Where was Obama’s allegiance at age 18-23?

DID OBAMA CHOOSE ALLEGIANCE TO A COUNTRY OTHER THAN THE U.S.?

by Sally Vendée

What citizenship did Obama use for his passport during his young adulthood when he traveled to Pakistan?

(Apr. 28, 2010) —  Most Americans now understand the Obama eligibility controversy to be much more than about a Birth Certificate—that the Constitution in Article II requires a candidate for the Presidency to both be born on the soil of the United States and have two citizen parents. At the heart of this qualification is the concept of allegiance—the framers were attempting to ensure that the Commander-in-Chief held strong and singular allegiance to the United States. Excellent essays that further explain this Constitutional interpretation of “natural born citizen” can be found here and here.

As this debacle continues to unfold, it is interesting to step back in time and reexamine some facts. In 2008, the Obama campaign, through its Fight the Smears website, advertised the following Factcheck.org statement:

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. 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.”

One can only speculate as to why the Obama camp chose to make this public disclosure. They could have simply stated that Obama had a U.S. citizen mother, and that he was born on U.S. soil in the state of Hawaii—leaving an investigation of British or Kenyan citizenship law to the blogosphere as fodder for more “conspiracy theory.” In addition, the statement’s inclusion of the term “native citizen” versus “natural born citizen” surely was not mere oversight.

Mario Apuzzo, an attorney in one of the still-active eligibility lawsuits, has extensively researched both British and Kenyan citizenship laws and makes the point that although Obama’s Kenyan citizenship most likely did automatically expire, his British citizenship, however, did not. Note that the Factcheck statement changes course in mid-paragraph and omits further discussion on the British issue. In 2009, Factcheck corrected the expiration date of the Kenyan citizenship to 1984 in another post; however, it again offers no mention of what happened to Obama’s British citizenship. According to Apuzzo, Obama may to the present day have retained his British citizenship.

Many times in the course of discussing this point of dual citizenship, Obama supporters have offered statements such as “What right does another country have to impose their citizenship on citizens of the U.S.?” Obviously, as the Obama campaign openly admitted, both Great Britain and Kenya did have the right, through the citizenship of the father of the child, regardless that the child himself had no choice in the matter.

Which brings up another interesting argument—that a baby, at birth, has no choice. Common law and common sense assert that until a child reaches majority, it is under the protection of the parents. Of course the framers understood this, yet still used the word “born” in their citizenship qualification, rather than “at majority” or some other age. “Born” implies no outright decision to be made by the child, but rather a natural condition following the circumstances of its birth. Just as a baby cannot choose among the laws affecting its parents’ citizenship, it cannot choose its place of birth.

In the United States, “majority” is usually considered age 18. U.S. naturalization laws require an applicant for citizenship to be at least 18. Logically, then, Obama, after reaching 18, had the legal right to retain or choose his citizenship—ostensibly, among U.S., Kenyan, and British—for at this age, it appears he actually held all three. If so, did he recognize this and pro-actively make a decision to choose one of these when conducting the everyday affairs of his life during that time? If his Kenyan and British citizenships, as his supporters argue, were conferred on him not of his will and without his consent, then supposedly he would not have even acknowledged either of them and, as Fight the Smears has offered, rather let them “expire.”

One has to wonder, why, then, are Obama’s college records as closely-guarded as the infamous long-form Birth Certificate? Could it be that these records, for the time in Obama’s life when he had reached majority and could make legally-binding decisions and actions, would show that he did make a choice, and it wasn’t U.S. citizenship?

In early 2009, the Keyes v. Bowen eligibility suit issued a subpoena to Occidental College. Robert Bauer (currently White House Chief Counsel) and at the time an attorney with Perkins Coie (which represented Obama, his campaign, and the DNC), stepped in, sought and received an injunction to quash Occidental testimony as well as production of any records. (It should also be noted at this point that some have speculated that Obama declared Indonesian citizenship while at Occidental—claiming that he had been legally adopted by his Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro. This possible adoption is not the subject of this essay.)

Additionally, Obama has admitted that he traveled to Pakistan during the summer of 1981. Factcheck addressed questions of this trip as “more birther nonsense.” Note that the Factcheck article focuses on debunking the Indonesian citizenship as well as the travel ban to Pakistan during the time period, but fails to mention the fact that under their own admission in other posts, Obama held U.S., British and Kenyan citizen at the time of the trip.

