Archive for September, 2009

John McCain: Citizen of Panama At Birth

Posted in Uncategorized on September 16, 2009 by naturalborncitizen

[UPDATED 9:32 AM.  See red ink below.]

I’m sick of the partisan hijacking of the eligibility issue.  I want people to know that my blog is not partisan.  From the start, when I brought my law suit against the NJ Secretary of State, I attempted to have her remove the names of both Obama and McCain from the ballots.  Neither is a natural born citizen and neither should be President.

Recently, I was on the air with a certain right wing blogger who alleged that persons born abroad could be POTUS.  Unfortunately, I wasn’t connected to the program until after this bogus comment was made and it wasn’t brought to my attention until yesterday.  It was obviously an attempt to sanitize McCain’s fraudulent eligibility.  I will address it now.

According to the birth certificate and COLB of John McCain, McCain was born in Colon Hospital, city of Colon, Panama.  While the BC states at the top that it is from the “Canal Zone”, the document also states that McCain was born in Colon Hospital, city of Colon.  The city of Colon and the hospital were not in the Canal Zone.

The common story you hear is that McCain was born in the Canal Zone, but these documents posted online do not testify to that.  Furthermore, there is no official document that has ever surfaced which states that McCain was born in the Canal Zone.

There is a birth announcement in the Panama American newspaper which states that McCain was born in the “submarine base hospital”.  I don’t know what the submarine base hospital is.

Additionally, I am not aware of any complaints by John McCain claiming that the documents online – his BC and COLB – are fraudulent.

Regardless, even if we analyze the issue by assuming McCain was born in the Canal Zone, Panama law states that McCain was a citizen of Panama at birth.

Articles 8 and 9 of the Constitution of Panama state that all persons born in the “national territory” of  Panama are citizens of Panama.  Panama has always recognized the canal zone as Panama territory and has always considered those born in the Canal zone or at the Coco Solo base to be citizens of Panama.  So McCain was definitely a citizen of Panama at birth.

According to Article 13 of the Panama Constitution, a person born in Panama does not lose his citizenship unless he explicitly or tacitly renounces it.  McCain has never, as far as I know, acknowledged his Panama citizenship so I doubt that he has ever explicitly renounced the same.

Tacit renunciation is allowed and that means an implied renunciation will be recognized by Panama and citizenship is generally lost when a person enters the service of another nation or becomes a citizen of another nation.  But tacit renunciation could only be accomplished by a person who was aware of the issue.  As a child, McCain could not have made an implied renunciation of his Panamanian citizenship – certainly not as a new born infant.

The Panama Constitution unequivocally made John McCain a citizen of Panama at birth.  If one is going to argue that Obama is not eligible to be President because he was British at birth – even if born in Hawaii – then we certainly must also argue that McCain, who was Panamanian at birth and who was born in national territory of Panama – is not eligible to be President either.

Anti Obama eligibility bloggers who refuse to accept the true legal analysis of McCain’s failure to qualify as a natural born citizen are setting themselves and the entire eligibility movement up for failure.  By not acknowledging McCain’s ineligibility, you provide ammunition for the left to paint all efforts to remove Obama as partisan politics.

I am not interested in partisan politics.  I am interested in the preservation of the Constitution.  Despite being a war hero, John McCain should have been interested in the preservation of the Constitution as well.  But he was more interested in his own career and now he’s directly responsible for the Constitutional hell we find ourselves in because – as the Republican candidate for POTUS, – he alone would have undeniable standing to challenge Obama’s eligibility in a quo warranto action.

But due to McCain having been born abroad, he is certainly not going to come forward and attempt to have Obama removed from office.  In fact, McCain has supported Obama’s eligibility.  How very convenient.

Beware of bloggers who are not lawyers giving you bogus partisan interpretations of what the law is and analyzing it for you as if they had a law license and had taken a bar exam to prove their skills.  They are charlatans trying to spin you.  And they are everywhere, on the left and the right.

Advertisements

Reverse Analysis: Why Did Hawaii Get A Different DNC Certification Than Other States?

Posted in Uncategorized on September 14, 2009 by naturalborncitizen

[UPDATED 7:12 PM – I will be on Sentinel Radio tonight at 9PM. ]

[UPDATED 3:11 PM – see RED ink below.]

https://i0.wp.com/www.denver.org/Images/Upload/DNC_News_hero.jpg

[Updated 12:07 PM  See red ink below.]

