But I also wonder about people who don’t want his story proven, validated, confirmed. If you support Obama, you should be behind full disclosure, too.
Full disclosure!
elspeth
____________________________________________________________________
Elspeth, nice strawman attempt. But you miss the point. The President is hiding nothing. There is nothing in his kindergarten records I care about or think is germane to the question of whether or not he is eligible. I personally don’t care about his school records, his thesis, or where he traveled. All I need to know is if he was born in the US (yes), is he over 35 (yes) and has he lived in the US for 14 years (yes). Other than that information there is no requirement that he disclose anything to anyone. The federal privacy laws, which protect you and me say that that information is none of anyones business. If you don’t like it then change the law.
Since day one it has been about the law for me. If the US Constitution does not require it, then why should I? I don’t hate you or believe in calling names. Full disclosure to me is what is required by law. And since all of the so called documents are not required, then they don’t matter. For me and 69 million other Americans, he has met the burden of full disclosure.
Black Lion,
If your child were to announce he/she wanted to wed someone who hid as much as Obama has, there’s no way you could convince me you wouldn’t call for full disclosure.
This is the presidency, and not your future in-law.
The more he hides, the more should be revealed. When it comes to Obama, when questions are posed, more questions arise. I think it is quite likely that facts about Obama’s past will be exposed that not even he knows.
End it all with full disclosure!
I can’t imagine why you think full disclosure is a bad thing. Actually, I don’t want to. The only things that come to mind when I do imagine why anyone would want to keep Obama’s records hidden is too scary for me.
Simple: full disclosure. Hate me, cuss me, call me names, but it won’t change a thing. He can end this simply. The question is, why doesn’t he? But I also wonder about people who don’t want his story proven, validated, confirmed. If you support Obama, you should be behind full disclosure, too.
Full disclosure!
elspeth
Phil says:
January 5, 2010 at 10:16 am
In fairness, I only pulled certain paragraphs from the entire article, so the whole thing is certainly worth a contextual read.
However, what I’ve just quoted from you is worth questioning.
Does it matter why someone is questioning a President’s bona fides? I don’t think there’s any law that similarly states that a President’s background can only be questioned under certain conditions or scenarios. While it’s certainly fair game to question the question, it is, at the very least, bad form to critique a question simply because you disagree that it’s being questioned.
I think you will notice from my site and others that those who oppose questioning the President’s background don’t necessarily have an issue with the what (that it’s being done), but rather with the why. Unfortunately, some without good will have gone a step further and have personally criticized those of us who question based on an unfair, presumed premise that we have only malevolent intentions for why we question.
I will once again reference site commenter “elspeth” who chimes in from time to time with the brief call, “full disclosure.” That would sum it up for me.
____________________________________________________________________
Phil, again good points. I have no problem with question anyone’s bonafides. And I don’t think that everyone that is questioning the President is doing it out of malevolent intentions. To be honest there are sum that are true Americans that for some reason have a question. However there are some that are doing it for other reasons that border on hatred and dislike for the President.
Secondly the bonafides are only documents that have to do with eligibility to be President as spelled out in the Constitution of the US. If people want to question documents that are relevant to that, then there is no issue. But the so called birther list, which includes requests for President Obama’s kindergarten records, medical records, a copy of his college papers, college financial records, and lists of clients from his days as an attorney are not relevant. So in those instances if “full disclosure” means prying into places that are not germane to the eligibility question, then I disagree. That is why we have federal privacy laws in this country. And thankfully so.
Phil says:
January 5, 2010 at 10:10 am
The facts are the following:
1. Mr. Obama was born a British subject; nothing in British law stipulates that Mr. Obama Sr.’s children had to have been geographically born in a British protectorate to fall under the law’s auspices to be a subject;
2. There is no evidence either way that says that Mr. Obama denounced his British citizenship, gained or lost Indonesian citizenship, or even maintains US citizenship (remember that Dr. Fukino has made her statements solely based on the documentation that she currently has on hand, which may or may not be completely up to date);
3. The “grandfather clause” in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution wouldn’t have had to have been inserted if other nations’ laws had zero bearing on the citizenship of American citizens. And, for that matter, the entire clause is completely redundant if no other nations’ laws have any affect on an American citizen (what’s the point of specifically delineating a specific type of citizenship if US laws trump all other laws? There would be no point).
-Phil
____________________________________________________________________
Phil, good points.
1. President Obama was born an American citizen, to an American citizen in Honolulu, HI. That trumps any possible so called British, Kenyan, or Indonesian citizenships, so we don’t care what the BNA, KIA or Indonesian law says. US law trumps all in regards to citizenship law. And any attorney or legal expert will say the same thing.
By virtue of being born in HI, confirmed by Dr. Fukino and all admissible evidence, he is a natural born citizen as per the 1898 SCOTUS ruling in Wong Kim Ark.
