As we said in an earlier post, Obama is good friends with Bill Ayers, domestic terrorist. Now his administration is giving funding $200,000 each to the daughter and son of a terrorist.
http://corner.nationalreview.com
Hat tip: Clarice Feldman
There are so many things wrong with Obama’s approach towards terrorists, dictators and thugs. It would take a book to explain everything that he has done to encourage tyranny and terrorism in the world so far, and it hasn’t even been one year. Elections do have consequences.
It is this sort of thing that makes the question of his birth certificate important. The reason that the Constitution of the United States requires that the President be a natural born citizen is to assure, as far as possible, the person’s loyalty to the United States. I wonder how a man who was unquestionably born a dual-citizen, by virtue of his Kenyan father, could qualify under the US constitution. Surely, the term natural born citizen rules out anyone who has ever been a dual-citizen.
The Righteous Investor 
Re: “Surely, the term natural born citizen rules out anyone who has ever been a dual-citizen.”
It doesn’t. The original meaning of Natural Born Citizen is simply born in the country, regardless of the number of parents who were citizens. Thus in this meaning Natural Born is simply a geographic term, like Ohio-born.
There only two categories of citizen, Natural Born Citizens and foreign-born citizens (who are also called Naturalized citizens). Thus, Natural Born is a synonym for Native Born.
As the Wall Street Journal points out: “Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.” (
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html).So, since Natural Born means a citizen who was born in the USA, no foreign law can take that away. Could a foreign law make someone who was Ohio-born not Ohio-born?
Your response is based upon current citizenship law, as liberally interpreted, whereas my original statement was aimed towards the intentionality of the framers of the US Constitution. The US was born in war, and therefore, the qualifications for President have to do with assuring the loyalty of the commander in chief. Therefore, simply being born in the US to parents of questionable loyalty would have been insufficient for the framers. Consider the following scenario: In 1775, John P. is born in Boston, the son of British loyalist who had recently come from England to attend Harvard. In 1776 John P.’s parents migrate to Ontario. At the age of 10 years, John P. returns to Boston to live with his grandfather on his mother’s side. At the age of 46, John P. runs for president. I do not believe that Americans in that period would have consider John P. qualified for the office. The recent wars with the British were still too fresh in their minds.
All laws, including the US Constitution, are subject to interpretation. My readings around the qualifications for president of the United States have convinced me that a stricter rather than a laxer stander was the original intent. It seems to me the wiser course. Hopefully, Obama will not prove further that he is a traitor to the US, but so far, his administration has shown a determination to give aid and comfort to Libya, a terrorist regime, and to take a soft stand on Iran, etc. This is not reassuring. Better that Obama had been found unqualified because of his questionable heritage.
Personally, I think that common sense dictates that no dual-citizen ever become the commander-in-chief of any country. What if it became necessary to go to war against Kenya or Indonesia? Where would Obama stand then?
The pundits at the Wall Street Journal notwithstanding, I have deep reservation about Obama’s loyalty and I feel that his Kenyan, Luo, Muslim father, and his adopted Indonesian, Muslim father make him a unsuitable candidate for president. I have felt this since he was first nominated the media-designate for president. As for his alleged Christian faith, I have seen no evidence of it at all in his actions.
Re: “Personally, I think that common sense dictates that no dual-citizen ever become the commander-in-chief of any country. What if it became necessary to go to war against Kenya or Indonesia? Where would Obama stand then?’
Yes, but this is a decision that is left to the voters. You feel that way. I do not worry about it. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that there is a category of citizens who are disloyal or who may be disloyal, and there is nothing in the Constitution that says that there is a category of citizens (other than those who under under 35 or who have not resided for 14 years) who cannot be president.
Re: “Your response is based upon current citizenship law, as liberally interpreted, whereas my original statement was aimed towards the intentionality of the framers of the US Constitution.”
I believe that I have shown that my response was based on the meaning of the words Natural Born at the time of the writing of the Constitution.
