Barack Obama -- Natural Born Citizen

Natural Born Citizen

Obama is a citizen. He's just not a natural born citizen.

item	background
Note:	Items posted to this page are in the order discovered. There is some chronological placement.
The Issue	The question that the court must decide is whether a person governed by the laws of Great Britain at the time of their birth could be considered a natural "born citizen" of the United States as required by Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of our Constitution. No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. The question remains unanswered in any United States court.
The Chart	People are confused because they don't understand the meaning of the relevant legal terms. This chart shows the elements for each of the constitutional terms that are used in the Constitution or in caselaw by the Supreme Court. For each presidential candidate, they can put the factual history of their birth in the equation and see if they fit the bill to be president of the U.S. under the Constitution of the United States of America, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, and the 14th Amendment, Section 1, and the relevant federal law under U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), and Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939). As you can clearly see, Obama is a citizen of the United States, but he's not a "natural born citizen" of the United States, and, as such, is not eligible for POTUS, because his father, a Kenyan, was not a U. S. citizen. Your browser does not support inline frames or is currently configured not to display inline frames.
Obama...	is not a "natural born citizen" because his father was a Kenyan national and a British subject. To be a natural born citizen, a person's parents must BOTH be citizens of the United States of America. Further, that person must be born in the United States. is a "citizen" because his mother was an American citizen. There are question about his birthplace and whether he was naturalized after his period of time as an Indonesian citizen. may be a "native born citizen" -- a child born in the United States of foreign (non-citizen) parents. He will have to release his birth certificate, which he hasn't, to ascertain this status.
John Jay	The term natural born citizen was first codified in writing in colonial reference books in 1758 in the legal reference book "Law of Nations." That legal reference book was used by John Jay, who later went on to become the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Jay had the clause inserted into the Constitution via a letter he wrote to George Washington, the leader of the Constitutional Convention. Jay was considered the outstanding legal scholar of his time and he was the one is responsible for inserting that term into the U. S. Constitution, which was derived from the Law of Nations. John Jay wrote: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."
Law Of Nations	Emmerich de Vattel was a Swiss jurist who attained world preeminence in international law. This was primarily the result of his great foundational work, which he published in 1758. His monumental work -- The Law of Nations -- applied a theory of natural law to international relations. His scholarly, foundational, and systematic explanation of the Law of Nations was especially influential in the United States. The Law of Nations was so influential in the United States because his principles of liberty and equality coincided with the ideals expressed in the U. S. Declaration of Independence. In particular, his definitions in terms of Law governing nations regarding citizenship, defense of neutrality, and his rules for commerce between neutral and belligerent states were considered authoritative in the United States. Many have said that de Vattel's Law of Nations was THE primary reference and defining book used by the framers of the U. S. Constitution. It is really not possible to overstate the influence of de Vattel's Law of Nations as the primary reference book in the drafting of the U. S. Constitution. Emmerich de Vattel's Law of Nations is almost beyond comparison in its value as a defining document regarding U. S. Constitution intent and interpretation. The Law of Nations, or the Principles of Natural Law, published in 1758, is the first, and ONLY, definitive work the Framers of the U. S. Constitution used for the inclusion of the "Natural Born Citizen" phrase. It nails what is meant by the "natural born citizen" phrase of Section 1, Article 2, of the U. S. Constitution. It is amazing how perfectly, precisely, and explicitly what Emmerich de Vattel, wrote in paragraph 212, of book 1, chapter 19, of The Law of Nations entitled CITIZENS AND NATIONS, applies to the Obama FRAUD. Quite clearly and explicitly it defines why Obama, can NOT possibly be qualified to be the President of the United States. Obama MUST be disqualified from the office of President of the United States according to the U. S. Constitution Section 1 Article 2. "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. THE COUNTRY OF THE FATHERS IS THEREFORE THAT OF THE CHILDREN."
