Daily Archives: December 24, 2009

Obama is a British Citizen!

Dec. 24, 2009

The Post & E-Mail

THE FACTS, THE LAW, THE INESCAPABLE CONCLUSION

A Legal Analysis of Obama’s Citizenship status by Jane Menta

The Union Jack has been the flag of the United Kingdom for more than 2 centuries.

(Dec. 23, 2009) — According to the official British Consular Registry Stipulations, the British Nationality Act of 1948 and of 1981, Kenya Constitution, and the Kenya Independence Act of 1963 Barack Hussein Obama was born a British subject, and is a British Citizen to this day.

To ascertain this more exactly, I wrote to Claire McIntosh, who works in Nationality and Consular Registration Section, of the British Foreign & Commonwealth Office.

In her letter to me, of Dec. 11, 2009, she explained the laws applicable to Barack Hussein Obama’s birth:

IF Barack Obama, Sr was born in Kenya Colony: President Obama born in Hawaii on August 4th, 1963, under The British Nationality Act of 1948, became  a Section 5(1) Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of his birth (born after 1 January 1949 outside UK and Colonies to a CUKC father). This entitlement is by descent and cannot be passed on;

On the provision of the Kenyan Independence Act 1963, which came into affect on 12 December 1963 President Obama became a Kenyan Citizen on that day as he was:

“…a) a person who

i) was a CUKC or British Protected Person immediately before independence; and

ii) was born in the former colony or protectorate; and

iii) had a parent born in the former colony or protectorate.

b) a person born outside Kenya who was a CUKC or a British protected person and whose father possessed (or would but for his death have possessed) the three qualifications listed in the bullet points above…””

Let’s take a journey down the Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., British Citizenship Timeline:

IN 1961 BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, JR., WAS BORN A BRITISH CITIZEN BY DESCENT

Obama bows to his Queen, Elizabeth II.

Let’s apply the The British Consular Registry’s criteria for classification as a British subject under the British Nationality Act of 1948 Section 5(1) of the United Kingdom and Colonies for one who would be qualified as a “British Citizen By Descent:”

Q. 1.  Was Barrack Hussein Obama, Sr. born in Kenya Colony?

A. —Yes, Barrack Hussein Obama Sr. was born in Kenya Colony of the British Empire.

Q. 2.  Was Barack Obama, Jr. born after 1 January, 1949?

A. —Yes, Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. says that he was born 4 August, 1961.

Ergo:  Barack Hussein Obama was a “British Citizen by descent” on Aug. 4, 1961.

“Dear George (Washington), Strangest thing! We have a British Citizen as putative President!”

George Washington Fighting the British

We know you fought a bloody war for American Independence against the British, and, but, well, umm….”

IN 1963 BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, JR., ALSO BECAME A CITIZEN OF KENYA

The Kenya Constitution (87) states that a person born of a father who becomes a Kenyan Citizen shall also become a Citizen of Kenya, and The Kenya Constitution (97) prohibits dual citizenship for adults but not so for children.

Q. 3.  Did Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., become a Citizen of Kenya?

A. — Yes, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. became a Citizen of Kenya, as  did his son Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., on 12 December, 1963.

Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. also was a Senior Economist for the Kenyan Government.

However…

IN 1963 BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, JR., REMAINED A BRITISH CITIZEN BY DESCENT EVEN WHEN HE BECAME A CITIZEN OF KENYA IN 1963

The Kenya Independence Act of 1963 Section 3(2) defines persons who retain citizenship of United Kingdom and Colonies although becoming citizens of Kenya if their parent was born in Kenya Colony:

Q. 4.  Was Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. born in Kenya Colony?

A. — Yes, Barack Obama Sr. born in Kenya Colony of the British Empire. Further, Hussein Onyango Obama, Barack Obama, Jr.’s grandfather, was born in Kenya British Protectorate in 1895 and was a British Protected Person under British Nationality and Status Act 1914 by virtue of his birth in a Protectorate at his birth.

IN 1966 OR 1967 WAS BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, JR. ADOPTED BY LOLO SOETORO THUS ACQUIRING INDONESIAN CITIZENSHIP?

If Lolo Soetoro adopted Obama at age five or younger, Obama would automatically have become an Indonesian citizen per Indonesia’s laws in the 1960’s, which stipulated any child aged five or younger adopted by an Indonesian father is immediately granted Indonesian citizenship upon completion of the adoption process.