The blogosphere was on fire for the last few days concerning an article entitled – The Theory is Now a Conspiracy And Facts Don’t Lie – published by JB Williams of Canada Free Press concerning the two very different certifications issued by the DNC (and signed by Pelosi) concerning Obama’s nomination.  (While the CFP site is running, the Williams article mysteriously does not appear accessible at this time – but you can follow the analysis and read the follow up by Williams – at The Right Side of Life blog.)

THE ISSUEOne DNC certification attests to Obama being “legally qualified” under the US Constitution, while the other simply states that Obama was duly nominated.

Apparently, the certification containing the “legally qualified” language was sent to Hawaii, while the certification containing only the “duly nominated” language was sent to the other 49 states.

I am awaiting confirmation that the above is accurate, but for the sake of argument we shall assume Hawaii received the certification which contained this language:

“…the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”…

[Updated 3:11 PM – Reader Justin Riggs sent me the link to the 2008 DNC cert sent to Hawaii and it confirms that the above “legally qualified” language is included.]

We shall also assume that the other 49 states received a certification which did not include the “legally qualified” language.

The question raised by JB Williams concerns why two very different certifications were used when the one with the “legally qualified” language would suffice for all 50 states.  It’s a very fair question.

To answer the question, it has been suggested that Hawaiian law requires the more detailed certification attesting to the legal qualifications under the US Constitution while the other states do not.  However, I cannot find anything unique in the election laws listed in the Hawaii Revised Statutes that sets it apart from other states.

[UPDATEDSection 11-113 states:

(1)  In the case of candidates of political parties which have been qualified to place candidates on the primary and general election ballots, the appropriate official of those parties shall file a sworn application with the chief election officer not later than 4:30 p.m. on the sixtieth day prior to the general election, which shall include:

(A)  The name and address of each of the two candidates;

(B)  A statement that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution;

I’ve looked at many different state election codes through this process, especially New Jersey and Connecticut.  So far, I have not seen a reference to a specific provision of law in Hawaii which would require that the DNC prepare a unique certification just for Hawaii.

[Hawaii does require the “legally qualified” language as quoted above.]

So, the next thing necessary was to review the prior certifications used by the DNC in 2000 and 2004 to see if they contained the “legally qualified” language.   Those were provided by reader Justin Riggs in comments to this blog.  Kerry’s 2004 certification is here.  Gore’s 2000 certification is here.

Neither contains the “legally qualified” language.

This would appear to end the argument… unless we reverse the question.

Everyone has been asking, “Why was the legally qualified language left out of the DNC certifications?”  But maybe we need to turn the question around and ask the following:

Why was the “legally qualified” language inserted into the DNC certification for Hawaii?

Is it possible that Hawaii specifically required an assurance from the DNC that Obama was eligible?

If so, why would Hawaii require such an assurance?

Recall, Hawaii Department of Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino’s statement:

“I … have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen…”

As I have previously reported, there’s no possible way Fukino could legally certify Obama was a natural born citizen.  All she could do was state that – according to records she claims to have examined – he was born in Hawaii.  But being born in Hawaii does not change the fact that Obama was British at birth.  Needless to say, I was perplexed at the language chosen by Fukino (which was more likely chosen for her).

How did Fukino come to the conclusion Obama was a natural born citizen?

We need to know whether Fukino was relying on the DNC certification when she stated that Obama was a natural born citizen.

If we had a truly free press, we could get such an answer.  But we don’t and Fukino has managed to dodge future inquiry by stating:

“I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

Since the 2000 and 2004 certifications do not appear to include the “legally qualified” language, investigators now need to focus their attention on why the “legally qualified” language was inserted in the DNC certification to Hawaii.

Perhaps we’ve been looking at the question backwards?  We need to find out whether the DNC certifications sent to Hawaii in 2000 and 2004 contained the “legally qualified” language or whether Hawaii received the same DNC certification as the other states.

If Hawaii –  prior to the 2008 election –  received the same DNC certification as the other states then we will truly be onto something.  If the “legally qualified” language was in the prior certifications given to Hawaii by the DNC in 2000 and 2004 then this is probably a non-issue.