The voters do not have the right to violate the Constitution. There is an amendment process to the Constitution; this means that if the voters wish to change the qualifications to something other than what the Constitution intends, they will have to go through the arduous process of amending the Constitution properly. Only through this process can it be determined that the states and people are in accord. It is, however, not right when a Party (in this case the Democrats) presents a candidate for President who is not qualified constitutionally for the office. Since Obama was born a dual citizen, he does not pass the test of natural-born. The voters were bamboozled by campaign rhetoric, but Obama never revealed to the people his true self during the election and his radical ties were hidden and downplayed by the media. So no, the voters do not have the right to violate the Constitution.
You certainly downplay and liberally interpret the term “natural born” and basically maintain that the words have no meaning at all. I reject that. The two terms “citizen” and “natural-born citizen” are distinct semantically. All natural-born citizens are citizens, but not all citizens are natural-born citizens.
As for the intended meaning of the Constitution at the time of writing, I believe you are wrong. You offer no proof. I offered a hypothetical scenario. Does that not elucidate the thinking of the framers, who wrote the Constitution after a war of Independence? If we wish to keep America secure, should we not adhere to the strict rather than the lax interpretation of the Constitution? Why would we want to take chance that the man is insincere in oath to protect the United States of America. History shows that it is unwise to place the security of a country in the hands of foreigners.
Re: “It is, however, not right when a Party (in this case the Democrats) presents a candidate for President who is not qualified constitutionally for the office.”
Obama is qualified because he was over 35, had spent at least 14 years in the USA and is a Natural Born Citizen. Natural Born Citizen simply means born in the USA, which Obama was.
Re: “The two terms “citizen” and “natural-born citizen” are distinct semantically. All natural-born citizens are citizens, but not all citizens are natural-born citizens.”
Yes there are citizens who are not Natural Born Citizens. They are Naturalized citizens. There are only two categories of citizen, Natural Born Citizens, meaning born in the USA, and Naturalized citizens. And, by the way, the world Naturalized comes straight from Natural Born. It means to make someone like a person who was Natural Born. Thus, a Natural Born citizen could not mean someone with any special qualifications, it could only mean someone who was born in the country.
Re: “ince Obama was born a dual citizen, he does not pass the test of natural-born.”
Dual Nationality does not affect Natural Born status. If it did, then the writers of the Constitution would have said something like: “Dual Nationals” are not allowed to be president. Or they would have defined Dual National.
There are no laws or statutes or letters saying that at the time of the writing of the Constitution Dual Nationals were not allowed, nor is there any quotation that I could find that said that Dual Nationality had some kind of impact on the Natural Born status.
Since the definition of Natural Born includes children who had one or more parents who were not citizens, it was inevitable that some of them were Dual Nationals. This did not affect the situation in Britain, and it did not affect it in the American colonies.
I say that it was inevitable because there are two kinds of birth right citizens. Our system is based on the place of birth, a citizen at birth, a Natural Born Citizen, is defined by the place. That is called Jus Soli, law of the place. However, such countries as France, Germany and Italy have long had laws that defined citizenship at birth as passed on by the parents. That is called Jus Sanguinis, law of the blood. So, whenever a parent or parents from a Jus Sanguinis country such as France, Germany and Italy traditionally, came to America and had a child, that child would be a dual national.
Moreover, even if the parents became US citizens before the birth of their child, some of those countries did not eliminate the dual nationality of the child. In other words, if a couple from Italy came to the USA and were naturalized and then had a child, Italy would still consider the child an Italian citizen.
This plays up the fundamental point that to believe that Dual Nationality affects Natural Born means that you essentially accept the foreign law. IF France says that little Joe is a French citizen, we must exclude him from Natural Born. If France changes the law, we can include him.
There are TWO reasons why Dual Nationality does not affect Natural Born status. (1) Since the term Natural Born is a geographic term, like Ohio-born, meaning in both cases born inside a specific territory, no law can affect the fact; and (2) We cannot allow foreign laws to affect the basic status of our citizens. If we did, then no children of parents from Jus Sangunis countries could be president, and it would theoretically be possible for a country that did not like a president to make him ineligible simply by declaring him a citizen of that country.
