Submitted to a Candid World

I do not know who TexasDarlin is, but all of the documentation I have seen clearly casts very reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the certificate of birth on the Obama site. I cannot see someone complaining about one discrepancy, but when looking at all the facts including the flaws in the document it appears there is fraud. In addition, I was amazed that the document would list his father as African! In 1961, the term was not used, period. Anyone of “dark color” was referred to as Negro. Even census records of that era reflect this. This was not a “racist” issue as many want to jump on, but just a common description of that time. All this aside, it appears that it does not matter whether he was born in the US, is a US Citizen, took money from terrorists or is a Muslim as many still believe. My trust in the office of the President is that he is an HONEST person that is interested in the best for the country. That said, I suppose we have not had one of those in many years.

Just show the BC. What is he hiding?

And by the way, Ames, get your facts totally straight and educate yourself before you spout off at the mouth. You are as ignorant as a statue.

Oh, and if you’re interested, the whole FEC hasn’t been able to meet in over a year because one of the Republican slots has been vacant because Senator Obama kept putting up roadblocks to filling it. Interesting factoid for the day.

The constitution means squat to these obama turds

bring on Obama slugs just like slugs they keep coming

lizlong you are an obama troll arn’t you

#14 (Bandywithme): I have the utmost respect for statues. Thank you for the compliment.

#17-23 (mark o):
(1) Spelling is power!
(2) Chill – if you have more than one thing to say, think before you hit “submit.”
(3) We don’t like the term O-Bot: robots aren’t particularly advanced, and conjure an image of the inoffensive Roomba. On the contrary, we’re quite powerful. I prefer to think of us as O-Borg at the very least.
(4) He HAS shown the “GD original birth certificate.” Many, many, many times.

#11 (JRE): as always, you’re a valiant defender of truth :). Glad you’re back!

Ames,
Statues are pretty things conjured up by someone with some imagination and a distinct flair for converting stone, wood or clay into something of beauty. The statue didn’t do any of it itself, only stood there as in a lump of clay and got put into form by the maker. I would call that a compliment, if I were on the receiving end of my comment to you.

Since socialism has been brought up, check this video out:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x32cxf_yuri-bezmenov

Our country is in real trouble. I guess we will know how much trouble after tomorrow. Every American needs to watch this video.

Whoever wrote this article is a complete MORON!!!!!…..He list two peoples OPINIONS to dispute Leo Donofrio’s argument…..Leo’s case is based on binding precedents…..If I were going rely on someone’s OPINION, I would rely on John Jay’s in his letter to George Washington, in which he stated that it was his firm belief that NO person with dual loyalties / citizenship by birth should EVER be allowed to attain the office of president!!!

I don’t think I would throw OPINIONS around in the SCOTUS…..Just remember this, “Opinions are like ass holes….Everybody has one”, especially whoever wrote this ridiculous article!!!!

Ames — You really need to get your facts straight. The FEC has NO authority over the vetting of a candidate which is why they have responded as such to any lawsuit in which they have been included in the list of defendants. Their main responsibility is related to the financial aspects of a campaign.

His original complaint is posted…You just need to know where to look….Hint, his current website is his fourth one to have.
Hint, some of the others are still active.

Sir or Mam, you are going to have to do a lot better than simply cite other people’s opinons…Like I said earlier, we know what opinions are.

My God, you just don’t get it do you?….It wouldn’t matter if he was born in the freakin oval office, had a 24 ct gold birth certificate, and crapped out red, white, and blue….He was born with dual nationalities (British and American) as admitted by him on his site link to FactChaeck.org….His Kenyan father held British citizenship!!!….”Natural born citizen” = being born to TWO US citizen parents on US soil….Checkmate!!!!

Lmaoo, and here Iwas thinking that an attorney wrote this artical…Lordie!!!….I could have a field day with you, but I have work to do….Take Care!!!!

http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html

Lmaooo…..What a dolt!!!…Do you want to hear something really funny?…..I VOTED for the FRAUD, Obama….He deliberately decieved us and now I wish I could take back my vote….He turned out to be just another con-man….He knew he was ineligible and ran anyway….So he thinks it’s Ok to crap on our constitution?….Well, I have news for him, he F**ked up this time!!!….Paybacks are a bitch and Obama is toast!!!….Say good-bye to him, because there is an army of attorneys that are going to run his lying ass out of town!!!

What’s the matter Jello, can’t handle it anymore without slurring and melting at the middle…. It doens’t matter where Obama was born, or who fathered him, he is still LISTED by his own hand as being of DUAL CITIZENSHIP which is clearly a huge NO-NO in the written thoughts of the framers of the Constitution. Gotcha!!!

Editing errors noted

In any case, you have not answered the question. Why, if your case is so brilliant, have none of Obama’s far more powerful and influential opponents not used them to sink him long ago?