Factcheck.org: Correction #2

Posted in Uncategorized on September 11, 2009 by naturalborncitizen

factcheckleocorrection

On Sept. 4, 2009 I published a blog entitled FACTCHECK.ORG CAPITULATES.  In that report, I pointed out that Factcheck.org – while admitting my report accurately corrected their original statutory analysis as to President Obama’s Kenyan citizenship – erroneously stated I was a “former attorney”:

Unfortunately, they made another factual error above;  I am not a former lawyer.  I am currently a lawyer with an active, pristine law license in the state of New Jersey.  I expect Factcheck.org to correct the defamatory statement.

As of September 6, 2009 they have corrected their report to reflect that I am currently “a lawyer”, not a former lawyer:

While I appreciate their correction, I fail to understand why they made this mistake to begin with.  They could have checked their facts with the State of New Jersey, but they didn’t.  This is twice now that Factcheck.org has been forced by this blog to admit and correct errors.

This means we must force Factcheck.org to justify everything written in their original report, which stated:

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on…

– There is nothing in the public record to indicate President Obama’s personal opinion as to whether he still holds Kenyan citizenship.

– There is nothing in the public record to support Factcheck.org’s analysis that President Obama fails to qualify as a Kenyan citizen under the entire Kenyan Constitution and applicable statutes.

Since Factcheck.org has admitted to having been corrected twice by this blog, I would now ask Factcheck.org to substantiate its alleged factchecking on these issues by informing the public as to any “facts” which support its original conclusions.

Has Factcheck.org been privy to a direct interview with Barack Obama on these issues and if so when will the transcript be printed?

As far as I am aware, President Obama has never endorsed the conclusion made by Factcheck.org – that he lost his Kenyan citizenship. And I see no reason to implicate the President in the faulty statutory and factual analysis Factcheck.org has recently admitted to.

So, we need to hear directly from the President:  Are you now a current citizen or national of Kenya or any other country?  Are you now a citizen or national of any supranational body?

President Obama’s answers need to be a matter of public record.  We cannot depend on bloggers to answer for the President any longer.

US Government Ruling From 1885 by Secretary of State Thomas Bayard Proves Chester Arthur’s British Birth Was Kept From Public.

Posted in Uncategorized on September 9, 2009 by naturalborncitizen

Bayardquote

 

Thomas F. Bayard was a US Senator from Delaware between 1869 and 1885, which includes the Chester Arthur administration.  From 1885 to 1889, Bayard was Secretary of State under Grover Cleveland.  This is the same Bayard mentioned in Hinman’s book on Chester Arthur.  Hinman wrote to Bayard and Bayard’s response has been erroneously cited by those who support Obama’s eligibility.  For some reason I have yet to comprehend, they argue Bayard was aware of Chester Arthur having been born a British subject.

But nothing in Bayard’s letter to Hinman supports that position.

Regardless, due to a recent find by the UNDEAD REVOLUTION research team, this issue has been settled once and for all.

The letter written by Bayard to Hinman is from 1884, while Chester was still President.  But in 1885, as Secretary of State under Grover Cleveland, Bayard made an official ruling which firmly established his position as to the citizenship of persons born on US soil to foreign parents: they were not considered to be US citizens.

The evidence comes from the August 23, 1894, issue of The Nation magazine which states:

In 1885, Secretary Bayard decided that ‘the son of a German subject, born in Ohio, was not a citizen under the statute or the Constitution, because “he was on his birth ‘subject to a foreign power,’ and ‘not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’ “.

Here we have an official US State Department ruling from 1885 that people born in the US of foreign parentage are subject to foreign powers and not considered US citizens.

This provides proof positive Bayard had no idea whatsoever that, at the time of President Arthur’s birth, father William was not a US citizen.

It’s important we note Bayard’s concern that the German subject was, “on his birth subject to a foreign power“.  That’s the key.  “On his birth”, Chester Arthur was born subject to a foreign power.  “On his birth”, Barack Obama was born subject to a foreign power.  Also, this official ruling concerned only the issue of whether the person was a “citizen” of the US, never mind “natural born”.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution  requires that the President be a natural born citizen.  The word “born” refers to the status of the President at the time of his birth, not any other time.  Barack Obama and Chester Arthur were born to fathers who were not US citizens at the time each was born.  Therefore, neither Obama nor Arthur should legally be President under the Constitution.

The Nation article appears below in full for your review.