Another problem with the theory that Dual Nationality affects Natural Born status is that it is arguing from what one justice called “a penumbra.” I think the argument of that justice was that the “right of privacy” grew out of the feeling that privacy is a good thing, even though the Constitution did not say anything specific about it.
Well, the idea that Dual Nationality affects Natural Born also stems from a feeling, a feeling that having a Dual National as president increases foreign influence or puts the USA at risk in some way. BUT there is nothing specific in the Constitution that says that this is the case, and Natural Born at the time of the writing of the Constitution simply meant born in the country, colony, or state. And since at the time people from Jus Sanguinis countries were already coming to the USA and having children, and the were considered Natural Born along with those from Jus Soli countries, Dual Nationality did not affect Natural Born status then, and it does not now.
In addition to the Wall Street Journal, here are a couple of other legal experts who agree with the Journal.
Such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:
“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)
Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)
And besides, the quotations from the time of the Constitution show that Natural Born simply referred to birth in the country.
Most of what you say is based upon your own presuppositions and attempt at logic. But not upon case law. It seems to me that you have tried to simplify the matter too much, for the question of jus sanguinis is pertinent in US case law and opinion. Consider the following line from Minor v. Heppersett (http://supreme.justia.com/us/88/162/case.html ):
It is clear that the Supreme Court in 1872 considered the person merely born in a country one of whose parents was not a citizen of the US to be potentially ineligible for the the office of the President. Now if that is the case, how can you be so certain of your own interpretation that based upon nothing except your own opinion? It didn’t take me 10 minutes to find a court case the puts your view in doubt. Obama’s eligibility for president requires deliberation, discovery of evidence and potentially a Supreme Court decision. These things never happened in a court of law, though some tried to make it happen.
As regarding the 14th amendment that makes citizens of people born in the United States, the Slaughter house cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) includes the following lines:
Barack Obama’s father was citizen of a foreign State. While I don’t doubt that if indeed Obama was born in Hawaii, that he is a citizen, but it still does not make him a natural born citizen.
“Doubt” is not a decision either way. If the Minor case had said that at the time the court did NOT believe that a person without two US citizen parents was not a Natural Born Citizen, that is a precedent. But all that it was saying at the time was that it did not know.
So Minor is not a precedent. And its “doubt” was resolved in a subsequent case, Wing Kim Ark, in which the court had no doubt whatsoever, and it was a six to two ruling in which the majority had one view.
The Wong Kim Ark repeatedly quotes experts on British common law that Everybody born in England other than the children of foreign diplomats and the children of foreign enemies was considered a Natural Born subject. It then points out that in the colonies and in the USA the same rules applied. In other words, the USA had the same definition of Natural Born as the British did.
It then sets up a syllogism. You remember syllogisms? All men are mortal. Smith is a man. Therefore Smith is mortal. So, if all persons born in the USA are Natural Born, and Wong Kim Ark was born in the USA (and he was), then he was Natural Born.
Here is the quotation from the Wong case:
“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
EVERY CHILD (unless the children of ambassadors) was Natural Born. The same rule applied in the USA and continued to apply under the Constitution.
Wong was born in the USA (in California). Obama was born in the USA (in Hawaii).
And the sweeping statement EVERY CHILD is the reason that these Republican senators, who have no reason to support Obama, make statements like: “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)
But why is this so shocking? Every child born in Ohio is Ohio-born.
BHO senior was a student in the United States which resembles more the status of foreign national who has diplomatic status than a permanent alien who intends to make a home in the US, because he had no intention of making the US his permanent home, nor had he made any kind of oath of loyalty to the United States, whether explicit or implied. He was not therefore within the allegience, etc. of the United States at the time of BHO`s birth.
Why not just simply insist that a proper trial be had to determine BHO`s eligibility, to find out for example, what passport he used to travel to Pakistan (whether he even has a US passport), what hospital he was born in whether in Kenya or Hawaii, whether he was a Indonesia citizen as his school records say, whether his adopted name is Barry Soetoro. Who is this man any way, and why does he trash America when he speaks to the rest of the world? Is it because he is not really American and he hates this wonderful country? It would not surprise me since he is a disciple and admirer of Saul Alinsky.
