ok, fill me on what i am missing. i’d like to agree with you but fill me in on some facts.
you state: “Let’s not forget the foundational issue. He was a dual citizen at birth, thus ineligible to be President. The issue is not whether he is an American citizen or not; the issue is he does not have two Americans as his parents. Thus, he is not natural born, and cannot be President.”
my wife is canadian, but my kids (i’m u.s. citizen, born here) born here in the u.s. are u.s. citizens only, not dual citizens. as far as i can tell in reading up on things they are considered “natural born” u.s. citizens.
now, i’m assuming based on your statement that his case is different as you state “he was dual citizen at birth”. for the sake of argument let’s assume he is a u.s. citizen born in hawaii to a mother of u.s. citizenship. what in his case makes him “dual citizen at birth” and therefore not “natural born”?
There is no evidence to suggest he was born in Hawaii. No doctor or nurse living in Hawaii was present at his birth. Numerous Kenyan relatives talked about Obama being being born in Kenya, and claimed to be there for the birth, until the Kenyan authorities (his cousin is prime minister) realized this would give him legal and political difficulties, and his Kenyan relatives got the hint.
In addition, in July 2009, Hawaii changed the information given on copies of birth certificates, and no longer lists the country of birth on birth certificates for the time period in question. Hawaii had only recently become a state when Obama was born, and at that time still issued Hawaiian birth certificates to Hawaiians born abroad.
At the Columbia University 20th year reunion held in 2003, no one at the reunion had any recollection of Obama attending any class with them in the period 1980-1983. Since he was the featured speaker, and since politicians typically have hundreds of acquaintances from their college years, this is especially troubling. This is in stark contrast to his Occidental and Harvard years, where he is widely known.
For Obama, his father was a British subject, and under British law at the time, Obama was a British subject as well. Obama, assuming he was born in Hawaii, can claim American citizenship through his mother. Thus, my comment about him being a dual citizen. What law applied to him?
That is a question.
What is not a question, though, is that since his father was NOT a citizen of America, Obama was not a natural born citizen.
A natural born citizen is not just a citizen born in the country, he has to have two parents who are citizens of the country at his birth.
I can’t speak to your situation specifically, only to say that if your wife was not born in America or naturalized as an American citizen prior to your children’s birth, those children are not natural born. They are American citizens, but not natural born citizens.
Natural born has a specific meaning—having two parents that are Americans. The Founders understood that and wanted the President to be someone who would not have divided loyalties.
I am not natural born. My father was an American citizen, but my mother was not naturalized until years after I was born. I am not eligible to be President of the United States, even though I was born here.
Let me pick this up for you.
I was born here, in the U.S., to two British Subjects. Briefly put, I am a Citizen, but not a Natural-Born Citizen, as both of my parents had allegiances to The United Kingdom.
Baracks father was also a British Subject at the time of his birth, and British Law made him a Subject, at birth.
Obamas’ mother was 18 years old when he was born. The law, at that time stated that she could only confer citizenship to offspring if she lived here for 5 years after her 14th birthday. Thus she would have to be 19 to confer citizenship.
As Obama Sr. was a British Subject, Jr., at best, has dual-citizenship.
That’s why we should not care where the Dalai-Bama was born.
He is NOT a Natural-Born Citizen.
The definition of ‘natural born citizen’ is historically more tight than that of ‘citizen’.
The Founders were worried about allegiances of those in office, as many at the time were loyal to the Crown or were from families that were loyal to the Crown of England.
Also many of the Founders themselves were born of parents that were subjects of the Crown, so they wrote the elgibility as ‘natural born citizen’ rather than just citizen.
And the meaning was made clear by legal writings that ‘natural born’ was defined as having two parents who were citizens.
Thus, the issue is whether a candidate is eligible if he or she has a parent that is not a US citizen because there is a doubt whether a child raised under such circumstances would feel natural loyalty to their country.
In Obama’s case I do not think he feels natural loyalty to America, he is apologetic for America to a fault, he addresses foreigners as ‘citizens of the world’, he does not salute the flag nor put his hand on his heart when he hears the National Anthem. These are signs that the person of Obama was raised in an environment that was not proud of America and what America stands for. From the little known of his mother, I believe she had issues with American ideals and culture and I believe she allowed her son to be coached and influenced by the communist Frank Marshall.
The fatherly influence of communist Frank Marshall is I believe the root of Obama’s political development and Obama continued receiving a similar perspective from Jeremiah Wright.
His upbringing appears to be almost everywhere anti-American.
To get back to your question, I believe that if Obama had had an American citizen father, his upbringing would have been different and he would possibly have a different view of America.
So the issue of ‘natural born’ is I believe a legitimate issue as it goes to loyalty and faithfulness to country.
She had to be 19 when whelping she was only 18!!!
If this doesn’t knock you out of your chair, nothing will. Linked is Senate Resolution 511 (April ‘08) where a small 6 member committee, including Obama, was to determine if McCain was an eligible candidate on his questionable natural born citizenship status. Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, a former Federal judge, also chimed in. They played loose with the interpretation since McCain wasn’t born on the US military base (i.e. US soil) but instead outside the US Panama Canal Zone. However, the zinger is that Obama sat on that committee, discussed the US Constitutional requirements for eligibility, and voted on the meaning of natural born citizenship. From Democrat Leahy’s site they discussed the meaning as being born of “citizens” with an “s” meaning both parents - “At a Judiciary Committee hearing on April 3, Leahy asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, himself a former Federal judge, if he had doubts that McCain was eligible to serve as President.
“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied.
“That is mine, too,” said Leahy.”
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sr110-511
Below speaks to a letter from John Jay to George Washington concerning Art. II and that “the Commander in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen.” Read further for more info on why the founders specified “natural born” rather than native citizen or naturalized citizen or plain citizen.
The below discusses some history of NBC including mention of Vattel. Do a search for Vattel’s Law of Nations from where our founders drew many of their ideals for a fuller understanding of the history of the term and why it is so important. Bottom line, Obama is a usurper and is not in any fashion eligible to hold office.
http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html