Q. 5.  Was Obama, Jr. adopted by Lolo Soetoro at or before the age of 5?  Was the adoption recognized by Indonesia?

A. — Unknown.  If yes to both questions, he would have become an Indonesian citizen only while in Indonesia because Indonesian law then did not recognize dual citizenship, but U.S. law would still recognize Obama as an American citizen (but not a natural born citizen).  If no to either question, then Obama, Jr.’s citizenship while living in Indonesia would have been whatever it had been prior.  An Indonesian public school did recognize “Barry” as an Indonesian Citizen.

ON Aug. 4, 1979 Did BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, JR. REVOKE HIS BRITISH CITIZENSHIP?

To give up British Citizenship, a person must be age 18 and of sound mind and must fill out a declaration on form RN.

Q. 6.  Did Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., after the age of 18 and of sound mind fill out a declaration to revoke his British Citizenship?

A. — There is no record or statement to the effect that Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. ever revoked his British Citizenship at any time at or after the age of 18.  Therefore in law, we must presume he has not.

ON AUG. 4, 1982 DID BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, JR.’s KENYAN CITIZENSHIP EXPIRE?

To keep Kenyan Citizenship from expiring after the age of 21, a person must swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya and revoke all other citizenships (Kenya does not recognize dual citizenship for adults), between the ages of 21-23.

Q. 7.  Did Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya between the ages of 21 to 23?

A.  — Unknown.  Obama states on factcheck.org and fightthesmears.com that he never swore an oath of allegiance to Kenya.  However, Obama did visit Kenya in 1982 at the age of 21, after his father died. During such a visit he could have sworn such an oath.

IN 1983 BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, JR., A BRITISH-CITIZEN-BY-DESCENT, BECAME A “BRITISH OVERSEAS CITIZEN” (BOC) AND REMAINS SUCH TO THIS DAY

Hussein Obama, Jr. became a “British Overseas Citizen” under the British Nationality Act of 1981.

Q. 8.  Was Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., prior to 1983, a British Citizen by Descent?

A.  — Yes, Barack Obama, Jr. was a British Citizen by Descent and thus became a British Overseas Citizen in 1983.

Obviously, a “Natural Born” U.S. Citizen Means Born In-Country to Two US Citizen Parents !

According to Article II of the Constitution, only a “Natural Born Citizen” of the US is eligible for the presidency.  Since a Natural Born Citizen, being born in-country to two US citizen parents, obviously cannot possibly have any other allegiances or citizenship ties to any other country than the USA by birthplace or by blood, this is why the term requires no statutory definition or laws.   For indeed, a Natural Born Citizen, is naturally a born Citizen, not artificially constructed through statute.  Article II specifically precludes statutory born Citizens as being eligible for the presidency.  The reason for this is that in every case, a statutory born Citizen has some other ties to another nation whether by birthplace or by blood.  In the case of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., in no variation of birthplace, statutory US citizenship by birth, adoption, or oath of citizenship circumstance can he ever be a Natural Born Citizen, nor can he ever be considered lawfully eligible for the presidency of these United States.

Notes:

1.  http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1948.htm

2.  http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1981revd.htm

3.  http://kenya.rcbowen.com/constitution/chap6.html#87

4.  http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1963/pdf/ukpga_19630054_en.pdf

5.  http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/news/InsidePage.php?id=1143999351&cid=4&

6.  http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/InsidePage.php?id=1143998542&cid=4

7.  http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

8.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama,_Sr.

9.  Dreams from My Father, p. 376, Dreams from My Father, pp. 425-426

10. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1914/cukpga_19140017_en_1

11. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=72656

12. http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/givingupcitizenship/howtogiveupnationality/

13. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/07/kenya.obama.relatives/index.html

14. http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/othernationality/britishoverseascitizenship/

15. http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/09/obama-admits-th.html

16. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html

17. http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii

18. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Or

19. http://wwwpublic.ignet.army.mil/images/BunkerHill.jpg

20. http://quickdailyhits.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/obama-bowing-to-queen.jpg

Retired Attorney explains how Obamacare violating the Constitution is the “tip of the Iceberg”

Dec. 24, 2009

Defend our Freedom Foundation
Obama issued an executive order back in March to manage healthcare as part of the executive branch. The Exec order was issued long before this bill was/is being passed.