It's About Loyalty	The Founders wanted the President to be a Natural Born Citizen to ensure that the ONE person sitting at the top of the Executive branch had UNQUESTIONABLE, UNWAVERING loyalty to the United States, first and foremost. At one point, the delegates writing the Constitution in 1787 considered THREE "presidents" in the Executive for "checks and balances." They considered a "natural born citizen" clause for Senators as well. Debating those issues, they felt that a "natural born citizen" clause for Senators would limit the pool of possible candidates and could cause bad feelings with immigrants needed to "jump start" the newly-formed republic. In the end, the Framers compromised that Senators be required to be US residents for 9 years, while striking the "natural born citizen" clause for the office. The Framers also compromised on ONE Executive vs. THREE. But to ensure "checks and balances," the Framers inserted in Art II, Sect. 1, Clause 5: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President..." The natural born citizen clause was NOT an accident, nor was it an inane rule to be restrictive to immigrants, and it certainly isn't just a "political" issue. Loyalty to the US is the reason the natural born citizen clause was inserted into the Constitution.
1st U. S. Congress
Parents (pl)	In the official copies of the THIRD U.S. Congress (1795) margin notes state "Former act repealed. 1790. ch. 3." referencing the FIRST U.S. Congress (1790). Document ONE: the actual text of the THIRD CONGRESS in 1795 states, "...children of citizens [plural, i.e. two parents] of the United States...shall be considered citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States..." (THIRD CONGRESS Sess. II. Ch.21. 1795, Approved January 29, 1795, pp. 414-415. Document margin note: "How children shall obtain citizenship through their parents" Document margin note: "Former Act repealed 1790 ch.3.") See Attachment A. Document TWO: the actual text of the FIRST CONGRESS in 1790 states, "...children of citizens (NB: plural, i.e. two parents) of the United States...shall be considered as natural born citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States..." (FIRST CONGRESS Sess. II Ch.4 1790, Approved March 26, 1790, pp. 103-104. Document margin note: "Their children residing here, deemed citizens." Document margin note: "Also, children of citizens born beyond sea, & c. Exceptions.") See Attachment B. Document THREE: the actual text of the Constitution from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789, and subsequent official printings, of the Constitution of the United States of American: Article II Section 1 Clause 5 states, "No person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President�" See Attachment C. Source
John Bingham	Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms that understanding and the construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866: " ... I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents (plural, meaning two) not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen..." Bingham is also quoted saying in the Spring of 1868 some serious warnings: "May God forbid that the future historian shall record of this day's proceedings, that by reason of the failure of the legislative power of the people to triumph over the usurpations of an apostate President, the fabric of American empire fell and perished from the earth!...I ask you to consider that we stand this day pleading for the violated majesty of the law, by the graves of half a million of martyred hero-patriots who made death beautiful by the sacrifice of themselves for their country, the Constitution and the laws, and who, by their sublime example, have taught us all to obey the law; that none are above the law..."
14th Amendment	The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution is one of the post-Civil War Reconstruction Amendments, first intended to secure the rights of former slaves. It was proposed on June 13, 1866, and ratified on July 9, 1868. The amendment provides a broad definition of citizenship, overruling Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) which had excluded slaves and their descendants from possessing Constitutional rights. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The 14th Amendment does not address the "natural born citizen" issue, only citizenship.
Minor v. Happersett	Natural Born status is mentioned in case law: Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168 "'At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents [plural] who were its citizens [plural], became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.' Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168." Under Happersett, a natural born citizen is clarified to mean born citizen without a doubt. Doubt entered the picture due to Obama being born a British citizen under The British Nationality Act of 1948, in effect at the time of his birth. He cannot be, as a state of nature, considered a born citizen of the United States, when he was born British.
Chester Arthur	Chester A. Arthur perpetrated a fraud as to his eligibility to be Vice President by spreading various lies about his parents' heritage. Arthur's father, William Arthur, became a United States citizen in August 1843, but Arthur was born in 1829 -- 14 years before. Therefore, Arthur was a British Citizen by descent, and a dual citizen at birth, if not his whole life. He wasn't a "natural born citizen" and he knew it. We've also uncovered many lies told by Arthur to the press which kept this fact from public view when he ran for Vice President in 1880. Garfield won the election, became President in 1881, and was assassinated by a fanatical Chester Arthur supporter that same year. Historical facts here.
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark	U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark's (1898) importance is that it is the first case decided by the Supreme Court that attempts to explain the meaning of "natural born citizen" under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Natural born citizen is similar to the meaning of what a natural born subject is under Common Law in England. That is one of the reasons why the framers specifically included a grandfather clause (natural born Citizen OR a Citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution). The founding fathers knew that in order to be president, they had to grandfather themselves in because they were British subjects. If they didn't, they could not be President of the U.S. The holding in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark states that Wong Kim Ark is a native born citizen. If you look at the fact of Wong Kim Ark being born in San Francisco, CA, of Chinese parents, that holding is correct. In U. S. v Wong Kim Ark, the court thoroughly discussed "natural born citizen," and in doing so, Justice Gray quoted directly from the holding in a prior Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett (above).