View this document on Scribd

UNDEAD REVOLUTION: Historical Attack on Obama POTUS Eligibility, Part 1

Posted in Uncategorized on September 8, 2009 by naturalborncitizen

george-washington-valley-forge-prayer

[The research team from UCONN – UNDEAD REVOLUTION – have published “Part 1” of their exhaustive research on the historical meaning of the “natural born citizen” POTUS eligibility requirement.  I am republishing their report here as my first guest blog.  Please click through to their blog for the full report.

I am simultaneously publishing my analysis of an incredible find by the UR team which firmly establishes that Chester Arthur’s British birth was not known to the public while he was President and therefore sets no historical or legal precedent for Obama.

Now, for your historical education, the Natural Born Citizen blog is proud to present…]

The Meaning of Natural Born Citizen

The time may ere long arrive when the minds of men will be prepared to make an effort to recover the Constitution, but the many cannot now be brought to make a stand for its preservation. We must wait a while.
N.Y. Historical Society’s Collections (Lee Papers), vol. III, 1873

OVERVIEW

There were three types of citizens at the time of the signing of the Constitution:

1. Those who pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to the Declaration of Independence.  On that day, July 4, 1776, millions of former British subjects became citizens of a sovereign America.

2. The children, their heirs, born of those pledged citizens, were the first natural-born citizens of the new nation.

3. A person naturalized into citizenship through an act of law requiring an oath and and renunciation to any former allegiance.

We are either a United people, or we are not. If the former, let us, in all matters of general concern act as a nation, which have national objects to promote, and a national character to support. If we are not, let us no longer act a farce by pretending to it.

George Washington, letter to James Madison, November 30, 1785

INTRODUCTION

The scope of this writing is to focus on the intent of the Framers of the Constitution of the United States as it pertains to the clause in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

This study explores the historical, legislative and judicial areas for factual evidence that defines the intent behind the clause. While it by no means gives the bulk of the research justice, for that would require a book, it should provide a sufficient template that destroys the theory that the definition was allegedly an ambiguous or an otherwise unanswerable question. Breaking it down into the three aforementioned parts, we are able to see a contiguous pattern that is easily digestable using the credibility of those who were living and present during those eras. It is crucial to set the stage during the American Revolution, for we find that it was the experience drawn from this event that provides the foundation from which everything else is drawn that embodies the spirit of the Constitution itself.

In GULF, C. & S. F. R. CO. v. ELLIS, 165 U.S. 150 (1897), the court advocated, as well as over 100 other courts who similarly advised, to look to this period for direction when applicable:

“… and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter [The Constitution] is but the body and the letter of which the former [The Declaration of Independence] is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.”

So we start at this point in history and provide a historical review of the events that shed light on the intellect that manifests itself later into the Constitution and subsequent legislation and jurisprudence.


HISTORICAL

We pick up events after the French and Indian War1 where King George III attempted to tax the colonists in an effort to recoup his losses incurred by the war…

FULL REPORT CONTINUED AT UNDEAD REVOLUTION BLOG…

FACTCHECK.ORG CAPITULATES – Admits Error In Obama Kenyan Citizenship Analysis.

Posted in Uncategorized on September 4, 2009 by naturalborncitizen

[ED – UPDATED 4:20 PM Factcheck.org endorsed analyst caught scrubbing false data after original publication of this report.  See update below with screenshots.  We have retained a copy of the original cached web page.]

Yesterday, Factcheck.org admitted they reported a false fact concerning the alleged expiration of President Obama’s Kenyan citizenship.  They gave credit to this blog for correcting them:

Our Aug. 29, 2008, Ask FactCheck item asking whether Obama has Kenyan citizenship… stated that Obama did have dual citizenship as a child but that it expired as an adult.  But Leo Donofrio, a former lawyer, argues that we got the year wrong. He’s right about that, and we have corrected the item.

Initially, we said that Obama’s citizenship expired in 1982, on Obama’s 21st birthday. In fact, however, the Kenyan Constitution provides a two-year window during which one can decide which citizenship to keep. So, President Obama’s Kenyan citizenship expired on Aug. 4, 1984, not 1982, as we had initially reported.

We regret the error.

It’s not that they simply “got the year wrong”,  it’s that they misconstrued the statute which required a deeper analysis in order to comprehend how to arrive at the proper date.

Unfortunately, they made another factual error above;  I am not a former lawyer.  I am currently a lawyer with an active, pristine law license in the state of New Jersey.  I expect Factcheck.org to correct the defamatory statement.

