I’m totally not understanding the comparison you’re drawing on this thread. The situation in Washington’s time was just a TAD bit different than the possible situation with Obama. ALL of our founding fathers were subjects of the crown UNTIL they signed the Declaration of Independence - at which time they had effectively rejected their English citizenship, publicly declaring themselves to no longer be under the jurisdiction of King George. Whether the crown would recognize their citizenship really matters not. What did matter is that they had sworn allegiance to each other against their former master, which was the foundation of our country itself - thereby swearing their allegiance to our country, and no longer wishing to be subjects of the crown. So, there were hardly any “dual allegiances” in this regard (even if King George wanted to call them English citizens and terrorists).
As for Obama - again a BIG difference. The most glaringly obvious problem with all of these things is that he is not being forthright about any of these things. Why do these issues keep cropping up - where there is smoke there is fire...
Suggestion: read the Constitution. It was contained express provisions dealing with the fact that at the time of the founding there were citizens - MOST of em, in fact - who were NOT “native born” or “natural born” American Citizens.
What muyiaheah is trying to do by dragging in another total irrelevancy is completely beyond my comprehension.