2. Whether or not he gained Indonesian citizenship (and there has been no admissible legal evidence that has ever been submitted that suggests otherwise), is irrelevant because of the SCOYUS ruling in Perkins v. Elg. No minor can renounce US citizenship. And as for any possible British and Kenyan citizenships, again that is irrelevant. There has been no evidence that the President had ever accepted any of these citizenships. It may have been possible but not probable.
3. The grandfather clause specifically was to address individuals that had fought in the Revolutionary War or helped the Colonies become citizens that were born outside of the colonies. The reason for that was to deliniate the job of President to only people that were born in the US, or natural born citizens. This question is answered in the fact that the Constitution only specifices 2 types of citizens, naturalized or native/natural born. Again there is no such person that is born in the US but not a natural born citizen.
Black Lion,
In fairness, I only pulled certain paragraphs from the entire article, so the whole thing is certainly worth a contextual read.
However, what I’ve just quoted from you is worth questioning.
Does it matter why someone is questioning a President’s bona fides? I don’t think there’s any law that similarly states that a President’s background can only be questioned under certain conditions or scenarios. While it’s certainly fair game to question the question, it is, at the very least, bad form to critique a question simply because you disagree that it’s being questioned.
I think you will notice from my site and others that those who oppose questioning the President’s background don’t necessarily have an issue with the what (that it’s being done), but rather with the why. Unfortunately, some without good will have gone a step further and have personally criticized those of us who question based on an unfair, presumed premise that we have only malevolent intentions for why we question.
I will once again reference site commenter “elspeth” who chimes in from time to time with the brief call, “full disclosure.” That would sum it up for me.
-Phil
Black Lion,
The facts are the following:
1. Mr. Obama was born a British subject; nothing in British law stipulates that Mr. Obama Sr.’s children had to have been geographically born in a British protectorate to fall under the law’s auspices to be a subject;
2. There is no evidence either way that says that Mr. Obama denounced his British citizenship, gained or lost Indonesian citizenship, or even maintains US citizenship (remember that Dr. Fukino has made her statements solely based on the documentation that she currently has on hand, which may or may not be completely up to date);
3. The “grandfather clause” in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution wouldn’t have had to have been inserted if other nations’ laws had zero bearing on the citizenship of American citizens. And, for that matter, the entire clause is completely redundant if no other nations’ laws have any affect on an American citizen (what’s the point of specifically delineating a specific type of citizenship if US laws trump all other laws? There would be no point).
-Phil
The article that Phil posted from the American Thinker is rife with innuendo and misinformation. The misinformation was addressed in regards to the misquote of the relevance of Act 96 to President Obama’s situation.
But the innuendo is even more insidious. The writer states the following:
“Mr. Obama is the only president in U.S. history whose father was a foreign national in the U.S. on a student visa. His father was a non-practicing-Muslim-turned-atheist, and his mother later remarried another foreign national, this one from from Indonesia, who was also a Muslim. …”
First of all President Obama is not the first President to have a foreign national as a father. What does it matter that his father was in the US on a student visa, was a non-practicing Muslim, and athiest, and who is Mother decided to marry. That statement is rife with negative connotation to make the reader think less of the President’s mother and the President himself. Who the President’s father is, his relgion, nor who his mother decided to marry is irrelevant to the eligibility of Obama to be President.
“Mr. Obama is the only president in U.S. history to have been raised in nontraditional/non-Christian homes. Based on what he’s said, his mother was an agnostic. Obama’s grandparents, with whom he lived for a period, were extremely left-leaning in their religion and politics. As Obama admits in one of his two pre-accomplishment autobiographies, he associated with Marxists and radical leftists during his college days.”
So what? Is there something sinister to being raised in a non traditional or non-Christian home? Is it illegal? That was why the founding fathers separated church and state. So that someone’s religious views would not be held against them. And associating with “Marxists” and leftists mean nothing. It is not illegal. Just more fearmongering by the writer.
“The president’s situation is remarkably unique, and his uniqueness has nothing to do with the color of his skin. People have an assortment of reasons for wanting to see Obama’s complete birth certificate and other records.”
So for reasons that have nothing to do with any law, that justifies requesting documentation that has never been requested from any other President. How un-American of the author. Not one reason was given that in any way that would legitimatly justify the release of any of those so called records. Fortunately for a majority of Americans this is a country of law and the law is on the side of the President.
Charlton makes the dubious claims below….
“Hence according to this Act, if Obama Jr. , did not become a Kenyan citizen, because his parent(s) did not register him as such, he would have gone from being classified a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent, to a British Overseas Citizen. If he did become a Kenyan citizen, then he became also a Commonwealth Citizen on Dec. 11, 1963, and that is the modern term for a British subject.
In summary, Obama was born a British subject, and remains either a British Overseas Citizen or a Commonwealth Citizen, that is, in either case, a British subject even today — that is, if his birth story is true. He was also a citizen of Kenya prior to age 21, and may still be one. He seems also to have been a citizen of Indonesia from 1966-1980’s, but his Indonesian citizenship status is uncertain.”