Factcheck.org also incorrectly implied that I’m mixed up in the birth certificate issue.  I am not.  For those who don’t know the history of my blog, I’ve been asking a genuine legal question which stipulates Obama was born in Hawaii:

Since Obama admits he was a dual citizen governed by British law at birth, how can he be considered a natural born citizen of the US?

As to this question, Factcheck.org alleges a conspiracy theory.  But where is the conspiracy?  The US Supreme Court has never issued a ruling defining “natural born citizen”.  I have taken a position on this issue.  Others take the opposite position.  If taking a position thereto is a conspiracy theory, then their position must be the opposite conspiracy theory.

FACTCHECK.ORG or  FACTREFER.ORG?

Instead of addressing the legal question raised head on, Factcheck.org affirmatively adopted the viewpoint of another blogger whose credentials are unknown:

“We agree with his take on Donofrio’s argument.”

Factcheck.org was publicly humbled by the complexity of the statute they misconstrued, and so they should be referencing attorneys who will stake their public reputation upon interpretation of these laws.  If not, then how can Factcheck.org be a genuine “factchecking” resource?  Their proxy blogger has never provided evidence he is an attorney with professional qualifications to proffer accurate analysis of these difficult legal issues.

Bar exams exist for good reason – legal complexity.

MY CREDENTIALS

– My name is Leo C. Donofrio.  I am currently a lawyer fully licensed to practice in the State of New Jersey and the federal courts since 1991.

– I graduated from St. John’s University, School of Law with a J.D. in 1990.

– I passed the New York Bar Exam., the New Jersey Bar Exam. and received a high enough score on the Multistate Exam.  so that Washington D. C. has waived my need to take their Bar Exam.

BOGUS LEGAL REPORTING ENDORSED BY FACTCHECK.ORG

The legal analysis provided via proxy to their readers is juvenile, uneducated and wrong.  For example:

Because KIA 1963 removed citizenship of the UK and Colonies to the new Kenyan citizens, 1.—(1) above does not apply, and Barack Obama did not become a “British Subject” under this clause.

This is word hopscotch.  Read the codes for yourselves.  All UKC citizens who became Kenyan citizens under the Kenyan Independence Act of 1963 (KIA) simultaneously lost their UKC citizen status AND simultaneously gained the status of British subject under “2.-(1)(a)” of the KIA which states:

2.-(1) On and after the appointed day, the British NationalityActs 1948 and 1958 shall have effect as if-

(a) in section 1(3) of the said Act of 1948 (which provides for persons to be British subjects or Commonwealth citizens by virtue of citizenship of certain countries) there were added at the end the words ” and Kenya ” ;

That’s the KIA talking not Leo Donofrio.  The Factcheck.org endorsed analysis continues:

However, adding Kenya to the list in (3) may well have granted him “Commonwealth citizenship“. (One may argue the equivalence of the two, but I prefer to keep the terms separate.) I have reservations about this because the Kenyan Constitution does not permit dual citizenship for adults which would seem a contradiction for someone like Barack Obama Sr.

The above expresses “reservations” as to whether President Obama became a Commonwealth Citizen in 1963 when Kenyan citizenship was bestowed upon him by virtue of an implication that the Kenyan Constitution would not permit Obama from obtaining Commonwealth citizenship.

That is absurd.

All they needed to check was Section 95(1) of the Kenyan Constitution:

95. (1) Every person who, under this Constitution or an Act of Parliament, is a citizen of Kenya… shall, by virtue of that citizenship, have the status of a Commonwealth citizen.

“Reservations”… are not possible.

Factcheck.org has endorsed an opinion which argues the Kenyan constitution prevents Commonwealth citizenship while it specifically provides for it.

The entire report is filled with this sort of Dr.  Seussian hooplah as follows:

Donofrio perhaps will claim that the British Nationality Act…and he might argue then that…

These are bogus claims I will never make.  It also attributes errors made by other attorneys to me.  Nothing listed in the full paragraph from which the above are culled will be part of my forthcoming report.

This bogus jumble is purposely confusing, false, legally defamatory, contradicts itself and does not deserve the respect of my attention.  This will be my final response to anything written by their proxy, the Dr. Seuss of legal analysis.