Perkins v. Elg	Perkins v. Elg's (1939) importance is that it actually gives examples of what a "natural born citizen" of the U.S. is; what a "citizen" of the U.S. is; and what a "native born citizen" of the U. S. In this case, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a "natural born citizen" is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S. Citizen: On cross appeals, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decree, 69 App.D.C. 175, 99 F.2d 408. Certiorari was granted, December 5, 1938, 305 U.S. 591, 59 S.Ct. 245, 83 L.Ed. --. First.-- On her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. Civil Rights Act of 1866: Ms. Elg was found to be a "citizen" because she was born in the mainland USA (New York) Native Born citizen: This principle was clearly stated by Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont in his letter of advice to the Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, in Steinkauler's Case, 1875, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15. The facts were these: One Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848, was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis. Four years later Steinkauler returned to Germany taking this child and became domiciled at Weisbaden where they continuously resided. When the son reached the age of twenty years the German Government called upon him to report for military duty and his father then invoked the intervention of the American Legation on the ground that his son was a native citizen of the United States. To an inquiry by our Minister, the father declined to give an assurance that the son would return to this country within a reasonable time. On reviewing the pertinent points in the case, including the Naturalization Treaty of 1868 with North Germany, 15 Stat. 615, the Attorney General reached the following conclusion: 'Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. Mr. Steinkauler was found to be a "native born citizen" because he was born in the mainland USA (St. Louis) Natural Born Citizen: U. S. Supreme Court's Relevant Facts: Miss Elg was born in Brooklyn, New York, on October 2, 1907. Her parents, who were natives of Sweden, emigrated to the United States sometime prior to 1906 and her father was naturalized here in that year. In 1911, her mother took her to Sweden where she continued to reside until September 7, 1929. Her father went to Sweden in 1922 and has not since returned to the United States. In November, 1934, he made a statement before an American consul in Sweden that he had voluntarily expatriated himself for the reason that he did not desire to retain the status of an American citizen and wished to preserve his allegiance to Sweden. [Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 327 (1939).] U. S. Supreme Court's Holding: The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 57 S.Ct. 461, 81 L.Ed. 617, 108 A.L.R. 1000) declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. [Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 350 (1939).] Rationale of the logic is as follows: The U. S. Supreme Court in 1939 held that Elg was a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN because she was born in Brooklyn, New York on October 2, 1907, her father was naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1906 under the Naturalization Act of 1906, and her mother derived her US citizenship in 1907 under the Expatriation Act of 1907. The Expatriation Act of 1907 extended the logic linking a woman's citizenship to her marital status and the status of her spouse. Ms. Elg was found to be a "natural born citizen" because she was born in the mainland USA (New York) of TWO US citizen parents. As the above chart clearly shows: You can be a "citizen" under the following circumstances: 1. You were born of one citizen parent (Obama), or 2. You were born in the US mainland (anchor babies -- DEL), or 3. You were naturalized (Schwarzenegger). To be a "natural born citizen" you must be born in the US mainland of two US citizen parents. Obama is a citizen -- not a natural born citizen because he was (probably) born in the State of Hawaii of one US citizen parent.
The Acts of 1906 and 1907	After the Naturalization Act of 1906 created the Naturalization Standards for U.S. Citizenship, Congress passed the Expatriation Act of 1907 to allow SPOUSES of naturalized U.S. citizens to be considered naturalized U.S. citizens as well. Perkins v. Elg doesn't explain that but that was THE LAW ENACTED at the time when Elg was born in New York. The Court's job is to apply the relevant facts to the law. The law as discussed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898 was that in order to be a "natural born citizen," you had to be born in the U.S. Mainland AND born to U.S. Citizens PARENTS (PLURAL NOT SINGULAR). The key here is BOTH PARENTS WERE U.S. CITIZENS at the time of Elg's birth. The U.S. Supreme Court, in 1939, ruled that Elg was a "natural born citizen" using DEDUCTIVE REASONING to clarify why. The law is corroborated. All you have to do is read the Expatriation Act of 1907 (federal statute) as proof. Remember, Elg was born prior to enactment of the U. S. Constitution's Nineteenth Amendment, ratified on August 18, 1920, and a woman's status was tied to that of her husband.