Obama’s passport records are as closely-guarded as are his college records. Did Obama, on his passport application and Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard admission applications, assert and declare either British or Kenyan citizenship?

All of the college admissions and the Pakistan trip transpired before the purported “expiration date” of 1984.

Did Obama make a formal choice or acknowledgment—for some sort of foreign scholarship, or perhaps, as he discusses in his book, in a search for his identity, or just for a “cool” factor—so he could call himself a “citizen of the world?”

There are some who may regard a young man entertaining such possibilities as normal teen angst, not to be held against anyone later in life as an adult. But what about the 18-year-olds who every day in America instead pledge their very lives in allegiance to their country by voluntarily enlisting in our armed forces?

The public would invariably forgive typical college indiscretions or less than stellar grades, as they have with past Presidents. But surely even the most ardent Obama fans would hesitate if they discovered their President at one time voluntarily rejected the very country he later asked to lead. At what point in his life, as his wife Michelle similarly admitted, did Obama first become proud of his country, and did he consider this country to be the United States?

If the speculations in this editorial are true, it explains why Obama’s college records and passport records have not been released to the public. Perhaps they are more damning than the birth certificate. As even the founding fathers acknowledged, but still specifically required—a baby cannot choose the circumstances of its birth—but a young man can engage in life-altering choices.

Obama has implied that questions of his citizenship are “uncivil.” The most “uncivil” act against the very country over which he now presides would have been Obama’s own rejection of his United States citizenship and therefore his allegiance.

23 Responses to "Where was Obama’s allegiance at age 18-23?"

  1. BillCuting   Monday, May 10, 2010 at 2:33 PM

    Did FC.O really deny Soetero / Obama was not an Indonesian citizen?
    No
    Did the Soetero/Obama campaign ever deny that he was an Indonesian citizen at some point?
    No

    They whole response was steered to the ” travel to pakistan ban” issue.

    [“The “birthers” aren’t buying it. They, however, so far have produced what we judge to be zero credible evidence that Obama was born elsewhere, or that he later gave up U.S. citizenship”]

    What they are saying is that you have no evidence, and we aren’t about to factcheck anything.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/more-birther-nonsense-obamas-1981-pakistan-trip/

    Read it again slowly a few times, what misleading BS.

  2. SapphireSunday   Wednesday, May 5, 2010 at 2:23 PM

    Sharon: No, she didn’t. She was referencing a generic COLB, as an example, contending that if a COLB stated a birth place, that’s where the person was born. In her analogy, she said something like, “if the person was born in Bali, the COLB would say Bali, not Honolulu.” In no way, however, was she attesting to the accuracy of that online COLB of Obama’s. The only things she stated with regard to that item were that it “looks like” a valid COLB, resembling her own, and later, that she could not say “what it represents.” I found the quote, as reported by Dave Weigel (an avid Obama eligibility sycophant, imho):

    “If you were born in Bali, for example,” Okubo explained, “you could get a certificate from the state of Hawaii saying you were born in Bali. You could not get a certificate saying you were born in Honolulu. The state has to verify a fact like that for it to appear on the certificate.”

    Does it now? And how does/did “the state” verify that “fact”? Via affidavit?

    btw, if you were born in Bali, how or why would you get a “certificate from the state of Hawaii,” anyway?

    It struck me as odd that in her example, she pulled out Bali. Curious. That’s all.
    —————
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: That’s very interesting. Thank you!

  3. SapphireSunday   Wednesday, May 5, 2010 at 11:26 AM

    Well, said. I’ve always contended that this is no different than showing your credentials to qualify for a job. If he truly were the man his supporters contend he is, then he ought to show the people he supposedly leads that he is qualified to lead them. What possible excuse can he have, for example, for allowing Lt. Col. Lakin’s career to go down the tubes, simply because he won’t provide proof of what he contends is true? His minions have already said that his birth certificate is on the Internet. Therefore, if everything on that image matches his birth certificate, then why not just show Lakin the original BC?