WOW, Isn’t this country running out of Kool-Aid yet? If the Constitution goes up in smoke, we all do. I have a place ready in the UK, but from what I hear that may even be worse sooner than here. We will be screwed folks, no where to run, no where to hide from the Obots.

@Troy: “”Natural born citizen” = being born to TWO US citizen parents on US soil”

You DO know that would invalidate McCain’s elegibility, too, right? He was born in Panama.

Folks, stop torquing your undies. Let’s say that every last paranoid idea you have about Barack HUSSEIN!!!!!(scared yet?) Obama is true:

1: On January 21, 2009, Obama is sworn into office a Koran.
2: he pulls off his mask to reveal he’s actually Osama bin Laden
3: President bin Laden declares universal Sharia law and orders an all-out attack on Israel.
4: The Armed Forces, Law Enforcement, the Supreme Court, and Congress all say “HELL no” in unison, impeach his butt in an emergency session, and throw him in prison.

Outside of Bush’s fantasies, the President is not the Absolute God-Emperor of America. And if the US can survive 8 years of Bush, it can sure survive 4 years of ANYTHING Obama could possible be capable of doing.

“A point to consider: Donofrio’s lawsuit does not challenge Obama’s eligibility”

In order for the SoS of NJ to complete her job, she must understand what “Natural Born Citizen” means. Otherwise how can she perform her vetting duties correctly? If we asked all 50 SoS’s, would they really know what this meant???? It will eventually wind up right where it is now, and SCOTUS knows this.

“Natural” means the same as it did when the Constitution was written. “Natural Born” refers to “Natural Law”, i.e. the father’s citizenship.

When immigrants came to America, they swore an oath of allegiance. And only the father had to do so. This oath allowed their children born in the U.S. to be Natural Born Citizens, even when the mother was a foreigner. It did not work the other way around. Remember, back then women weren’t even allowed to vote, so in all reality their citizenship (or lack thereof) wasn’t crucial to the framer’s requirement for the allegiance of a President.

It literally took the ratification of the 14th Amendment to define naturalized citizens and to make Blacks citizens instead of property. Nowhere does is say “Natural Born” in this amendment as even then Americans understood what “Natural Born” meant. Note here that Congress back then didn’t even care about Blacks being Natural Born Citizens, at least not the first generation. Why? Because they couldn’t vote either. And as we know back then even a man like Martin Luther King never stood a chance of ever becoming a part of the political scene in Washington. No black could vote for him. Why is this so hard for people to grasp?

Sorry, but one of these cases challenging his eligibility will have to be addressed by the only court in the nation who can interpret this Constitutional requirement correctly, and trust me, they will. SCOTUS can save time and avoid a crisis here by just accepting Donofrio’s case, interpreting the meaning of all aspects of Article II, and declaring any candidates ineligible so we can all move on before a crisis ensues.

Troy”

If I were going rely on someone’s OPINION, I would rely on John Jay’s in his letter to George Washington, in which he stated that it was his firm belief that NO person with dual loyalties / citizenship by birth should EVER be allowed to attain the office of president!!!

Yeah, but being of French Huguenot descent, Jay was only referring to Catholics and their (presumed) loyalty to the Pope. Last time I checked, Obama wasn’t Catholic. Nice try, better luck next time.

@JeffM (#49) so, citizenship is only conferred by the father’s lineage? You are implying that the President-Elect’s mother, whose U.S. Citizenship has yet to be disputed, is irrelevant in this matter. It’s an interesting, albeit sexist notion. Based on what Mr. Obama has said, I suspect she never felt particularly irrelevant.

And, given that the Bush keeps sending illegal immigrants “home” while allowing their children born in the U.S. to stay, isn’t all this blow back about Obama’s citizen ship a little . . . . situational? If we as a matter of national policy can call the daughters and sons of hispanic undocumented person natural born citizens, then can’t the son of a female U.S. citizen, born in a U.S. state, be a natural born U.S. citizen?

Or is all this just thinly veiled racism?

UPDATE: I’ve uploaded a critical law review article for everyone to see. PUMA trolls: read it. The only case where the U.S. used to require that the father be a citizen was in the case of aliens born ABROAD.

Also – if Wells’ case is really up for review – how come private SCOTUSwatchers don’t have it as a conference’d case?

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/petitions-to-watch-conferences-of-12508-121208/

Good point. The political process supplies strong vetting. If there was any merit, you bet we would’ve heard Sarah Palin putting the question to her lynch mobs base.

You’re right that, if this were a legitimate controversy, it might be best to see a judicial resolution just so all sides can call it a day. But not all controversies are legitimate (take creationism – please). Some, supported by only nutjobs, don’t deserve the time it takes to resolve them. There’s no controversy to teach here.