Re: “because he had no intention of making the US his permanent home, nor had he made any kind of oath of loyalty to the United States, whether explicit or implied. He was not therefore within the allegience, etc. of the United States at the time of BHO`s birth.”
The common law is very specific. The children of even temporary residents of the country are Natural Born.
“Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;…” From the Wong Kim Ark case.
Note the words: “although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet…strong enough to make a natural subject,”
Re a proper trial. I have no objection. My discussion here is simply with the law. If the Supreme Court does not call this case, the reason is that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen and there are not even four votes to call the case. In the extremely unlikely event that there are four votes to call the case, Obama will win because Natural Born means born in the country, and he was.
Re: “what passport he used to travel to Pakistan (whether he even has a US passport), what hospital he was born in whether in Kenya or Hawaii, whether he was a Indonesia citizen as his school records say, whether his adopted name is Barry Soetoro.”
Obama never had an Indonesian passport because he was never an Indonesian citizen. The US State Department cleared that up in a legal filing (http://www.scribd.com/full/17508463?access_key=key-1vg7c228ugapeqcnkki6 ). The same document shows that Obama was never adopted. You can call the Indonesian Embassy in Washington to confirm. (202) 775-5200. I suggest you ask for the press officer.
Obama had a US passport from the time that he and his mother left Hawaii to travel to Indonesia, and he returned to the USA for high school using the same US passport. The allegations that a US citizen could not travel to Pakistan in 1981, when Obama did, are completely untrue. Pakistan was relatively peaceful in 1981, and newspapers were publishing travel articles about “scenic Lahore.”
That state department document is a farce. It is merely a motion to dismiss the case, and it is not offering any real evidence of an investigation.
A court case would be good so that we can see if Obama even had a US Passport with which he traveled to Pakistan. Let us see the stamps in the passport too. Where are the scans of the US Passport that Obama used?
Were you there when Obama was born? No. So you don’t know what you are talking about.
So please stop sending misinformation to this blog. We want, we demand that Obama prove where he was born, and that he was not adopted by his step-father Soetoro, and how it was that he was registered in an Indonesian school as an Indonesian as “Barry Soetoro” if he was not (1) Adopted by his Indonesian father; and (2) an Indonesian citizen at the time. Who cares what some corrupt press official at the stupid embassy will say. That is proof of nothing except that Indonesians can be corrupted the same as Kenyans, the same as the ACORN the organization that Obama has intimate ties with and is involved in tax fraud and voter fraud.
People like you are not interested in the truth, otherwise you wouldn’t be citing a document that offers no proof but asks only that the case be dismissed without an investigation.
http://www.daylife.com/photo/01u33pL9Ns06D
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=72656
NO president before Obama ever proved where he was born. Obama has proved it by showing the legal birth certificate of Hawaii, the facts on which were confirmed twice by the authorities in Hawaii.
The Wall Street Journal said: “Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn.”
Re: “how it was that he was registered in an Indonesian school as an Indonesian as “Barry Soetoro” if he was not.”
The answer how is that (1) he used the name of his stepfather, and (2) his parents lied and claimed that he was an Indonesian citizen, when he was not one. It is actually difficult to become an Indonesian citizen. But it is easy to lie about it. So the application to the Indonesian school is a lie.
In order to believe that the application to the Indonesian school is true, you have to believe that both the US and Indonesian governments are lying but that Obama’s parents were telling the truth. In fact, they were lying to get their child into the school (the application was not signed, you notice), and the US and Indonesian governments are telling the truth that Obama never became an Indonesian citizen and never was adopted.
So Obama’s parents were liars? You’re not reassuring me.
It is serious evidence when one of the close relatives of Obama claims that she saw him born in Kenya, and even tells us in what hospital. That is an eyewitness, which is worth more than a document, which can be falsified, and apparently, according to your understanding, Obama’s parents were practiced liars and were thus quite capable and willing to falsify documents like birth certificates.
While Obama’s grandmother has said that he was born in Kenya, we don’t even know the name of the doctor who attended Obama’s delivery in Hawaii.