  4. Colin   Tuesday, May 4, 2010 at 12:34 PM

    Wow, can we run around in circles any more?
    This is NOT a question of (at that time anyway) a criminal charge where he may not be compelled to give evidence that may be used against him. It is a job REQUIREMENT. As an applicant he is required to provide PROOF of his AGE via a real (doctor’s signature, time of birth, little feet print, etc.) birth certificate, period!!!
    Second, he is REQUIRED to show his parents’ citizenship at time of birth! Nothing less and once again show he was “Naturally born” on US soil or an extension thereof by one parent being in the military and on assignment and on base (American soil) at the time. These things are a requirement, a requirement of the position. That means he is Not qualified until these are shown without doubt. Also remember, the position is a PUBLIC position, the public owns it and all that goes with it is Public. Keeping anything secret is in fact an act of treason as it undermines the authority of the people and the Constitution. When one makes application for the position then all records become public.
    These positions are the Moral positions of this country. Knowing that the Constitution was changed and was conceived in fraud by the bankers to enslave makes no difference as to the contract that it is with all agents and employees thereof! They still have sworn an oath of office “to support this Constitution” which used to be Constitution for the united States of America not “of the United States”. But again it matters not because they still are accountable to it!!
    He has not, whether or not he can, makes no difference, he chooses not to make public all requirements of the position he applied for…. sorry not eligible. Plain and simple. The same as a mechanic must bring a certificate, a doctor a diploma and certificate, and so forth. No certificate no position. End of story.
    This is prima facie evidence of fraud and he can be arrested at any time! Extortion, embezzlement, Fraud in the inception, fraud, fraud and fraud, treason, murder, sedition, acts of sedition, and on and on the charges pile up for the day when Justice returns.
    By the affidavits of two people he may be charged with treason. Are there not two people out there that will make affidavit as to his treason? Fraud, misdemeanors and high crimes?/?
    By the way the people who’s job it is to insure these requirements are met before an applicant can even get on the ballot…. uhh are they not also liable? Have they not also committed treason? Oh, Hell, lets go after them!! all of them and also those that are now knowing or having suspicions and do nothing about it, arrested too. Throw them into the FEMA camps as enemy combatants. They clearly are infil-trators.
    Where is the military in all this? They have sworn an oath to protect against enemy’s within as well as with out. Or are they protecting the bunkers and tunnels running all around the country for them to hide in when they decide to annihilate the honest hard working Americans like so much as ant in their back yards?? This is a disgrace! Spitting in the eyes of every man an woman that ever joined the military in honor and all the honorable men and women that have suffered and died to protect all you candy asses who complain and bemoan but do nothing.
    the declaration of Independence is clear… “When (not if) a government misuses its powers to have control over the people, (having control over the people IS a misuse of power!!!!!) it is the right, it is the DUTY of THE PEOPLE to throw off (like a coat you own) that government and institute another government that PROTECTS their rights”. Not anyone else’s duty but the people’s. Let’s get busy. Let’s arrest these under-miners, enemy combatants, these treasonous, slime-balls who know not the first word of even their contract, the Constitution! This is fraud, people, plain and simple and you’re an accessory to their crime every day you allow it to continue. Repent!! Repent means to first stop doing, turn away from, be sorrowful, go in the other direction.!!! Repent from complacency!
    I find it ironic that so many are willing to “take up arms” but are not willing to arrest without a shot. Real ignorance in my book. Better to arrest and accomplish than to wait and have death all around resulting in a tighter grip as a result. The term “Bonehead” comes to mind. And for all those who are happily comfortable in their government jobs, or as a result of the largest employer in the country? “For what doth it profit and man to gain the whole world and lose his soul?”
    I blow the trumpet to save my soul and so your blood will not be upon me. Ezekiel 33.
    Reserving all power, not for sale or obligation, creators creation i am co-creator that i am only authorized grantor/agent/representative, coming in peace bearing white flag/banner

  5. SapphireSunday   Monday, May 3, 2010 at 11:55 AM

    I remember that, too. At the time, I wondered if it was a Freudian slip on Okubo’s part. Why, out of all the places in the world, did she choose Bali for that analogy, when addressing his birth place?
    —————–
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: Did Okubo ever say, correctly or incorrectly, that Obama was born in Bali?

  6. epicurious   Sunday, May 2, 2010 at 12:23 AM

    Too funny, is the spam zapper the “deleteb button”? I am glad this site is monitored. No offense intended, but Phil’s TRSOL site had far more Obots than patriots preaching the same tired argument over and over and over. It got to the point that every time I tried to visit my IE would just freeze up and crash.

    Are they really switching arguments that it doesn’t MATTER if he is a citizen or not? If true, unbelievable. I guess that in itself is an admission that Barry isn’t a NBC. Can someone post a link? I’d like to see for myself.