Here’s a link to the statute: I think their argument, though, is that “natural born” is a step above the citizenship statute. So the argument is that “natural born” requires that you be either one specific subcategory of 1401, or perhaps something more. I think you’re right, though, that that specific category you identified is the one you have to fall into… and for anybody sane, that’s enough. Sadly, these people are not so much sane ;-)

Sorry, I meant: …the people of this country should have confidence in the POTUS ELECT being honest. Clearly, many do not.

Larry,
Actually, I think you got it correct the first time.

Leaving that aside, the elegibility of a person to be President is indeed of concern to many of us on the Left side of the aisle. What we fail to see is how a person, born to one U.S. Citizen parent in a U.S. state, is NOT a natural born citizen as intended by the Framers of the Constitution. To Claim, as so many do, that Mr. Obama’s father’s citizen ship at the time of birth is the deciding factor flies in the face of what I was taught natural born citizen meant all through public school. granted, it could be that all school students taught such things were massively lied to, but I doubt it.

As to the argument that Mr. Obama need to authorize Hawaii to release his long form birth certificate to settle this I have two questions -

First, I claim to be a U.S. citizen as I was born in Wyoming to at least one citizen parent. Do you need my long form birth certificate to prove this assertion? The State Department did not when they issued my first passport, and I know from professional experience that they have enough lawyers to know what proof they need. My understanding is Mr. Obama has a valid U.S. passport (which supposedly proves citizenship), so his documentation was obviously enough for State as well.

Second, would the release of the long form certificate really satisfy you (or any of the other questioners)? I keep reading these stories,and I have yet to see how it would. If you are not happy about Mr. Obama’s election, you are entitled to your opinion, and I’ll be happy to defend your right to that opinion as well as your right to speak that opinion. At the same time, we’ve just come off eight years (!) where a majority of Americans did not support or agree with the elected President (Particularly the last 4) and I see no evidence that it slowed him down. It also didn’t lead to a Constitutional Crisis.

So, I think you need to think long and hard about whether your emotional and intellectual energy is best spent over a minor document no other candidate has had to release. Instead, if you disagree with his election so much, join the fun and work to get someone else elected.

Jeff,

Obviously, the question of dual citizenship arises because different countries award citizenship according to different standards. This is a complex issue, and I do not think that it was any more clear-cut at the time your Constitution was written.

However, there’s something I don’t entirely understand: If, as you assert, dual citizenship is in fact an impediment to being a “natural born” citizen, are you not in a sense surrendering the sovereign right of the American people to decide for themselves who is eligible for their highest office?

In effect, an individual could fulfill all the requirements, but that wouldn’t matter at all if some other nation also considered that person a citizen according to their laws. I’m not sure I can pin it down precisely, but there seems to be a serious problem here.

Dual citizenship, “natural born” citizen, U.S. Citizen… terms that seem to be the focus of Obama having the legal right to hold the POTUS office. I could be wrong (it did happen once) but it seems that the reason the so many people are upset is that they are not satisfied with the alleged “proof” of Obama’s COLB. The details of the actual document aside, the fact his father is listed as “African” leads me to believe the document could truly be fraudulent. (see #10) The people that believe the copy of the COLB posted on Obama’s website is authentic think it is wrong or even foolish to question it otherwise. Unfortunately, factcheck.org has a conflict of interest. IMHO I believe we should always ask questions!

1.) If his COLB is a fraud, should he not provide the real document?

2.) If his COLB is a fraud, why was the real document NOT provided?

3.) If he IS a US Citizen, where did the many and various discrepancies originate?
And why?

4.) If his COLB is REAL, should there not be answers for the many discrepancies?

And lastly, it sounds like supporters in the Obama camp feel the Presidential requirements in the Constitution are irrelevant, since he got the electoral votes.

If there were ANY reasonable doubt, why is it individuals frantically trying to keep the Scary Black Foreign Man out of office, and not the Republican Party? Or did The Obama Conspiracy get to them, too?

Even IF he renounced his Dual Citizenship a looooonggg time ago, it still doesn’t matter at all in the final determination of things. When he was born, his father is listed as being Kenyan with UK Citizenship because of Kenya being a territory of UK. The key words here are WHEN HE WAS BORN, that is what is important. A person can renounce dual citizenship of one or other parties anytime they want to, but you can NEVER GO BACK and make the difference retroactive in any stance. It is good from that time forward, but NEVER rretroactive at all. When he was born, according to Fightthesmears.com, he had dual citizenship with a Kenyan/UK father and a Citizen of United States, who had not reached the age of majority (19 years, at that time) 5 years before she gave birth to him (she Stanley Ann was only 18 when she gave birth to Obama), therefore she was not able to confer her status on him, and even if she could have, HIS FATHER was still UK/Kenyan AT HIS BIRTH. There is no way to retroactively change any of those things to make him a “Nnatural Born Citizen”. He states this on his own websight (about his dual citizenship-but he thinks that if he uses similar words “native born” that no one will notice the difference-and there is a great deal ofo difference in the Constitution that is talked about) and there is no way he can ever become something he isn’t at Birth to be eligible to be POTUS in any way.

