Replies

Obama's birth certificate is irrelevant to the issue of his eligibility for the office of President. It doesn't matter where he was born, whether in Kenya, Hawaii, or the west wing of the White Hut, or on another planet.

His father was not a citizen of the USA. Therefore, he does not have unquestioned and sole allegiance to the USA, as the framers determined was necessary to be President. Therefore, he is not, never was, and never will be, eligible to legitimately hold the office of President of the USA. This is a known fact, and the only fact necessary to determine his ineligibility for the presidency.

Unfortunately, the stupid people are learning the hard way, right along with the rest of us, just why having such a usurper in the highest office is a great danger to the USA and its citizens.

Obama’s birth certificate is irrelevant to the issue of his eligibility for the office of President. It doesn’t matter where he was born, whether in Kenya, Hawaii, or the west wing of the White Hut, or on another planet.
His father was not a citizen of the USA. Therefore, he does not have unquestioned and sole allegiance to the USA, as the framers determined was necessary to be President. Therefore, he is not, never was, and never will be, eligible to legitimately hold the office of President of the USA. This is a known fact, and the only fact necessary to determine his ineligibility for the presidency.

Unfortunately, the stupid people are learning the hard way, right along with the rest of us, just why having such a usurper in the highest office is a great danger to the USA and its citizens.

The Courts have disagreed with you and the US Supreme Court isn’t interested.

“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by [the Supreme Court of the United States in their 1898 decision in the case of U.S. v.] Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, “Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels,” Nov. 12, 2009

His father was not a citizen of the USA. Therefore, he does not have unquestioned and sole allegiance to the USA, as the framers determined was necessary to be President. Therefore, he is not, never was, and never will be, eligible to legitimately hold the office of President of the USA. This is a known fact, and the only fact necessary to determine his ineligibility for the presidency.

I agree. If we were in a war with Kenya, Great Britain, or Indonsia, who would Obama hold allegiance to? I would like to believe that he would side solely with the U.S., but we cannot argue that military decisions may be somewhat biased because of this. If I were to force requirements on a president, I would certainly only want one whose sole allegiance is to the United States... no dual citizens need apply.