[ED: Updated 09.04.09 4:20 PM – Since I published this report earlier today, the bogus analysis endorsed by Factcheck.org has now been scrubbed due to the thorough rebuttal above.  Here is the Google Cached version containing the original as quoted above.  (I’ll take it as a compliment.) Here are the before and after screenshots:

factcheckendorsementV1and2————————————————————————————————————-

THE US NEEDS TO HEAR DIRECTLY FROM THE PRESIDENT

There exist multiple legal mechanisms which have the potential to establish that President Obama is a citizen of Kenya, the United Kingdom, the European Union, the Commonwealth of Nations and the Republic of Indonesia.

I will explain these in separate and individually published parts of a forthcoming report. Unfortunately, information available in the public domain cannot answer these questions.  We need to hear from President Obama.

Since the President has admitted to being a British citizen at birth, and we know he became a citizen of Kenya in 1963, he needs to tell the American people whether he retains any foreign nationalities.  We have never heard from the President on these complex issues.

Hearing from bloggers who do not have any legal authority to speak for him settles nothing.  It simply causes confusion and that very confusion testifies to the desperate need for clarity and guidance by the President.  Is he going to be a transparent leader, or will he continue to make believe we have no right to know?

If the President is confused and unsure of his legal status, then he ought to say so.

If he is not confused, he ought to explain.  This is because the average citizen can’t comprehend legalese and the myriad of complex possibilities these foreign statutes generate.

President Obama is an experienced orator and legal scholar.  A graduate of Harvard Law School and former law professor can certainly speak for himself.  It’s about time he does.  He works for us.  He is our public servant.

[Ed. While I’m proud of my WSOP Circuit Championship ring photo currently making the rounds, it was taken in March 2008 and doesn’t represent the way I look today.  Below is a recent photo.]

LeoDonofrio

CONFIRMED: Factcheck.org Published Bogus Fact Regarding Obama’s Kenyan Citizenship.

Posted in Uncategorized on September 1, 2009 by naturalborncitizen

factcheckfail

[Ed. UPDATED 09.04.09 3:49 PM – Factcheck.org admitted false fact was published, acknowledged that this blog post caught it.  See my follow up: FACTCHECK.ORG CAPITULATES.]

The relationship between President Obama and Factcheck.org has been on my mind recently as I’ve been preparing an exhaustive (and exhausting) research report pertaining to the issue of whether the President of the United States is currently a citizen or national of any other country besides the US.

As far as I can tell, President Obama himself never publicly stated during or after the election that he isn’t a Kenyan citizen.

In a now famous report,  Factcheck.org, in response to a story originally published in The Rocky Mountain News, attempted to lay rest to allegations that Obama was currently a Kenyan citizen.  In that report, Factcheck.org. stated that Obama had been a Kenyan citizen up until August 4, 1982 when they allege Obama’s Kenyan citizenship expired.

Obama republished – at his web official site, Fightthesmears.com – only that part of the Factcheck.org analysis which stated that the President was  a British citizen at birth.  Obama republished this word for word thereby admitting the truth of the following assertion:

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…

The question arises as to why Obama didn’t republish the full article by Factcheck.org concerning his various foreign citizenship issues.  Perhaps by placing a link on his page – just above the quote above – back to Factcheck.org, Obama intended to endorse all of the conclusions made by Factcheck.org in the report.  But since the report has now been established to contain false and misleading data, I do not believe it’s fair to assume Obama endorsed that false data since he did not republish it.

FACTCHECKING Factcheck.org

Obama’s failure to endorse all of the Factcheck.org report inspired me to investigate whether all of the information presented therein was accurate.

I can now report that it has been conclusively established – the Factcheck.org report contains false information.

Two inaccuracies have been discovered.

Factcheck.org – Inaccuracy #1: President Obama’s Kenyan Citizenship did not expire on August 4, 1982.

Here’s what Factcheck.org reported in rebuttal of a Rocky Mountain News Report:

…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.

At Section 97, subsection (1), the Kenyan Constitution provides:

97. (1) A person who, upon the attainment of the age of twenty-one years, is a citizen of Kenya and also a citizen of some country other than Kenya shall, subject to subsection (7), cease to be a citizen of Kenya upon the specified date unless he has renounced his citizenship of that other country, taken the oath of allegiance and, in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya, made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament.

Please take note of the part above which states:

– “cease to be a citizen of Kenya upon the specified date”.

The “specified date” is defined at Section 97, subsection (6):

(6) In this section “the specified date” means –

(a) in relation to a person to whom subsection (1) refers, the date on which he attains the age of twenty-three years;

This law provides a two year window for a person to make the necessary declarations between the ages of 21 and 23.  At the age of 23, if the person has not made the declarations, they cease to be a Kenyan citizen.  (Unless they fall under various statutory exceptions which Factcheck.org also failed to discuss.  I will examine the exceptions in a future report.)