Derivative Law	Elg's Mother derived US citizenship when her father was naturalized. This was automatic -- it's called derivative citizenship. These are the forms of derivative citizenship that were effective due to federal statute at the time Elg was born: 1. An alien woman obtained automatic US citizenship when she married a US citizen male. 2. An alien woman obtained automatic us citizenship when her alien husband became naturalized. So, in 1907 when Elg was born on US soil, both of her parents were US citizens, therefore she was a "natural born citizen." Funny thing is, when the US Supreme Court decided the case, the derivative citizen laws had changed, however, they retroactively applied them... because they had to. They had to use the law at the time of Elg's birth... because that's when she was born, hence she was a natural born citizen at the time of her birth and nothing could change that. In essence, the 19th Amendment gave a woman equal footing under the law overriding the common law (e.g. judge made law) which referred to women as "property" of a man. That is the essence of derivative citizenship.
19th Amendment	The Nineteenth Amendment (Amendment XIX) to the United States Constitution prohibits each of the states and the federal government from denying any citizen the right to vote because of that citizen's sex. It was ratified on August 18, 1920. Prior to this date, a woman's citizenship was derived from her husband. If the husband was an American citizen, then the wife was an American citizen (derivative law). This fact plays a role in determining natural born citizen status -- two American citizen parents. With the passage of the 19th Amendment, a woman's citizenship status is determined on her parents, place of birth or naturalization.
Immigration And Naturalization	1952 Immigration and Nationality Act Title3 Chapter1, Nationality at Birth and by Collective Naturalization.
Two Citizen Parents	Why does it require two citizen parents? What is the policy behind the language requiring two US citizen parents? Policy as used with regards to the drafting of laws is a legal term of art. It's analogous to concern. What legal concern is acknowledged by requiring two citizen parents? Leo Donofrio addresses why Senate Resolution 511 doesn�t state that a person born abroad to one citizen parent is a natural born citizen.
Even Wikipedia	Even Wikipedia gets it right: "It is generally agreed that these constitutional provisions mean anyone born on American soil to parents who are U.S. citizens is a "natural born citizen" eligible to someday become president or vice-president..." Two American parents and on American soil -- simple as that.
All Ineligible	All three of the 2008 presidential candidates, Obama (aka Soetoro), McCain, and Calero were not eligible under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution to serve as Commander-in-Chief. Just like a residential purchase of a home is void if fraud in the inducement (where one party conceals a material fact that if people knew about it ahead of time, they would not enter into a residential purchase of a home), the same thing has occurred with the primaries and presidential election on November 4, 2008. Because these three candidates (Obama (aka Soetoro), McCain, and Calero) were ineligible under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, the 2008 presidential election and its results should be voided. Regardless of what game of charades people in the mainstream media and people within our federal government are trying to pull. That is a legal fact that can not be disputed. Obama has only one US citizen parent. His father was British subject and a Citizen of Kenya -- as was Obama. McCain was not born in the mainland US. John Sidney McCain III was born at the Colon Hospital, located at Avenida Melendez and 2nd Street, Manzanillo Island, City of Colon, Republic of Panama. The time of birth on the birth certificate issued by Panama Railroad Company (which owned the Colon Hospital) was 5:25 PM and the day and date of birth was Saturday, August 29, 1936. Calero was not born in the mainland US. He was born in Nicaragua.
