Spread the love


by John Charlton

Politics.co.uk took pains to rebut a newspaper ad in Washington, D.C., some 8,000 miles away.
Politics.co.uk took pains to rebut a newspaper ad in Washington, D.C., some 8,000 miles away.

(Dec. 2, 2009) — The Main Stream Media is running scared, and their fear is almost tangible. Yesterday in two separate reports both the Associated Press and Politics.co.uk took up the issue which they have ignored and pretended did not exist for more than 15 months:  the facts which prove that Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States of America.

The Associated Press is especially concerned about the damaging impact of the book, Nairobi to Shenzhen, written by Barack Hussein Obama’s half brother, Mark Ndesandjo.  In a piece on Obama’s half-aunt, Zeituni Onyango, which attempts to move the reader to empathy for her blatant violation of U.S. immigration laws, the article turns its attention to Ndesandjo’s reminiscences of a violent and abusive father.

The article was published on-line by the New York Times.

Then the unsigned article by the AP — no one evidently had the confidence to put their name to it — takes another abrupt turn and says:

She also denounced persistent allegations that Obama is not a natural-born American citizen, saying that she is angered by the ”outrageous, absurd, calculated conspiratory claim” that he was born outside the United States and is ineligible to be president. She recalled receiving a letter and photos from Obama’s father announcing his son’s birth in Hawaii.

Her denunciations, however, are not quoted directly.  What did she denounce, the claim to be born overseas, or his not being a natural born citizen?  The writer of the AP article is not clear.

The truth of law and history is, however, that a natural born citizen, according to the manner in which this term was intended in the U.S. Constitution, and in 4 Supreme Court Cases, is one who is born in the U.S.A. of two parents, each of which was a U.S. citizen at the time of the birth. Obama, by the very public fact that he claims a British subject, as his father, was not, is not, and can never be a natural born citizen of the United States, even if he is a citizen thereof.  This legal and historical fact makes his presidency invalid, all his presidential acts unlawful, and his entrance into the office unconstitutional and a usurpation.

The same day another attack came from across the pond:  from politics.co.uk.

This time it was directed specifically against the advertorial placed in the Washington Times, yesterday by Commander Charles F. Kerchner, U.S. Nav. Ret..

It is not known why a online news agency in the United Kingdom thinks it necessary to rebut an ad in a Washington, D.C. paper, unless it bothers them considerably; or unless the White House asked them to.

The article, written by Emmeline Saunders, even features an image of the ad, entitled “The Three Enablers of Obama’s Lack of Eligibility.”

The charge that something is a conspiracy theory, when leveled by the liberal media, has become a religious mantra, which, when echoed, somehow exonerates them from logic and thought.  Saunders evinces this dogma when she writes:

Alongside a plethora of conspiracy theories swarming the Internet, the ad, in association with a website set up to “remove the usurper”, alleges that Obama is not an “Article II natural born citizen”.

Article II, the clause covering presidential eligibility in the US constitution, requires both a child’s parents to be American citizens at the time of birth for the child to be a “natural born” citizen, the website insists.

But the constitution actually states: “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.”

This means the original nationality of an American child’s parents does not impact on citizenship if the child is born in the US.

One wonders if Sanders, living in Great Britain, still understands the meaning of the King’s English; and in particular of the word “but”, when used as as adversative conjunction.

One thing is clear, being British, she considers herself entitled to interpret the U.S. Constitution! Even the caption to the image of the advertorial is clear about the Editor’s views on this matter: “The ad says Obama does not have the parental credentials to stand as president, but the US constitution disagrees” — it says.

She then launches out into troubled waters, when she claims without authoritative references that Obama lost his British subject status when Kenya became independent in 1963, and then subsequently lost his Kenyan citizenship when he attained the age of 23 in 1984. She asserts that Obama never affirmed his Kenyan citizenship, or acted to retain his British citizenship.  It is not known why she did not quote an official of the Home Office, which actually maintains such records.

The facts are that the Kenyan Constitution provided for the retention of British citizenship, upon independence:  it could not do otherwise, since it was a member of the British Commonwealth.  Kenya’s subsequent citizenship laws provided a 2 year window, for those with subject status, to reaffirm this between the ages of 21-23.  This had to be done before an official of the Kenyan government.  Obama visited Kenya in person 2 years after his father’s death, and this visit gave him such an opportunity, as he was 21 years of age.  Britain  also conferred perpetual citizenship status upon all who were born subjects; so Obama remains a citizen of the United Kingdom, whether he likes that or not.  Unless he has made an act of renunciation before a British consular official, he remains a British citizen.

If Saunders did not want to walk down the street to the Home Office, she could have googled and found the information online, where one can read the cached pages of the blog authored by Attorney Leo Donofrio. (Donorfio has retired his blog, to give him more time for preparing legal action to obtain verification of Obama’s Hawaiian birth).

These cached pages cite how the Kenyan Constitution allowed for its citizens, between ages 21-23, to reaffirm their citizenship, if they held dual nationality from birth. Via that page you can find the link to the British Nationality act of 1981, which states quite clearly in Section 37, that those born as British subjects become ipso facto British commonwealth citizens in January of  1983.  Such was the case with Barack Hussein Obama. Donofrio also explains why British subjects did not lose that status if they were also dual Kenyan nationals.

Whether Obama renewed his Kenyan citizenship is not known; what is certain is that his trip to Kenya in 1982 gave him the opportunity to renew it.  But that he is a British commonwealth citizen, still, is a fact of history and law, which no one can dispute.

For many more reports on these issues, click the tags at the bottom of this article.

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. John, There was so much wrong with Emmeline’s article that I didn’t bother to give her credence. I googled her name to see her credentials…not much. But it appears she has an internship for politics.co.uk! Her other articles are just as poorly resourced as this one was. Consider the source or author in her own twitter words.

    Could President Obama be British? Probably not – Emmeline Saunders

    From Emmeline Saunders, ex student: I’m interning at politics.co.uk for four months and I’m enjoying it so much…. http://bit.ly/EFC6t 3:00 AM Nov 9th from Facebook