Obama was born a British citizen according to the British Nationality Act of 1948

November 16th, 2008 10:08 pm  |  by  |  Published in Commentary, Court Cases, Election, History, Obama, Politics  |  12 Responses

We have all heard the claims that neither Obama nor McCain were eligible to become the President of the United States.  In fact, the legal disputes surrounding Obama’s Hawaiian Birth Certificate still abound, as well as the belief by some that he is a “Red Diaper Baby”, having been conceived by Communists for the advancement of the United States Communist Party’s agenda and having “spent his formative years – literally from the moment of his birth — interacting with members and sympathizers of the Communist Party, USA.”

Yet, now we have another angle to look at this, one which stands completely free of any of the previous lawsuits, and is brilliant in it’s simplicity.  According to The British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama was born, in fact, as a British subject, whether he was born in Hawaii or in Kenya:

British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.

On August 4, 1961, when Barack Obama, Jr. was born, Kenya was still a British Colony.  His father, Barack Obama, Sr., was a Kenyan native and, therefore, a British subject and citizen, making Barack Obama, Jr., a British citizen, as well, and ineligible to become President of the United States of America.

The originator of this suit, Leo Donofrio, is unique in that he is the only individual to have filed a truly bi-partisan suit:

Unlike other law suits filed against the candidates, Berg etc., this action was the only bi-partisan suit, which sought to have both McCain and Obama removed for the same reason.  (Later, Plaintiff also sought the removal of Nicaraguan born Roger Colera, the Presidential candidate for the Socialist Workers Party). The Berg suit will almost certainly fail on the grounds of “standing”, but Donofrio v. Wells, having come directly from NJ state courts, will require the SCOTUS to apply New Jersey law, and New Jersey has a liberal history of according standing to citizens seeking judicial review of State activity.

It’s hard to say how this one will play out, but, if nothing else, it certainly will be fun to watch!

Responses

  1. RBurnett says:

    November 18th, 2008 at 10:42 pm (#)

    Yup–fun to watch. Like listening to George Noory and Coast to Coast.
    Until one happens to meet a true believer, which I unforunately did at my storage unit while paying the rest on it.
    While that beleiver didn’t give me the stuff on Barack and John, he was into sunspots and the dangerous solar radiation from them as the indicator of a new sun cycle, the huge calamity about to happen because of the shifitng of the earth’s axis and some business about how we are all headed into some asteroids–
    So, somewhere out there are those true believers in the not so American birth of Obama and the notion that McCain was never in a POW cage.
    But, like, so what? It’s all good fun–intil you meet up with some of these types or until the Electoral College ratifies the election–which will then render the whole business irrelevant.
    And again, like so what? There are those who in examining the ways and means the say, 16th Amendment was voted and ratified, will then discover to their horror that the Constitution was itself a piece of trickery in its making.
    The Federalist, for these types, is a farago of superstitions and a piece of propaganda to support the illegal usurpation of the rights of the sovereign States–so says Tom Dilorenzo, for one, that Liberty Hero. Indeed, it always amuses me that Lew Rockwell, who shares this view of the illegal Constitution, was the supporter of a man who cherishes that bundle of compromises (which the Constitution was and is), Ron Paul.
    But, so what? If a juror can sue the court to allow her to sit on a jury wearing her Star Trek uniform, and stray unreconstructed and hardened Calvinists who believe in absolute predestination are still seen doing things, well, doing them badly, with their eyes shut tight (why see what you are doing if you were predestined to knock over the milk and stumble down the stairs?), then who am I to complain?–
    It’s to laugh–

  2. King George says:

    July 31st, 2009 at 2:19 pm (#)

    Can I have ny country back now? Or would you guys prefer to become a suburb of Europe?

  3. The truth squad says:

    December 1st, 2009 at 1:31 am (#)

    Here's what you clowns are missing, Hawaii was part of the UNITED STATES when Obama was born, therefore he is a Us citizen regardless of who his parents are. In terms you might understand, it's like all those Mexicans who cross to border just to have a baby born here to automatically give their child US citizenship. Please stop cherry picking parts of the Constitution, go back read all of it and get back to us. You'll find that people born in the US or it's territories are at their birth US citizens.

  4. The truth squad says:

    December 1st, 2009 at 1:31 am (#)

    Here's what you clowns are missing, Hawaii was part of the UNITED STATES when Obama was born, therefore he is a Us citizen regardless of who his parents are. In terms you might understand, it's like all those Mexicans who cross to border just to have a baby born here to automatically give their child US citizenship. Please stop cherry picking parts of the Constitution, go back read all of it and get back to us. You'll find that people born in the US or it's territories are at their birth US citizens.

  5. Benjamin Stone says:

    March 12th, 2010 at 9:20 pm (#)

    Of for the love of god.

    http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack

    The above link details the legal effects of British vs. Kenyan vs. United States citizenship.

    Stop choosing only the bits of factual information that suit your ends.

  6. Benjamin Stone says:

    March 12th, 2010 at 9:20 pm (#)

    Of for the love of god.

    http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack

    The above link details the legal effects of British vs. Kenyan vs. United States citizenship.

    Stop choosing only the bits of factual information that suit your ends.

  7. Facts says:

    June 27th, 2011 at 6:37 pm (#)

    Barak Obama Senior (POTUS' father) self-described himself as a British citizen in all Visa documents from 1959-1964, four photocopied examples of which are seen below:
    http://www.webofdeception.com/obamafatherbrit.htm

  8. Facts says:

    June 27th, 2011 at 6:37 pm (#)

    Barak Obama Senior (POTUS' father) self-described himself as a British citizen in all Visa documents from 1959-1964, four photocopied examples of which are seen below:
    http://www.webofdeception.com/obamafatherbrit.htm

  9. Facts says:

    June 27th, 2011 at 6:37 pm (#)

    Barak Obama Senior (POTUS' father) self-described himself as a British citizen in all Visa documents from 1959-1964, four photocopied examples of which are seen below:
    http://www.webofdeception.com/obamafatherbrit.htm

  10. Facts says:

    June 27th, 2011 at 6:37 pm (#)

    Barak Obama Senior (POTUS' father) self-described himself as a British citizen in all Visa documents from 1959-1964, four photocopied examples of which are seen below:
    http://www.webofdeception.com/obamafatherbrit.htm

  11. Facts says:

    June 27th, 2011 at 6:37 pm (#)

    Barak Obama Senior (POTUS' father) self-described himself as a British citizen in all Visa documents from 1959-1964, four photocopied examples of which are seen below:
    http://www.webofdeception.com/obamafatherbrit.htm

  12. Facts says:

    June 27th, 2011 at 6:37 pm (#)

    Barak Obama Senior (POTUS' father) self-described himself as a British citizen in all Visa documents from 1959-1964, four photocopied examples of which are seen below:
    http://www.webofdeception.com/obamafatherbrit.htm