  7. ksdb   Saturday, May 1, 2010 at 5:10 PM

    HI DOH Spokesbabe Janice Okubo made a comment that if someone was born in Bali then their Hawaiian COLB should list Bali as the place of birth. Tammy Duckworth told a reporter that Obama was born in Indonesia. Maybe Okubo was giving a hint about Obama??

  8. Cincinnatus Dogood   Saturday, May 1, 2010 at 6:44 AM

    They are now switching the agument. The argument now is “it dosnt matter IF Obama is a citizen or not.” Still a little early for this with court cases in the works. WHO cares about McCain, he was not elected. OBAMA is not a NBC and not eligible for POTUS( mommy U.S. and daddy U.S)..

    I dont care if OBAMA got A’s in Communist theory or Socialist doctrine.

    We must be getting very close. I never see “Fight the Smears Trolls” on this site
    —————
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: There might be a few who try to slip by, but our Spam zapper is pretty effective!

  9. epicurious   Friday, April 30, 2010 at 5:32 PM

    I think it is safe to assume that Barry attended college as a foreign student. As to which of the three nations he held a passport(s) for has no significant meaning as it relates to the eligibility issue. His withholding of his transcripts and associated records likely has something to do with his nationality at the time, foreign student aid, and the radical subject matter of his coursework.

    It is certainly not because of poor grades. John McCain’s class rank at the Naval Academy was 894th out of 899 graduating cadets. It would not take much to improve upon that.

  10. Mick   Friday, April 30, 2010 at 8:17 AM

    Subtle propaganda piece. Of course it would take more than Arnie not being foreign born.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100430/ap_on_en_tv/us_schwarzenegger_leno

  11. Mick   Friday, April 30, 2010 at 7:58 AM

    If he had traveled to Pakistan on a British Passport (Pakistan was a former British Commonwealth, so he could have probably moved more freely) he may still be a British citizen to this day. But we are not allowed to see his passport. The last person that did was shot and killed.

  12. TexomaEd   Thursday, April 29, 2010 at 10:24 PM

    Interesting analysis. I think you could be on to something with the argument that the President must be a natural born citizen and a citizen of only the US throughout his life.

    The 14-year residency requirement sheds light on the intent of the Founding Fathers. They understood that foreign influence (which is what clearly concerned John Jay) came not only from birthplace and parents, but also from having been exposed to foreign ideas while living in foreign countries. So, the 14-year residency requirement could be considered a “cleansing” period — to cleanse the foreign influence out of a natural born citizen who had lived in a foreign country within the last 14 years.

  13. Larry   Thursday, April 29, 2010 at 10:07 PM

    Thank you, Sally, for your usual high standards on this important aspect of the puzzle. There was a fascinating, well-documented post at thebirthers.org last year that provided two sources for a trip to Kenya that Obama took in 1983. This trip may have provided an easy opportunity for Obama to renew his Kenyan citizenship before it expired the next year.

    http://www.thebirthers.org/misc/1983.html

  14. heather   Thursday, April 29, 2010 at 8:23 PM

    I know the article states that the Indonesian adoption is not the issue pertaining to this, but we must take into consideration that there was a legal binding adoption and records from Lulu Soretoro that he legally adopted obama as a child. He is also an Indonesian citizen and we must not forget this.

    Regardless, he is ineligible to be POTUS.

  15. SapphireSunday   Thursday, April 29, 2010 at 8:23 PM

    He was not even a state senator when he lived in Bali. So, again, what passport did he use? What citizenship?

  16. SapphireSunday   Thursday, April 29, 2010 at 7:59 PM

    Obama and his wife spent months in Bali, Indonesia, during the early 1990s, where he was supposed to be writing his book. Upon what passport did he travel? What documents would an American couple need in order to legally spend months (some say as long as 6 months) in a foreign country?

    http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/9486/obamas-book-writing-sabbatical-bali-indonesia

    http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/03/18/bali%E2%80%99s-presidential-suite-ready-obama.html

    One wonders whether the cancellation of his recently planned trip to Indonesia had something to do with these types of questions. One wonders exactly where he and Michelle lived for those many months.

  17. BillCutting   Thursday, April 29, 2010 at 7:17 PM

    As a multiple citizen, one could argue that B.Hussein Obama was not under the protection of the United States government during his travels. And maybe not entitled to that protection in the future.

