Replies

The author is correct in this article, but I do see your confusion. The fullness of the Constitutional passage you refer to answers your question. 'No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President' A US Citizen 'at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution'. Unless Obama wants to claim he was born around 1787, and I'd STILL expect him to show the official document that proves that claim, then if he's a Citizen, but not a natural born Citizen, then he never did qualify to even RUN for, let alone be sworn in as POTUS. The statement is as clear as day that the founders saw a specific set of distinctions between a 'Citizen' and a 'natural born Citizen'. There is nothing at all fuzzy about this, yet so many appear to be confused. Presidential candidates are the ONLY positions for which this higher standard of citizenship was adopted. It must have meant a great deal to the founders when considering the qualifications for the office of CIC of the US Military. Why then would the term be completely meaningless today? The commies of every persuasion would love to subvert ANY Constitutional provision, just to make a point that fits their agenda. Their long term strategy is to make null and void the US Constitution. That effort MUST be resisted by EVERY generation. 'No Person except ..' There is NOTHING that can be mistaken here, except for the actual meaning of natural born Citizen at the time of the writing of the Constitution. Many Americans have been easily convinced that being a Citizen, by say the definition within the 14th amendment, is the same exact thing ... no difference ... as the conditions by which one is a natural born Citizen. I have been told as absolute indisputable fact that there are only two kinds of US Citizens, native and naturalized, and that the Constitution never intended to create a third type, and even if it had, the 14th amendment nullified it. That's all bunk! The MSM would LOVE everyone to adopt that nifty modern interpretation that there is absolutely no distinction of the former to that of natural born and that only the latter was meant to be excluded from POTUS. It's revisionist history that began when this issue first surfaced in 2008 and it should be challenged even if just to make a point, that the document is the LAW of the land, period. Those who intentionally subvert it are traitors, period. "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." JUST DO THAT Mr. Obama, otherwise ANYONE in Congress should be able to call you to answer for your failure to preserve, protect and defend the US Constitution. Tell us who's your daddy; and tell us which other nations have documentation which claim you as their native son. Show us the real BC; and since you've been such a royal AH about it all this time, let's see those college admission and transcript records, and travel records, and law practice records. WTF you think you are doesn't matter a wit. You've never tried to earn the trust of American Citizens and you, therefore, do not have their trust. Boo Hoo ! Somehow, I don't expect Barry to respond to this, or any request, but that of a Congressional inquiry. Now, if officially asked today by Congress to do so, what would SCOTUS decide the requirements are to be considered 'natural born Citizen', to which in ALL of the United States, ONLY POTUS and VPOTUS candidates have any requirement to demonstrate. No other US Citizen is EVER held to this high standard of citizenship for ANY activity. Yet we ALL are proud to show our Citizenship documents when required. It could just come down to these requirements needing to be clearly defined, and if done in today's warped courts, Obambi likely wins, IF he can only prove to be at least a "Citizen' child of one 'Citizen' parent regardless of where her water broke, which of course would be a complete travesty of justice or, as some would call it, 'social justice'. Is it 1984 yet ? P.S. I really did try to include paragraphs, but it wouldn't keep them.