So, according to the Kenyan Constitution, the earliest date Obama’s Kenyan citizenship could have expired is August 4, 1984.

Factcheck.org was absolutely wrong when they reported Obama’s Kenyan citizenship expired on August 4, 1982.

This is not just an issue of numerical semantics.  Whether Obama was a Kenyan citizen on January 1, 1983 has important relevance to  Obama’s status in the United Kingdom and to Commonwealth Citizenship in the Commonwealth of Nations (formerly known as the British Commonwealth).

On January 1, 1983, the British Nationality Act of 1981 went into effect.  Section 37 of the BNA 1981 makes all citizens of commonwealth nations, who had been British Subjects before commencement of the BNA 1981, to thereafter “have the status of a Commonwealth Citizen“.

Section 50 of the BNA 1981 also states that Commonwealth Citizens are not aliens of the United Kingdom.

So, since Obama was a citizen of Kenya on January 1, 1983, he was also a Commonwealth Citizen and he was not an alien in the United Kingdom from that date.  Had Obama’s citizenship expired on August 4, 1982 –  as was incorrectly stated by Factcheck.org – then the British Nationality Act of 1981 (which didn’t go into effect until January 1, 1983) would not have governed Obama’s status.

The term “Commonwealth Citizen” – since the BNA 1981 – has  effectively replaced the former title of “British Subject”.  Up until the BNA 1981, both terms were synonymous and held synonymous rights and obligations.

It’s important to note that Section 35 of the BNA 1981 states:

s 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.

I’ve seen some very mistaken analysis of this section.  Let me set the record straight:  Even full British citizens ceased to be “British subjects” when the BNA 1981 went into effect.

The British government is doing away with the term, “British Subject”.  From January 1, 1983 and onwards, persons who were previously British subjects and citizens of the UK (or of any Commonwealth nation) are now “Commonwealth Citizens” of the Commonwealth of Nations.  “Commonwealth Citizen” has replaced “British Subject”.

If you were a British Subject before the BNA 1981, you are now (with very limited exceptions) a Commonwealth Citizen.  It’s important to note however, that prior to January 1, 1983, the term British Subject was still in effect and had effective legal implications.  We will return to this later.

Wiki says this about the Commonwealth leadership:

“Under the formula of the London Declaration, Queen Elizabeth II is the Head of the Commonwealth, a title that is currently annexed to that of British monarchy.

Commonwealth citizens have the following rights :

In the United Kingdom, as in many other Commonwealth countries, Commonwealth citizens… are in law considered not to be “foreign” or “aliens”…  Commonwealth and Irish citizens enjoy the same civic rights as British citizens, namely:

  • the right, unless otherwise disqualified, to vote in all elections (i.e., parliamentary, local and European [1] elections);
  • the right, unless otherwise disqualified, to stand for election to the British House of Commons;
  • the right, if a qualifying peer or bishop, to sit in the House of Lords; and
  • eligibility to hold public office (e.g., as a judge, magistrate, minister, police constable, member of the armed forces, etc.).

So, as you can see from all of the above, the date which Obama may have lost his Kenyan citizenship creates a whole set of complex international law issues which have yet to be resolved.

The facts are important and do need to be checked and reported accurately.  If you are going about the world doing business under the name “Factcheck.org”, you should be held to a high standard of integrity and thoroughness, especially when reporting facts which intended to influence the national election of the United States.

The irony is that Factcheck.org was allegedly correcting The Rocky Mountain News story which stated that Obama was currently a dual citizen of Kenya.  Suffice it to say, I am not impressed with Factcheck’s fact checking abilities.  We shall see if they have the humility to correct their mistake.

Because of various statutory exceptions regarding the declarations mentioned in Section 97 of the Kenyan Constitution, the original report by the Rocky Mountain News – stating that Obama was a dual citizen of Kenya and the US – might have been accurate.  Information not currently in the public domain is necessary to answer this question as well as the question of whether Obama is currently a British citizen.

This documented false reporting by Factcheck.org coupled with the analysis below strips them of any previously assumed penchant for accuracy and objectivity.

