Obama Was A Natural Born Subject: the Founders’ Greatest Fear As To Commander In Chief (LeoDonofrio)

Our current US President was a Great British citizen at the time of his birth. He then became a Kenyan citizen followed by what appears to be citizenship in Indonesia. Perhaps he is currently a citizen or subject of a nation other than the US. (That question will be the focus of my next article.)

Obama’s own web site carried an admission that his birth status was governed by Great Britain. That admission was published by Obama’s Fight The Smears web site as quoted from a discussion of Obama’s UK citizenship written by Factcheck.org.

The Factcheck.org essay went even further than the admission quoted by Obama’s site. It further stated:

“In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC…Obama’s British citizenship was short-lived.”

Neither Obama nor Factcheck.org dispute that Obama was a British citizen at birth. As you can see, it has been admitted. All those who continue to dispute this fact are delusional. Obama was a British citizen at birth. Fact. Checked. Established. The only question that remains on the issue is whether he’s still a British citizen or subject. (And that’s the topic of my next post.)

Having been a British citizen at birth, Obama was therefore a natural born subject of Great Britain. Justice Gray – writing for the Supreme Court majority in Wong Kim Ark – quoted the following from a prior US District Court decision:

“In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: ‘All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural- born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. ”

Birth and allegiance go together. Obama’s father conveyed British citizenship upon his son at birth. His son, Obama Jr., was a natural born subject of the British monarchy. Even if Obama was born in Hawaii and was a US citizen at birth, nothing can change the fact that he was also a natural born subject of Great Britain as well as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

The fact that Obama is a natural born subject has – up until this article – gone largely unnoticed. According to Blackstone’s Commentaries:

“all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception;”

Obama’s allegiance was – at the time of his birth – divided. And the framers would never have considered him eligible to be President. The same can be said for the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark which also indicated that the native born son of an alien was not natural born.

Now we shall turn our attention to the fears expressed by our founding fathers as to the possibility that foreigners might gain political footholds in our federal government. The issue was discussed explicitly by Alexander Hamilton in Essay 68 of the Federalist Papers wherein he stated:

In George Washington’s farewell address in 1796, he stated these most important words which today would be soundly ridiculed by the propaganda of political correct sarcasm:

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism…

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another…

If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield…

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government...

Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests…(Emphasis added.)

The main stream media would have you believe that a natural born subject – a citizen at birth of Great Britain – entangled closely with the nation of Kenya where he was a citizen until at least the age of 21 – and still may be according to Kenyan law – would be eligible to the office of President of the United States and to be its Commander In Chief. And they push this propaganda down your throat as if it weren’t even a serious issue.

They are lying to you and the depths of their lies betray their genuine recognition that a Constitutional crime has been committed against the Document and the judgment of the founders.

Your press, members of Congress, Senate and current Supreme Court have sold you out, America.

And that wickedness comes in the form of a “citizen of the world” who declares our Constitution a flawed document out of one side of his mouth, while allegedly declaring an oath to protect it from the other. (Although the oath was taken in private, so who really knows.) When I recently said I wasn’t worried about Obama, what I meant was that I wasn’t worried about him anymore than the Bush cabal or the Clintons. They all perpetrated crimes against the Constitution.

So many of you are now so very very concerned about our Constitution. Your patriotic fervor has been stoked by Hamilton and Washington just now as you wipe those Constitutional tears away. Your heart burns for the Constitution and the nation, doesn’t it.

But let me take this chance to tell those of you who supported torture, unconstitutional wars and the murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians – children, mothers, grandmothers – by the last administration – you don’t deserve the protections of our Constitution.

The Iraq war isn’t Constitutional. There was no declaration of war by Congress. And the war on terror is a myth. “War” is only declared against a foreign state – not an ideology. Terrorism is a crime and 911 should have been handled as a crime scene. But the forensic evidence was shipped out to China. And the case was solved in 24 hours by the same people who allegedly failed to stop it.

I’m not saying 911 was an “inside job” because nobody really knows the whole story. But anyone who denies that elements of the crime have been covered up is lying or just ignorant of basic facts.

And we’re not supposed to do torture. But Scalia would have you believe that torture isn’t a form of punishment. He might just consider it punishment if he were subjected to it. Scalia knows with absolute certainty that torture is punishment. But the Constitution protects against cruel and unusual punishment, so Scalia has to play word games to get the desired ruling he seeks. This makes him an enemy of the Constitution too.

There are many enemies of the Constitution in high places. But you only care about Obama? None of the above bothered so many of you. But now you want to preserve the Constitution?

This nation will not exist as a Constitutional republic for much longer. Nothing can be done to stop the utter dismantling of the Constitution. It will continue in name only. But the protections it once granted will be ancient relics of a failed experiment in liberty: not failed because our founding fathers didn’t prepare us – failed because we prostituted our ethics for revenge.