bandywithme – I agree with your point, but my concern is that it does not seem that anyone is taking the matter very seriously. Certainly the media is not and anyone else such as Philip Berg that is attempting to bring the issue to light is being called a crackpot or conspiracy theorist. In the end, if he is actually inaugurated, I see not only legal ramifications, but a total lack of confidence in the position of the POTUS. So what can be done? A lot of people are trying to bring this to the forefront of the American people. What more can we do?

Bandywithme, I don’t know what the hell you are talking about conerning Obama’s mother not being able to pass her citizenship on to him because she was only barely(?) an adult.

But it’s irrelevant anyway, because Obama was born on U.S. soil, which automatically confers U.S. citizenship. Then he inherited a dual citizenship from his father, but I still have not heard any convincing arguments that this would prevent someone from being president.

Kris – If Obama was born on US soil as you say, then why is has his grandmother stated she was there at his birth in Kenya? Or does his grandmother wear a tin foil hat too?

Philip – “Saving our economy?” Hmm, lets see Democrat Bill Clinton signed NAFTA back in 1993 I believe. In 15 years our factories have all but disappeared, call centers are in India, and just try to buy ANYTHING at a retailer that is not made in China, Taiwan, Malaysia, etc. Our American soul was sold to the devil so now our jobs are in other countries. And the auto manufacturers now want YOU and ME to bail them out? I am sorry, but they can make it without our hard earned tax dollars. There are plenty of ways all of us other business owners stay in business without a handout. And I will pay a bit more for anything made in the USA if I can find it. I realize the public is tired of the Republican administration screwing up the last eight years, and if he is legally eligible to take the office of POTUS then Obama should take a crack at it. Hopefully, he won’t bend us over like Carter and Clinton did without lubricant, but his lack of honesty so far leads me to believe we better stock up on KY Jelly.

I copied this from another site because it explains the difference between Native or Natualized citizen from “Natural Born Citizen” better than most any others I can get. I hope that the person who wrote it will forgive me. He/She was listed as anon, so I could not ask permission, unfortunately. But her is a very well written and easily understood explanation….

The difference between “native” and that of “natural born” is defined by the difference of the two.

A native citizen is just that your were born in the U.S., but you can also hold other loyalties such as dual citizenship to other countries, like Obama claims he was also born as a British citizen. Not to mention, how Obama held his Kenyan citizenship until Aug. 4,1982. It’s been reported that Obama holds an Indonesian passport. Obama was adopted by his stepfather in Indonesia and took the legal name Barry Soetoro!

A natural born citizen of the U.S. can only hold 100% loyalties to the United States of America only!

How wise would it be to allow a foreign interest, a foreign government to dictate our national interest?

Would the American people allow North Korean Dictator Kim, or how about Communist China “Mao”, Russia’s Stalin or even Germany’s Adolf Hilter to influence our “Commander in Chief” as the U.S. President?

That’s why 100% loyalties MUST be to the United States of America only, first and foremost and without an umbilical cord to another regime, foreign government and or lobbyist!

Why would Obama subject so many citizens of his country and leaders of other nations to such mistrust about establishing his record of facts?

This isn’t the action of a honorable citizen, one who we should trust with our country!!!

Obama was adopted by his stepfather in Indonesia and took the legal name Barry Soetoro!

This is not a proven fact.

How wise would it be to allow a foreign interest, a foreign government to dictate our national interest?

It is not clear that this is even the issue here. A person with dual citizenship does not necessarily have any more “foreign interest” than a natural born citizen with a strong sense of their foreign heritage. Think of many first-generation Latinos.

The content of your post doesn’t establish itself as anything more than someone’s opinionated interpretation, and it says so many things that are incorrect that it discredits itself.

My education taught me that the primary intention of the “natural born citizen” requirement was to prevent foreign-nationals from immigrating, becoming naturalized, and ascending to the presidency in less than a generation. Someone previously claimed that dual citizenships were inherently illegal at the time of the framing, and that this implies that natural born citizenship was never intended to include dual citizenship. I would counter that, if dual citizenship wasn’t possible, then maybe it was simply not considered.

Larry- Is that a link to an interview with Obama’s grandmother? If it’s not, then it is not proof that she said she was at Obamas birth in Kenya.

Larry, that video is a joke and cannot be cited as evidence that Obama was born in Kenya. It is obviously a bogus translation of Obama’s grandmothers words by someone with a political axe to grind.

Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961. His birth certificate shows this and the state of Hawaii has confirmed it. You’d have to be an idiot to think otherwise.

Here is an article for those of you who have dounts about the reasons for the “Natural Born Citizen” clause to be adhered to, so that you might understand why it is there. I copied it from FSM.com and it is by one of the editors on that site.

Why the POTUS Needs to Be a Natural-Born Citizen
Frank Salvato

The Founders and Framers were incredibly intelligent people. In fact, they operated, intellectually, at a grade 24 level, grade 12 equating to the senior year in high school. Therefore, it shouldn’t come as any surprise that each Article and Amendment – each tenet – in The Charters of Freedom was painstakingly examined, debated, reviewed and, finally, included. Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution – the Article that clearly states the qualifications for holding the office of President of the United States – is no different.

To be clear, I have no decided position on whether or not President-Elect Barack Obama is a natural-born citizen or otherwise. I believe that we – as a people – need to base our understanding on any and every issue on the facts. But in the case of Mr. Obama’s status of natural-born citizenship there are too many unanswered questions and not enough transparency where the facts are concerned. For a candidate who ran his presidential campaign on the promise of transparency, Mr. Obama has proven in the earliest moments of his executive tenure that transparency is subjective.

The most troubling of the troublesome questions is why Mr. Obama didn’t immediately release his vaulted, original birth certificate for examination. This act would have not only eliminated a potential stumbling block for his campaign, but it would have certified his eligibility for the office of President of the United States and saved the taxpayers the cost of judicial intervention. Instead, under the pretext of visiting an ailing grandmother in Hawaii just days before the 2008 Presidential Election, Mr. Obama had his vaulted, original birth certificate sealed by Hawaii’s governor, Linda Lingle (R).

On Friday, December 5th, 2008, the full compliment of the United States Supreme Court will hold a Rule of Four Conference hearing on the issue of Donofrio v. Wells; a lawsuit alleging that New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells was delinquent in disqualifying ineligible candidates for President of the United States from the November 4th, 2008 General Election Ballot. The US Supreme Court Rule of Four states that before a case is put on the docket, four out of the nine Supreme Court justices must agree in conference to hear the case. If four out of the nine Supreme Court Justices agree, Donofrio v. Wells will be heard by the full United States Supreme Court and our nation will stand on the brink of a Constitutional Crisis.

There are many reasons why someone running for the office of President of the United States should be a natural-born citizen but four come to mind as the most immediate: Allegiance, Sovereignty, Foreign Intervention and the Safeguarding of The Charters of Freedom.

Allegiance
It is important that anyone aspiring to the office of President of the United States have a steadfast allegiance to The Charters of Freedom and the country, without reserving any allegiance to any foreign power, entity or potentate.

Because the President of the United States serves as Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces it is essential that the person holding this position, and the authority to unleash the power of the US military, not be compromised of allegiance. And because the President is the Chief Executive — the administrator to all Executive Branch authorities and departments — it is paramount that this position be limited to those who would dedicate themselves to “country first.”

A person holding dual allegiance – or dual citizenship – would be put in the position of having to choose between those allegiances and would, therefore, compromise his oath of preserving, protecting and defending the United States Constitution.

Sovereignty
In an age when there exists a substantial number of federally elected officials who believe the United States should take its seat as an equal in a one-world, globalist order, it becomes critical that the person elected to serve as President of the United States have an unwavering dedication to our nation’s sovereignty.

With the advent of organizations such as the “World Court” and an ever-advancing encroachment of United Nations authority upon our sovereignty, it is important that our national sovereignty be protected at all cost. Allowing someone who does not satisfy Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution to ascend to the office of President facilitates an opportunity for globalist ideologues to position themselves to do harm to the Charters of Freedom at the hand of world opinion and at the expense of the Rights as enumerated in The Charters of Freedom.

When one takes into account many of the extreme laws governing free speech, property rights, taxation and personal and religious freedom that exist throughout the world it becomes clear that to bow to the will of the world community, to trade our sovereignty for universal national equality, serves to diminish the freedom and liberty mandated by The Charters of Freedom, liberties and freedoms paid for with the blood and treasure of patriots.

Foreign Intervention
In the youthful existence of the United States of America our nation has come up against many individuals, nations and organizations who would revel in our demise. To permit a non-natural-born citizen to rise to the office of President would be to invite nefarious forces to manufacture a Little Nikita in the hope of bringing about the actualization of Nikita Khrushchev’s declaration that the United States will fall with nary a shot being fired.

To believe that organizations like al Qaeda, ideologues like Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or nation states like Russia or China wouldn’t embrace the chance to – through the legitimate means of our electoral process – install an operative in the Oval Office is to be naïve. Each of these entities devote resources to affect the demise of the United States of America including military, economic and ideological (read: propaganda) resources.