Senate Judicial Committee Chairman Says Obama Not Eligible	On April 10, 2008, Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) introduced a resolution expressing the sense of the U.S. Senate that presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was a 'natural born Citizen,' as specified in the Constitution and eligible to run for president. Sen. McCaskill knew Obama was not a U.S. Citizen, that's why she introduced this bill -- dressing it up to look like it was in Sen. John McCain's cause. It was during the bill's hearing that Sen. Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made the following statement: "Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen," said Leahy. "I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the Senate." 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. What's interesting here is that Sen. Leahy, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary, confirms that a "natural born" citizen is the child of American citizen parents. Parents -- that's two. That's BOTH parents. Every time the words, "citizen" and "parent," are used by Sen. Leahy and Sec. Chertoff, the plural case, "citizens" and "parents," is used. The plural case is the operative case. It is Sen. Leahy's opinion -- his own recorded words, in a formal Senate Resolution and on his U. S. Senate website -- that Barack Obama is not a "natural born" citizen, and therefore not eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief, regardless of his birthplace. Obama had one American parent --singular -- his mother. His father was a citizen of Kenya, and a subject of Great Britain. Obama, himself, "at birth," was a citizen of Kenya, and a subject of Great Britain -- he says so on his own campaign website. This fact introduces the concept of "divided loyalties," -- the reason the founders created the eligibility requirement in the first place -- a fact that further underlines Obama's ineligibility. The source of this information is Sen. Leahy's own website. The webpage contains a statement about the resolution; the resolution, itself; the Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.); and an excerpt of Sec. Chertoff's testimony. The plural word "parents" is used four times. When used to identify the parents, the word "citizens" is used five times. That's nine times that Sen. Leahy, on his own website describes the eligibility requirement. There is NO PLACE in any of these four documents where the singular case of "parent" or "citizen" is used. The real purpose of this bill was to change article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States with reference to the requirements of being a "natural born citizen" by the Democratic Party leadership -- paving the way for an Obama run. Both Leahy and Chertoff avoid addressing the "in the US mainland" (jus solis) element of the eligibility requirement and focus solely on parentage (Jus sanguinis) in making their arguments and by doing so bring focus to the fundamental reason Obama is not qualified. He had one American parent and one foreign parent. Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen -- no matter where he was born. Obama is a co-signer of this resolution. So, I guess he too agrees that one needs two American parents to be eligible for POTUS -- except he doesn't care -- after all, he's the Obamamessiah. Rules don't apply to him.
35 Or 36	Since the 1870s, assorted Congress critters have attempted to define or redefine "natural born" citizen status nearly 30 times! There were five attempts to re-define "natural born" citizen status since 2001 -- that's six attempts, if you include Sen. Leahy's Resolution for McCain in March 2008.
Rule Of Law	All U. S. military personal and every other American under oath to protect and defend the U. S. Constitution will be duty bound to remove the fraudulent usurper. This situation is REGARDLESS of votes, electors, media blackouts, high profile embarrassments, state court decisions, supreme court actions or inaction, birth certificates real or forged, or any other documents -- Obama can NOT LEGALLY BE The US President. No documentation is required. Everyone should understand and KNOW the answer to the question of what country is the country of which Obama was a natural born citizen. It is IMPOSSIBLE for Barry Obama, Barry Soetoro, or Barack Hussein Obama II, to be a natural born United States citizen. Obama can NOT POSSIBLY be a "natural born citizen" of the U. S. because his father, Barack Hussein Obama Senior, was a subject of Great Britain and a citizen of Kenya. He was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed under Section 32(1) of the The British Nationality Act of 1948. Even the Obots at FactCheck.org, confirm the British Act governed Obama's status until he was 21 years of age. Kenya's Constitution specifies that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya. Obama's American citizen parent, Ann Dunham, had to have been a resident of the United States for 10 years, at least five of which were over the age of 14. Dunham did not meet that requirement (of the Nationality Act of 1940, revised June 1952) until her 19th birthday in late November of 1961, almost four months after Obama was born. Whether Obama was born in Hawaii, Kenya, or the moon, is irrelevant. Birth documents, real or forged, are irrelevant. Yes, even VOTES ARE IRRELEVANT. Even Supreme Court action, or inaction, is irrelevant. It is simply FRAUD and illegal for Obama to be put in the office of U. S. President by any means or reason. Obama is at the epicenter of the greatest national disaster in the history of the United States. NOTHING that Obama would ever do in the office of U. S. President could ever be anything other than FRAUD and ILLEGAL.
Spiked!	Charges that Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen of the U.S. and, therefore, constitutionally ineligible to serve as president top the list of the 10 most "spiked" or underreported stories of the last year, according to an annual survey. At the end of each year, news organizations typically present their retrospective replays of what they consider to have been the top news stories in the previous 12 months. The authors have long considered it far more newsworthy to publicize the most important unreported or underreported news events of the year -- to highlight perhaps for one last time major news stories that were undeservedly "spiked" by the establishment press. Joseph Farah has sponsored "Operation Spike" every year since 1988. Here are the picks for the 10 most underreported stories of 2008 -- and four of them are about Obama.