I’ve made the legal case that Obama is not a natural born citizen and should not be President. But he is President and Commander In Chief. Nothing will change that.

This country does not have the will power to change it. The country sold its soul to Bush, Clinton, Bush… You didn’t care about the Constitution then and you’re gonna get what you got coming to you now.

[Please see the article by Nancy Salvato, "What is a 'Natural Born Citizen'?". I relied on it to research this post.]

What is a “Natural Born Citizen?”

Nancy Salvato

Eligibility for POTUS interpreted by SCOTUS

US Schools require students to pass a Federal Constitution test before they graduate from the middle or senior grades. There are multiple opportunities to pass a test that asks students to memorize basic concepts, such as, how a bill becomes a law, the branches of government, checks and balances, and the requirements to hold office, yet, little in depth analysis about the philosophy and history that influenced the Framers is compulsory for students or teachers. Even more unlikely would be to expect them to consider the implications of subsequent legislation and landmark court cases on our interpretation of this document.

A civic-minded and responsible representative should provide constituents information about proposed bills and an analysis of how the legislation might impact the congressional district. Voters’ opinions about issues should be considered when voting on their behalf. In the real world, there is voter apathy, representatives without an understanding of the founding documents and who do not consider the consequences of ill-considered legislation, and special interests (factions) with unsurpassed influence in Congress. That said, many people would find themselves unable to explain the evolution of the phrase “natural born citizen” or understand or care why it matters.

According to Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, no person except a “natural born citizen” (citizen at birth) shall be eligible to the office of President. Until 1866, the citizenship status of persons born in the United States was not defined in the Constitution or in any federal statute. However, under the common law rule of jus soli -- the law of the soil -- persons born in the United States generally acquired U.S. citizenship at birth.

Constitutional Convention

John M. Yinger, Trustee Professor of Public Administration and Economics, The Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University, and Associate Director for Metropolitan Studies Program and Director, Education Finance and Accountability Program, Center for Policy Research wrote:

The delegates at the Constitutional Convention were deeply concerned about foreign influence on the national government, and in particular on the President. .. they wanted the Legislature to select the President, and they tried to limit foreign influence on the President by devising time-of-citizenship requirements for members of the Legislature. Ultimately, however, the Convention decided that a President elected by the Legislature could not be insulated from foreign influence and it turned, instead, to the Electoral College.

In one sense, the switch to the Electoral College lowered the need for explicit presidential qualifications because it minimized the line of potential foreign influence running through the Legislature. In another sense, however, this switch broke the clear connection between the citizenship requirements of legislators and the selection of the President, and therefore boosted the symbolic importance of a citizenship requirement for the President. This change in context, along with the Convention's decision to make the President the commander-in-chief of the army, gave new weight to the arguments in Jay's letter, and in particular to the suggestion in that letter that the presidency be restricted to "natural born" citizens.

On March 25, 1800, [Charles] Pinckney made the only documented statement by one of the Founders connecting the Electoral College and the presidential eligibility clause. The Founders "knew well," he said that to give to the members of Congress a right to give votes in this election, or to decide upon them when given, was to destroy the independence of the Executive, and make him the creature of the Legislature. This therefore they have guarded against, and to insure experience and attachment to the country, they have determined that no man who is not a natural born citizen, or citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, of fourteen years residence, and thirty-five years of age, shall be eligible....

The Federalist Papers

The Federalist Papers (Oct 1787-May 1788) are 85 essays written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison. Professor Yinger explained that the main focus of essays 2-5, written by Jay, and titled “Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence" is on

the need for a strong central government to protect a nation from foreign military action, they also suggest that a strong central government can help protect a nation from "foreign influence." Concern about foreign influence also appears in essay number 20, written by Hamilton and Madison; essay number 43 by Madison; and essays number 66 and 75 by Hamilton. Moreover, the role of the presidential selection mechanism in limiting foreign influence is explicitly discussed by Hamilton in essay number 68.

Hamilton said:

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors.

Rest here:

http://www.worldandi.com/subscribers/feature_detail.asp?num=26823

Starwise, I expect, since you have always been thorough and careful, that you noticed that in the reference, the Nancy Salvato article in WorldandI, Ms. Salvato makes an inadmissible translation for us: In the paragraph ‘Defining a “Natural a natural born citizen” she says

“The Courts have taken other ideas into consideration when determining who qualifies as a “natural born citizen.””

Here is the statement from

TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:”

Title 8 does not address natural born citizens. I will assume Ms. Salvato innocently made the inference, but, as has been stated in many places in supreme court decisions, a ‘citizen of the United States at birth’ is not necessarily a ‘natural born citizen’. Natural born citizens are a subset of citizens of the U.S. at birth, those whose parents are both citizens.

I will be heartened if I see that others have also noted this. Word and definitions mean something in the laws which are intended to protect our liberties.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.