Because the President of the United States is entrusted with the execution of authority of all Executive Branch departments and the command of the US military, it is vital that anyone aspiring to the office have a complete appreciation and devotion for the American way of life. Failing to vet those who do not possess natural-born appreciation or our uniquely American philosophy is to invite an ideological siege upon our nation and to compromise the ability to bequeath Americanism to future generations.

Safeguarding of the Charters of Freedom
Chief among every American President’s duties is to safeguard the Charters of Freedom. The Oath of Office of the President of the United States reads:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Some add, “So help me God” to punctuate their commitment.

Without a solid, unwavering dedication to preserving The Charters of Freedom the President of the United States is ill-prepared to advance the freedoms and liberties mandated therein to future generations. Those who would usurp the genius of our Founders and Framers by diminishing the importance of natural born citizenship as a requirement for President do so at the expense of generational safeguards. Those who engage in this national apostasy should be thoroughly scrutinized for any ulterior motive.

Today, as we await the decision of the United States Supreme Court on the issue of President-Elect Obama’s requirement to satisfy Article II, Section 1, our nation stands at a crossroads that runs adjacent to the abyss. Today, there is no provision in the US Constitution for a mechanism to enforce Article II, Section 1 but for US Supreme Court action. On Friday, should the US Supreme Court abdicate its responsibility to the US Constitution, the full Charters of Freedom and the American People, we will stand smaller in the eyes of our Founders and Framers and in the eyes of all who died in pursuit of the preservation of our freedoms and liberty.

While it is true that many who have come to be naturalized American citizens exhibit a deeper love of our country than many who take citizenship for granted, one of the few ways to assure that Americanism and The Charters of Freedom survive for future generations is to stipulate that those aspiring to become President of the United States be American. When we “rationalize” that requirement to the ash heap of history we can all rest assured that our freedom and liberty will soon follow.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Frank Salvato is the managing editor for The New Media Journal. He serves at the Executive Director of the Basics Project, a non-profit, non-partisan, 501(C)(3) research and education initiative. Feedback: editorialdirector@familysecuritymatters.org.

“FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Frank Salvato is the managing editor for The New Media Journal. He serves at the Executive Director of the Basics Project, a non-profit, non-partisan, 501(C)(3) research and education initiative.”

Waitasec… Family Security Matters? That sounds familiar….

YEAH! They let this nut argue that Bush should abolish our current government and take his rightful place as World Emperor! Just the kind of Truthiness-endowed organization _I’d_ go to for legal advice fnord.

And the Basics Project….these guys? Let’s look at their front page…

“American Fifth Column: The Whitewashing of Stalin”. Yeeeeaaaah. If these guys are “non-partisan”, I’m Emperor Norton the VIIth.

Gulik,
Is that all you have in your arsenal? I would have expected more vitriol and venom to come from such erstwhile Democrats who do not have anything stronger than the Obama KoolAid to drink and hold up as their stantion. Salvato is a respected writer and has some very valid opinions, of which you seem to deride even though you cannot come up with anything original of your own. Get a life and get over the fact that NOT everyone agrees with your train of thought and your follow me attitude as if that is the only one out there.

Ames,I am actually enjoying this discussion. Truth be told I did not vote for either McCain nor Obama. If Obama is president, so be it.

But one thing is clear here. This election has been riddled with citizenship controversy. There needs to be a stake put in the ground by SCOTUS.

If Obama is indeed ineligible, that may not be a bad thing. It would encourage legislative change to ensure vetting of candidates is done correctly. It may even more clearly re-define Article II to allow for other qualified candidates to become POTUS.

Make no mistake, McCain is in the same situation. The only candidates clear of this citizenship issue are Clinton, Biden, Palin, and numerous independents.

The very fact that Calero ever made it onto the ballots signals an enormous back door for candidates who are clearly ineligible, possibly Manchurian Candidate in nature, to assume control over the office of the Presidency. By turning our heads now, we are telling the world our electoral process is broken.

And that is a very VERY risky proposition.

Wow, I’d been ignoring this to date, but this is the second comment thread that I’ve seen dominate the MoI sidebar. This is a tempest in an imaginary teapot. Even if these folks were right, no one would care.

Bandy, leaving aside the question of whether or not Obama is a natural-born citizen, Salvato essentially concedes that his argument against letting non-natural citizens serve as President falls apart at the end of that essay you posted. He concedes that “…it is true that many who have come to be naturalized American citizens exhibit a deeper love of our country than many who take citizenship for granted”. This is unambiguous, and the clear implication is that a President who is a natural citizen is not guaranteed to be more loyal to America than a President who is a non-natural citizen. That he’s been insisting all along that only natural citizens are sure to be loyal to America is just evidence of his capacity for cognitive dissonance. How does one reconcile the two claims?