Allegiance Issues	The definition of "natural born citizen" at the framing came from the jus solis of the English common law When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom's dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.'s children. Jus sanguinis (Latin for "right of blood"), by which nationality or citizenship is not determined by place of birth, but by having an ancestor who is a national or citizen of the state. Jus soli (Latin for "right of soil"), or birthright citizenship, by which nationality or citizenship can be recognized to any individual born in the territory of the related state. This is the case we have in the US now: If you're an illegal alien, and you "break your water" and give birth ON US SOIL, that child is a US Citizen. The history of American citizenship has long been centered around MEN. While the 1790 Naturalized Act included all (white) "persons" and so included women, it also declared that "the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States...." This prevented the automatic grant of citizenship to children born abroad whose mother, but not father, had resided in the United States. As a course of Congressional law, this was the case until 1868, although citizenship court cases in New York and other states as early as 1802 extended the right to women as well in judicial manner. Legally, until the ratification of the 14th Amendment, Citizenship (NOT to be confused with Natural Born Citizenship which is NOT addressed in the 14th Amendment) was inherited exclusively through the father. In terms of Naturalization, the US Congress did not remove this until 1934, when the mother could extend her US citizenship to her children born overseas (with age requirements as well). Remember also that the 14th Amendment did NOT resolve all citizenship issues. Children of immigrants were barred from citizenship until Wong Kim Ark in 1898, but many rights were STILL not completely granted to this group until 1952. Also, in Elk v Wilkins, the SCOTUS felt the Indians owed alliance to their tribes and thus were NOT part of the United States. Congress however extended Native Indians birth citizenship in 1924. Subsequently, that same right has been extended to Puerto Rico, Guam and other US Territories. Illegal aliens born ON US SOIL are extended US citizenship as a matter of Executive policy exercised through the State Department. But no Congressional law or SCOTUS decision officially and specifically recognizes the group of "illegal alien" and Citizenship rights. So let's look at British Law (PAST AND PRESENT): The British Nationality Act of 1981 came into force on January 1, 1983. Prior to 1983, British nationality was only be transmitted from the father through one generation only, and parents were required to be married. This is jus sanguinis or possibly even a type of lex soli in Obama Sr's case, but not jus soli (unless you want to give the Kenyan birth theory credence...). Because England has LONG been in the business of worldwide Colonization, this policy has been in place since AT LEAST the year 1350. Going back BEFORE America was "discovered" is statute 25 Edw. III st. 2 (Status of Children Born Abroad Act of 1350) that naturalized children of English parents born overseas. THIS IS JUS SANGUINIS AND IS STILL IN PLACE TODAY. This was in place throughout the British empire -- regardless of birthplace, because of Colonization in FAR-OFF LANDS such as "New England", Hong Kong, India and British East Africa (later subdivided and in part known as "Kenya"). If you want to consider the specific case of BHO Sr. and his heirs, entitlement to the status of British subject/citizen was first codified by the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914. Fast forwarding to CURRENT LAW, just like the US today, the UK today is currently BOTH jus solis and jus sanguinis. Taking the position that BHO was born ON US soil, he was born a US Citizen while also UK Citizen, later a Kenyan Citizen (and maybe even an Indonesian Citizen). The UK/Kenyan bond of allegiance did NOT dissolve until he turned 21 years of age, per the Kenyan Constitution. BUT keep in mind that ALL of those countries WOULD restore his Citizenship RIGHT NOW if he desired it -- ALL of their Constitutions and nationality laws permit this. THAT IS THE TWO-WAY BOND OF ALLEGIANCE. So yes, there ARE allegiance issues with him holding DUAL or MULTIPLE NATIONALITY for nearly half his life!
Adoption Implications	U. .S law makes it impossible for a parent to PERMANENTLY renounce a minor's US citizenship. The US is a signatory to the Hague Convention's standards for international adoption, and those rules do allow the legal parents and guardians to renounce any former citizenship of a custodial minor. Upon reaching the age of 18, the minor can go before the appropriate US State Dept Official and apply for re-instatement of citizenship, and swear allegiance to the US. There is no evidence that Obama has done so, and even if he did, he would then be a NATURALIZED citizen and will forever have lost any natural born citizen status to be president.