First of all there was no proof that President Obama was ever a citizen of Indonesia. And even if he was that would not cause him to lose his US citizenship. Secondly Obama lost his Kenyan citizenship in 1963 because he did not affirm it. Again this is irrelevant because Obama did not lose his US citizenship no matter what happened in reference to Kenya. There is no record of Obama renouncing his US citizenship as a child or an adult.
The British citizenship was less clear but after all the research he would have lost any eligibility for UK citizenship also. Charlton analysis, which he cribbed from Apuzzo is flawed.
See below…
However a document from the European Court of Justice regarding the Kenyan Independence Act of 1963 and the BNA of 1981 states:
2.6 … The Kenya Independence Act, passed by the British Parliament, removed UK and Colonies citizenship only from a person who ‘on the appointed day [the date of independence] ….becomes a citizen of Kenya’. This ensured that at the date of independence a person born in Kenya would either acquire Kenyan nationality, or would retain UK and Colonies citizenship. …
2.7 The joint provisions of Kenyan and UK law thus envisaged that all those who had previously been UK and Colonies citizens would either acquire Kenyan nationality, or would retain UK and Colonies citizenship…
http://www.justice.org.uk/images/pdfs/Kaur.pdf
Section 35 of the BNA of 1981 states:
35. Circumstances in which British subjects are to lose that status.
A person who under this Act is a British subject otherwise than by virtue of section 31 shall cease to be such a subject if, in whatever circumstances and whether under this Act or otherwise, he acquires any other citizenship or nationality whatever.
The kenyan Independence Act of 1963 states:
(2) Save as provided by section 3 of this Act, any person who immediately before the appointed day is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies shall on that day cease to be such a citizen if on that day he becomes a citizen of Kenya.
First page clause 2 says:
(2) No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed on or after the appointed day shall extend, or be deemed to
extend, to Kenya, or any part of Kenya, as part of the law thereof ; and on and after that day the provisions of Schedule 1 to this Act shall have effect with respect to legislative powers in Kenya.
In other words Obama lost his CUKC Citizenship when Britain passed the KIA, and unless they explicitly re-enacted his citizenship, he never regained CUKC status.
“British subject” as defined by BNA 1981 refers to something else entirely – this used to be called “British subject without citizenship” prior to BNA 1981 and does not apply to the Obamas (who were CUKCs).
There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding BNA 1981 repealing KIA (Kenya Independence Act). It is important to remember that BNA 1981 abolishes the status of CUKC (by repealing BNA 1948 which establishes this category). Instead BNA 1981 introduces new categories of British nationality (British Citizen, British Overseas Citizen, etc) and the acquisition of one of these new categories depends on one’s status immediately prior to the commencment of BNA 1981. In other words, whether Obama received one of the newly created categories of British nationality depends the KIA before its repeal.
The repeal of KIA by BNA 1981 may give the impression that Obama regained British nationality, but this is not the case. BNA 1981 abolished CUKC and created new forms of British nationality which were dependent of one’s status prior to any repeals.”
“Yes, Mr. Obama has posted a bare-bones “certification of live birth” (which doesn’t name the hospital or physician), and Hawaii has confirmed that it exists. However, it is no secret that births were routinely registered in 1961 by affidavit under the laws (Act 96) of the newly admitted state. On affidavits of non-hospital deliveries, certifications of live birth were generated in Hawaii.”
Act 96 is not germane to the President because it was instituted under the territory era and it references a specific type of birth certificate, which was a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth. The key part of this Act was to register Hawaiians ONE YEAR OR OLDER who was born in HI. President Obama’s COLB shows his registration 4 days after his birth.
President Obama was issued a Certificate of Live Birth. These are different documents. The more relevant act was HRS 338, which was instituted in 1982, long after the birth of the President. So to state that affidavits of non hospital deliveries were issued COLB’s may not be entirely correct. No one has been able to locate someone that was not born in a hospital and was issued a COLB just based on an affidavit. These are different documents and different instances.
Certificate of Hawaiian Birth (COHB)
“The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was established in 1911, during the territorial era, to register a person born in Hawaii who was one year old or older and whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii. The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program was terminated in 1972, during the statehood era.”
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/hawnbirth.html
“Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child… [L 1982, c 182, §1]”
The law cited preceding did not exist until its passage in 1982 (the “L 1982″) , 21 years after Barack Obama’s birth registration on August 8, 1961.
So in other words Act 96 could not be relevant because it was for children that were 1 year or older and they were issued a COHB. Obama was registered 4 days after birth. Section 338 could not be relevant because it did not come into effect until 1982.
And according to the state of HI a COLB is:
“A “Certification of Live Birth” is a short form birth certificate. The information included in the document may differ from state to state. A “Certification of Live Birth” from Hawaii will include the name and sex of the person, date of birth, hour of birth, island of birth, county of birth, mother’s maiden name, mother’s race, father’s name, father’s race, date accepted by registrar, a certificate number and seal. The seal may be different depending on the year it was printed.”
Phil,
That’s great news about Hawaii using tax payer dollars to commemorate Obama’s birthplace. I see more FOIA requests coming.
Obama still a Brit? No kidding! See the official White House photo!