Gulik,
Personally, I don’t give a rat’s ass whether Obama has purple skin and yellow eyes with a name that sounds as if it came out of George Lucas’s Star Wars Trilogy, He is not a “Natural Born Citizen” and that makes him ineligible to be President of the USA. Look up on his own website, fightthesmears.com, where he states that he is a “native born citizen” and then go look up the difference in the actual CONSTITUTION. It is there and it is written, I dare you to find it….. it is learly stated in blackk and white, go look for it, I have and I found it and it was very illuminating.

Bandy – if the admission that he was, at birth, a dual citizen led naturally to the conclusion that he wasn’t eligible to be President, do you think Obama’s aides would’ve let him put that up there? I’m thinking no: you seem to be positing a conspiracy that’s simultaneously (1) genius, and capable of manipulating the Supreme Court and the media into ignoring a serious story, and (2) idiotic, for putting the “smoking gun” on its own website. Purely logically, that doesn’t make sense.

The Luo are Arabs now? That’s funny, I thought they were Nilotics.

Ah, the wonderful elusiveness of ethnicity!

Re: war of 1812: you’re very confused. Dual citizenship didn’t exist until well into the late 1800s, and even if it did exist in 1812 , it probably wouldn’t have much bearing on the Constitution – a document written in 1789. Chronology fail.

The posting by LanFranc Dec. 5 at 3:46 p.m
about the insidious nature of how one country’s
citizenship laws could undermine anothers show just how defective Donofrio’s thesis is.

Dual-citizenship should only *add* rights,
not subtract them — the anti-Obamaites
are spinning dual-citizenship to make
someone a “half-citizen”. This is fanciful.

There’s a name for this from voting theory –
“independence of irrelevant alternatives”:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_of_irrelevant_alternatives

It is best illustrated by a scoring system used in
ice skating that awarded gold and silver medals
to skaters in a supposedly final round, only
to have the awards “flip” depending on the
outcome of a sixth-place finisher. Fishy.
Read William Poundstone’s “Gaming the Vote”
for this and other bizarre election stories.

Lanfranc said:

“However, what I meant was that the concept of legally holding multiple citizenships did not yet exist, since that is dependent on several later legal and political developments.

However, all that aside, you still haven’t explained why you believe this is a relevant point in the first place concerning the American criteria for citizenship.”

It is at the very heart of the matter. Dual Citizenship is not an issue with regards to U.S. Citizenship. It does, however, pose an issue with allegiance. Dual citizens can vote in the U.S. and in the other country they are a citizen of. They are also subject to military service in both countries. So, if a citizen has oh say Indonesian and U.S. citizenship and next year both countries go to war, which country has rights over the allegiance of that citizen to draft that citizen for military service?

Dual Citizenship at birth, negates “Natural Born Citizenship”. There is a clear distinction in the U.S. Constitution. Not all U.S. citizens are “Natural Born”. Naturalized U.S. Citizens are clear evidence of this.

Dual U.S. citizens are clearly citizens. In fact 90% of the current nationalized citizens are dual citizens today. However, not one of them can be POTUS if the father is not a U.S. Citizen, even if they’re born here.

[quote]While no mandatory authority – meaning, court case, statute, etc. – has confronted the question, academic analysis is 100% on my side of the issue.[/quote]

The framers understood that no person of divided loyalties (a near perfect description of old & modern day ‘Dual Citizenship’) could service the country in either POTUS or VPOTUS, and this is clearly stated in the original and repeated in different ways close to 11 times in different places. So there are at least 10 points showing otherwise!

This was well and deeply understood even by Chester Arthur’s era (1880’s), which is why he fought so hard to hide that his father was a Naturalized Citizen and not a Natural Born Citizen.

A copy of William Arthur’s naturalization paperwork:
http://naturalborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/william-arthur-naturalization.pdf

The interesting thing is that BHO’s problem comes from a Father vs Mother issue and who’s country is or is not dominant. However the ‘correct’ decision would be to fall back on the words of the constitution where neither ’sex’, but origin, takes dominance and looks at the whole picture. If you take it from that VP then BHO is a citizen, but not eligible for POTUS.

Certainly helps to explain his usage of Native Born and not Natural Born terminology.

For all you “O-bots” don’t forget that even if BHO isn’t in the White House his VP will be the temporary President until another is voted in, so there will be a Democrat in there anyways! LOL!

Further, there have from time to time been academic proposals to disqualify, by amendment, dual citizens: seems to me a tacit recognition that the Constitution as written doesn’t do that.

Re conferring status when less than 19, please tell me what the citizenship status or natural born status is of all the babies of U.S. teen moms.