  18. GVA   Thursday, April 29, 2010 at 5:28 PM

    The Framers wrote that each representative and senator must be a “citizen” for at least seven (7) and nine (9) years, respectively, prior to election. Does that not mean ONLY a U.S. citizen for the required minimum period before election? Similarly, the Framers required a minimum period of citizenship for our president: from birth. The president must be a “born citizen”, ONLY a U.S. citizen from the time of birth . . . but that’s not entirely accurate. THE U.S. CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THAT THE PRESIDENT BE A “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”, so he/she must “natural[ly]” be ONLY a U.S. citizen at the time of birth, and still be ONLY a U.S. citizen throughout his/her life to the time of election.

  19. GVA   Thursday, April 29, 2010 at 5:25 PM

    This is a good article, Ms. Vendée. Thank you. I really appreciate your point about the age of eighteen (18). It brought to mind something that I found last year in researching the case of William L. Smith. This case was the first citizenship eligibility case in Congress. Smith was 18 years old and being educated abroad at the time of the Declaration of Independence. Without getting into too much detail, James Madison correctly assessed that Mr. Smith, as a “minor” at the time, became a citizen upon the Declaration of Independence. The vote in favor of Smith was almost unanimous, and his election was thus declared to be valid.

    In his own defense, Mr. Smith said the following in light of the eligibility requirement for Representatives:

    “2dly, There could be no doubt that a minor might be a citizen, from the very words of the constitution, which admitted a person to be a member of the House of Representatives at twenty-five, and yet required a citizenship of seven years. This was of itself a sufficient refutation of every thing contained in the petition on this head. The constitution acknowledged that a person might be a citizen at eighteen; if so, there was no reason why a person might not be one at sixteen or fourteen” (http://tinyurl.com/lfd5yv).

    Mr. Smith made a good point, I think. Too many people dismiss the citizenship requirement for President by arguing that allegiance of a child does not matter, or that a child has no allegiance, that allegiance as an adult is all that matters. However, the citizenship of a Representative can matter as far back as eighteen (18) years old, when the person was a minor under twenty-one (21) years old. The Framers could have gone farther back, as pointed out by Mr. Smith, and they debated such. The Framers meant “Citizen” as ONLY allegiant to the United States, so a minor had parents (or father) that were ONLY allegiant to the United States, and an adult chose allegiance ONLY to the United States.

  20. Joss Brown   Thursday, April 29, 2010 at 5:03 PM

    The term in the constitution is “natural *born* citizen”, with “born” even emphasized by John Jay himself. This means that *only* the status *at birth* is relevant, i.e. a person’s initial allegiance and citizenship. Any allegiances beyond that point (i.e. later in life) are surely noteworthy and of interest to the general public, but they have no legal bearing whatsoever on Presidential eligibility.

  21. yo   Thursday, April 29, 2010 at 4:46 PM

    Think about just how many people sit in offices of colleges and gov’t offices that guard these records for him and know the real truth.

    So look on the bright side. There are going to be so many people convicted of misprision of felony that we’ll win all further elections because they’ll all be in jail.

  22. nwo37   Thursday, April 29, 2010 at 4:25 PM

    “What right does another country have to impose their citizenship on citizens of the U.S.?”
    Obama has not definitely established that he has in fact any US Citizenship status. If born overseas to an underage and questionable birth mother, then any US citizenship is in question.
    The simple fact remains, if Obama could establish beyond a reasonable doubt that in fact he was born, where and when he claims to have been, he would have presented that collaborative evidence long ago, instead of relying on prime facie statements.
    Under what ‘flag’ did Obama sail to Pakistan, Indonesia, and Kenya with?
    Why do foreign governments claim Obama, while the United States doesn’t?

  23. 2discern   Thursday, April 29, 2010 at 3:52 PM

    Agreed! As more dots get connected the noose is tightening. Now that the CCX exposure (Joyce Foundation link to barry o.) and Gore (English company) buying 10% of CCX and Soros , etc. it may be a concerted collusion to undermine the US.

    I have been saying for quite some time that the college records are probably more revealing than the BC. There may be an individual that worked in admissions for those colleges/universities that has been struggling with holding the truth about processing his application for enrollment. They know the real facts and perhaps are afraid or blackmailed or bribed. There is substantial reward money on the table for anyone that provides bona fide evidence of this impostors falsified background. I’m hoping that person(s) comes forth with truth that can settle the matter and for doing so, be rewarded handsomely for patriotic bravery and honor.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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