I don’t answer your questions because I think you are nuts.
SOMEONE has to be the final interpreter of what words and phrases mean, and that role has been taken, right or wrong, by the courts. Since the Constitution doesn’t define NBC, someone has to...and YOU don’t get to do so.
I agree - we do not approve of dual citizenship, although we do acknowledge it exists. However, if someone refuses to acknowledge the claim of the other country - as is the case with Obama - then we consider them to be American only...hence the War of 1812.
What is your point? Do you agree that Obama is American, and only American?
Since the “WON” has refused to release his records, thereby showing by his actions are that NOT of an honorable & trustworthy person, I say we do not know WHO he is or what allegiances he holds. He appointees in government have stalled the release of his deceased parents records, which under US law are now part of the public domain. His appointees have ignored a federal appeals court order to release them, so what does that say? It says something smells rotten in Denmark!
The government given to us by the founders & framers was that could only exist under guide of moral, trustworthy & honorable men elected to office. NONE of these traits is held by the “WON”. He was born to a foreigner & what allegiances or inherent ties he holds is yet to placed on the table of scrutiny for “WE THE PEOPLE” to make an honest & educated decision from. DO YOU AGREE?
Let me expound on this a bit more. IF, and it is a big IF, Obama was born in Hawaii AND; IF, and it is a big IF, it is found that Obama’s parents were NOT married when he was born & that they were never legally married thereby legitimating the child , then & ONLY then can Obama claim to be a natural born citizen. It goes to the law in place in 1940 & NOT YET REPEALED that the child follows the condition of the father unless born out of wedlock. If the married parents were of different nationalities, then the child MUST at the coming of age, decide & take a formal oath if the child wishes to take the nationality of the mother, otherwise the derivative(consenting) citizenship of the father at birth is said to be his ONLY citizenship of allegiance. And then it was still further held to be determined by the laws of the nation in which the alien father held allegiance to because NOT all nations held that a child born on foreign soil to a mother married to an alien was at birth a citizen/subject. Only nations still practicing feudal law such as England & her colonies could make that claim & they were very few by that time. Most countries had also fought bloody wars and adopted the citizenship laws of nature/laws of nations. Kenya was still under British rule and thus according to their laws, they did NOT recognize the nationality of the mother if the parents were married or the child legitimated after birth.
So, what does this say of the “WON”? He either lied about his parents marital status & in today's age and the acceptance of single parents, what was there to gain by lying? On the other hand, if he lied about where he was born(regardless of parents marital status) then he was first & foremost an English subject at birth due to the subsequent Treaty between the US & England where it states that children born to a father who is an English subject are English subjects at birth regardless of the soil on which they are born. And also due to the fact that under the laws in place in 1961, his mother was not old enough to transmit citizenship to a child born outside of the US proper or any of its outlying territories, his birth falls into a very precarious situation. This is where it gets murky because then does the rule of the citizenship of the mothers father come into play if the child is born out of wedlock in a foreign country? From all the study that I have done I say no because of the codified/positive law in place in 1961, so the the only way for Obama to be a US citizen at birth,let alone a natural born one, his parents must NOT have ever been legally married & then to be a natural born, he must have been born in one of the states or outlying territories of the US. Any other circumstance leaves him a naturalized citizen under the statutes in place at the time.
Now, many will disagree with me on this final conclusion, but hey, its the law of nature & law of nations that were NOT restricted by the positive law of the US in 1961 as transcribed by Vattel. From 1795 forward, the US restricted natural born to those born on US soil, but still held those born in foreign nations to be citizens as long as the child took positive action at the coming of age formalizing that citizenship if the parents & child were still residing in the foreign country. Vattel did not make the law, he merely clarified what Socrates, Aristotle, Homer, Grotius, Puffendorf & all the other enlightened philosophers on the laws of nature & nations handed down to civilized societies from the 1st codified definition of a free citizen who is NOT subject to a mater or ruler, but an equal participant in the making of laws and the governing of the society in which he holds his political rights & permanent domicil.