Lanfrac said:

“Now, Jeff, I’m not a lawyer, but I do know how to read an historical source. And as far as I can see, the Constitution nowhere makes such a distinction.”

It does, and it can be found right in Article II. Otherwise the “or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution,” would not have been included.

The framers clearly understood there was a distinction between a U.S. Citizen and a Natural Born Citizen.

Take a peek at Blackstone’s British Common Law Commentaries. He clearly defines “Natural-born” as it pertained to law back in the late 1700’s right before the Constitution was signed. Remember, we were British in 1787 and most people in this country understood Common Law. And people knew what Natural Born Subject meant. They also understood, unlike being a subject, that being a citizen meant you were free from the shackles of the King’s crown.

Our Constitutional framers used quite a bit of Common Law (modified of course), and for the first 100 years of law in the U.S., Blackstone’s Commentaries was used to interpret many Constitutional questions.

Alright, Jeff, I’m looking at Blackstone. A reference would have been nice, but I assume you’re talking about Book 1, ch. 10, Of People, Whether Aliens, Denizens or Natives.

I note that one of the first things he mentions is that,

“THE firft and moft obvious divifion of the people is into aliens and natural-born fubjects. Natural-born fubjects are fuch as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, fuch as are born out of it.” (p. 354)

Following this, there is a lengthy discourse on allegiance, and I would guess that it is here that you picked up these notions about dual citizenship. However, the funny thing is that even if we accept Blackstone’s opinions as relevant in the modern world, they still don’t support your interpretations. Note this passage:

For it is a principle of univerfal law, that the natural-born fubject of one prince cannot by any act of his own, no, not by fwearing allegiance to another, put off or difcharge his natural allegiance to the former: for this natural allegiance was intrinfic, and primitive, and antecedent to the other; and cannot be devefted without the concurrent act of that prince to whom it was firft due. Indeed the natural-born fubject of one prince, to whom he owes allegiance, may be entangled by fubjecting himfelf abfolutely to another; but it is his own act that brings him into thefe ftraits and difficulties, of owing fervice to two mafters; and it is unreafonable that, by fuch voluntary act of his own, he fhould be able at pleafure to unloofe thofe bands, by which he is connected to his natural prince. (p. 358)

In other words, a person gains a “natural allegiance” to a prince simply by being born in his domain. And further,

“THE children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally fpeaking, natural-born fubjects, and entitled to all the privileges of fuch. In which the conftitution of France differs from curs; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.” (p. 361)

So the conclusion here seems simple. If you’re born in a certain realm, you owe a natural and undissolvable allegiance to the prince of that realm, or in the case of the United States, to the Republic. If anything, this sets forth an even stronger case against these ridiculous claims than from a modern perspective with its somewhat more flexible interpretation of nationality and citizenship.

Lanfranc said:

“If anything, this sets forth an even stronger case against these ridiculous claims than from a modern perspective with its somewhat more flexible interpretation of nationality and citizenship.”

Not true. Subjects are not citizens. Blackstone makes it clear the definition of allegiance and how it is passed down from father to child.

And, international law at the time had a clear definition of Natural Born Citizen which backs the claim that fathers dictated the citizenship of their children.

Look no further than the “Law of Nations” by Emer de Vattel in 1758. His definition of Natural Born Citizen is clear as day, and nearly identical to the definition supplied by the U.S. State Department:

“The Natives, or Natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

Any Constitutional scholar (including Obama) will tell you de Vattel’s writings were influential, serving as a key reference of the Constitution, and he has been considered to be the Father of modern international law. More can be read here:

http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Fperson=3987&Itemid=27

Lanfranc said:

“Jeff, you seem to be a little confused here. First you pull out Blackstone in an attempt to use him as support for your definition of “natural born”. When it turns out that he actually says the complete opposite of what you want him to, suddenly you drop him like he’s on fire and pull out de Vattel instead. ”

I am not confused. Both laws clearly follow Natural Law, i.e. LAW OF NATIONS, i.e. Common Law.

And that law is the same then as it is in many countries today, including the U.K. and U.S. (NBC vs Citizen)

Citizens inherit citizenship from the father. Citizen, i.e. Allegiance, of the father is passed down to the son.

This is the same for Vattel. This is the same for Blackstone.

The only difference between common law and natural law is one relates to subjects while the other relates to citizens.

One is renouncable. The other is not. That’s why both are key to Article II.

I can do a side-by-side comparison of both if it will help you understand.

Oh, and stop quoting Blackstone like he’s a freaking statute book. He’s a commentator that summarized (gisted) the British common law as it existed during his time. He’s not binding an any court, anywhere.

JeffM said,

“The only difference between common law and natural law is one relates to subjects while the other relates to citizens.”

And with that, I think we reached the stage where any further discussion is pointless.