Factcheck.org either dropped the ball on this one, or they reported the facts wrong on purpose as part of a propaganda package of deceit for the purpose of getting Obama elected.  It’s one thing to say that the public was aware of Obama’s foreign national issues – IF – the facts are reported accurately to the American people.

Since Obama quoted Factcheck.org and provided a link back to the site, it is important now that every single assertion Factcheck.org made be closely scrutinized.  I am in the process of doing a complete review of Kenyan and British nationality law.

Factcheck.org – Inaccuracy #2: While Obama’s status as a British citizen may have been short lived, Factcheck.org failed to state that his status as a British subject was not short lived.

Obama remained a British subject from his birth and after the Kenya Independence Act went into effect in 1963, all the way up until that status changed to Commonwealth Citizen in the BNA 1981.

Here’s what Factcheck.org reported:

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

Obama’s British citizenship was short-lived. On Dec. 12, 1963, Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom.

Obama only republished the first paragraph above, not the second which stated that his British citizenship was short-lived.

Please notice that Factcheck.org mentions Obama’s British citizenship and his status as a British subject.  But when they conclude that Obama’s British citizenship was short-lived, they say nothing about his status as a British subject continuing, which it certainly did.

The report is not accurate as to Obama’s historical British Subject status in that the report implicates his British subject status was lost along with British citizenship back in 1963.  It was not.

The proof that Obama remained a British subject after 1963 exists in the Kenyan Independence Act of 1963 (KIA) which states in Section 2(1):

2.-(1) On and after the appointed day, the British NationalityActs 1948 and 1958 shall have effect as if-

(a) in section 1(3) of the said Act of 1948 (which provides for persons to be British subjects or Commonwealth citizens by virtue of citizenship of certain countries) there were added at the end the words ” and Kenya ” ;

Now we must look at the British Nationality Act of 1948, Section 1:

1.—(1) Every person who under this Act is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or who under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of this section is a citizen of that country shall by virtue of that citizenship have the status of a British subject.

(2) Any person having the status aforesaid may be known either as a British subject or as a Commonwealth citizen; and accordingly in this Act and in any other enactment or instrument whatever, whether passed or made before or after the commencement of this Act, the expression “British subject” and the expression “Commonwealth citizen” shall have the same meaning.

(3) The following are the countries hereinbefore referred to, that is to say, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Newfoundland, India, Pakistan, Southern Rhodesia and Ceylon.

According to the KIA, the words “and Kenya” are added to subsection (3) making all Kenyan citizens also British Subjects upon “the appointed day”, December 12, 1963.

It has now been conclusively established that President Obama could not have lost his Kenyan Citizenship on August 4, 1982.  This means his foreign nationality issues were not only governed by the Kenyan Constitution, but – as of  January 1, 1983 – he was also governed by the British Nationality Act of 1981.

My research has discovered multiple legal mechanisms which have the potential to establish that President Obama is now a full citizen of Kenya as well as the United Kingdom, the European Union, the Commonwealth of Nations and the Republic of Indonesia.  Unfortunately, information available in the public domain cannot answer these questions.

The American people, despite what they have been told by factions such as the unreliable Factcheck.org, continue to remain in the dark as to whether their President holds any foreign citizenships or nationalities at this time.

Obama, as President of the United States, is also the Executive head of the State Department.  Please review the following current policy of the Obama administration as to dual nationality:

The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person’s allegiance. However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there. (Emphasis added.)

The Obama administration policy is that dual nationals owe allegiance to the foreign country as well as the US.  The law applies to the President.  If he is a dual national, he owes allegiance to “foreign powers“.

THE SOLUTION

Whether President Obama currently holds the status of dual (or multi) national remains of paramount concern to the national security and the national sovereignty of the United States.  But unlike the issue of whether Obama is eligible to be President, the issue of whether he is currently a foreign national of any other nations can be resolved very easily.

All President Obama has to do is officially renounce citizenship in all foreign nations and supranational organizations.  This will remove any unwanted and possibly unknown lingering attachments to foreign nations which may exist at this time.

I have read many arguments alleging that foreign law should not effect US law.  While the issue is not that simple – as Obama’s own State department agrees –  the solution is.

President Obama, for the good of the nation, needs to officially renounce all foreign national ties.  Each nation to which he was attached has a legal mechanism by which he can permanently sever citizenship and/or nationality.

It’s time for the nation to call on the President to officially and legally renounce all foreign allegiance.  And it’s time for the President to respond.