The Hierarchy is Obama > Health Commissioner > Secretary of Health > Advisory Panel > State Regulators > Hospitals > Doctors

Obama appoints both the Health Commissioner and Sec of Health, along with the first several members of the advisory panel.

***

From: Michael Connelly – Retired attorney,
Constitutional Law Instructor,

Carrollton, Texas

Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.

To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.

However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn’t have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.

This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.

If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed “acceptable” to the “Health Choices Administrator” appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a “tax” instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn’t work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the “due process of law.

So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn’t stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;” The 10th Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.

I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to “be bound by oath or affirmation” to support the Constitution. If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.

For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they consult the source. Here is a link to the Constitution:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

And another to the Bill of Rights:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.

Terry Jeffrey :: Townhall.com Columnist Obamacare Slaps $15,000 Annual Fee on Middle Class Families

Dec. 24, 2009

Townhall

The Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the final Senate health care bill indicates it would slap a mandatory annual fee of about $15,000 on middle-class families that earn an annual income greater than 400 percent of the federal poverty level ($88,200 for a family of four) and are not provided with health insurance by their employer.

On Dec. 19, the CBO sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., analyzing the fiscal impact of the bill the Senate is poised to vote on before Christmas.

The CBO analysis cites five basic facts about the bill that acting together would deal a devastating financial blow to many middle-class families if the bill is enacted and enforced as written.

Here are these facts:

Fact 1: You will be forced to buy health insurance.

Page 1 of the CBO’s letter to Reid says, “Among other things, the legislation would establish a mandate for most legal residents of the United States to obtain health insurance”

Fact 2: You will be eligible for a federal subsidy to help you buy health insurance, but only if you earn less than 400 percent of the poverty level ($88,200 for a family of four), your employer does not offer you coverage and you purchase a government-approved plan in a government-regulated insurance exchange.

Page 7 of the CBO’s letter to Reid says: “The bill also would establish new insurance exchanges and would subsidize the purchase of health insurance through those exchanges for individuals and families with income between 133 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty level. … As a rule, full-time workers who were offered coverage from their employer would not be eligible to obtain subsidies via the exchanges.”

Fact 3: Your employer will not be required to offer you coverage, and will face a maximum fine of $750 per worker per year if it does not.

Page 7 of the CBO letter to Reid says: “In general, firms with more than 50 workers that did not offer coverage would have to pay a penalty of $750 for each full-time worker if any of their workers obtained subsidized coverage through the insurance exchanges; that dollar amount would be indexed.”

Fact 4: Your insurance provider will face new federal mandates that will increase its cost for any plan it offers you.

Page 7 of the CBO’s letter to Reid says, “Policies purchased through the exchanges (or directly from insurers) would have to meet several requirements: In particular, insurers would have to accept all applicants, could not limit coverage for pre-existing medical conditions, and could not vary premiums to reflect differences in enrollees’ health.”

Fact 5: Your family insurance plan — if your employer drops your coverage and you are forced to buy it on your own — will cost about $15,000 per year when the legislation is in full force in 2016.

Page 19 of the CBO letter to Reid says the average premiums for insurance plans under the final version of the bill should be “quite similar” to the estimates the CBO and Joint Committee on Taxation made in a Nov. 30 letter to Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind.: “Although CBO and JCT have not updated the estimates provided in that letter, the effects on premiums of the legislation incorporating the manager’s amendment would probably be quite similar.” Page 6 of the CBO’s letter to Bayh said: “Average premiums per policy in the nongroup market in 2016 would be roughly $5,800 for single policies and $15,200 for family policies under the proposal.”

The Senate health care bill gives employers two powerful incentives to stop offering health insurance coverage to their workers. First, if an employer does offer coverage, its lower-wage workers will lose the federal insurance subsidy they would otherwise get. Secondly, if an employer does not offer coverage, the $750-per-worker fine it faces will be far less than the premiums it would pay if it did offer coverage.

Where does this leave a mom and dad with two children and an annual income greater than $88,200? It leaves them without employer-based health insurance and facing a federally mandated $15,000-per-year insurance bill.

If this legislation is not stopped now, there will surely be a popular rebellion when the insurance mandate hits in five years.

When that happens, the liberals will not say: We made a mistake. We never should have forced families out of their employer-based health insurance and required them to purchase a $15,000 policy. They will say: We told you so. We cannot trust these greedy insurance companies. We need a single-payer system so the government can provide everyone with health care.

Just like they did in the Soviet Union.