Perception	Several times a week I get an email like this one: ----- Original Message ----- From: Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr. To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@msn.com Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 7:45 PM Subject: Response from Senator Casey Dear Mr. XXXXXX: Thank you for taking the time to contact me about President Obama and his eligibility to be President under Article II of the Constitution. I appreciate hearing from all Pennsylvanians about the issues that matter most to them. Article II of the Constitution states that "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President." This clause is generally interpreted to mean that one must be born as a U.S. citizen on American soil in order to become president. During the 2008 presidential election, concerns were raised about the ability of both Senator McCain and then-Senator Obama to meet this constitutional requirement. Questions about Senator McCain's eligibility centered around his birth on a naval base in the Panama Canal Zone, but a Senate Resolution, S. Res. 511, passed by unanimous consent on April 30, 2008, officially recognized Senator McCain as a natural born citizen. While not every American voted for Mr. Obama, and it is unlikely that that you or I will agree with every decision he makes while in office, I am confident that Mr. Obama meets all the constitutional requirements to be our 44th president. Mr. Obama has posted a copy of his birth certificate on his campaign website and submitted an additional copy to the independent website FactCheck.org. The birth certificate demonstrates that he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii in 1961, thereby making him a natural-born citizen eligible to be president. I share your strong belief in upholding the Constitution and want to thank you for sharing your concern with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you. If you have access to the Internet, I encourage you to visit my web site, http://casey.senate.gov. I invite you to use this online office as a comprehensive resource to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington, request assistance from my office or share with me your thoughts on the issues that matter most to you and to Pennsylvania. Sincerely, Bob Casey United States Senator Sen. Casey parrots the the "official story" -- his birth certificate -- independent website FactCheck.org -- Honolulu. If you believe that, you're "mainstream." You're OK! Where to begin? 1. Obama has never, ever released his birth certificate to anybody at any time. As a matter of fact he's spent over a million dollars and has legal teams in a dozen states fighting its release. So, Sen. Casey is factually incorrect when he says, "Mr. Obama has posted a copy of his birth certificate on his campaign website." He hasn't. 2. FactCheck.org is hardly independent and is in the same financial stream as the unrepentant domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers' Woods Fund. FactCheck.org also incorrectly identifies the website document as Obama's "birth certificate." It isn't. FactCheck.org is factually incorrect in its analysis of Obama's "birth certificate." Here is an analysis of FactCheck.org's "birth certificate" page. 3. Obama's birth certificate (the real one) only affects Obama's eligibility if it shows he was born outside the US mainland. Obama is not eligible to be POTUS because his father was a British subject and a Kenyan citizen -- as was Barack Obama -- AT BIRTH! Obama admits this on his own website, using a FactCheck.org reference -- Barack Obama is not a "natural born citizen." Notice how FactCheck.org keeps popping up as the organization that stamps their imprimatur on Obama's eligibility. Sen. Casey's understanding of the facts are incorrect -- as is his conclusion. There is no "birth certificate" and Obama is not a "natural born citizen." Nothing anybody does is going to change that. Sen. Casey is mainstream. Sen. Casey is OK! But, Sen. Casey's facts are just plain wrong! I know Obama is fighting the release of his birth certificate tooth-and-nail -- and Internet geniuses, like Ben Smith, assign me to "the fringe" with the UFO-ers, while also getting his facts wrong in the process. I know that as a British subject and a Kenyan citizen for 21 years, Obama has the "divided loyalties" that caused the founders to place the "natural born" language in the US Constitution, in the first place. The founders specifically wanted to bar Brits! Obama's behavior towards the Brits in his first four months underlines the dangers of "divided loyalties." Now, start adding in Obama's other loose ends: Was Grandma Sarah in the delivery room at Mombasa, Kenya, like she says she was? What was Anna doing in Seattle days after giving birth? Did Lolo adopt Barry -- was/is Barry a citizen of Indonesia? Was Barry's attendance at Occidental financed by a foreign-student scholarship? Did Barry travel to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport? Did Barry ever sell drugs? And, no documentation -- none, nada, zilch! I'm sure there's more, but you get the idea. There's plenty to question about this guy. I believe many Americans, including Sen. Casey are just simply afraid to turn this rock over -- they're terrified at what they might find -- and where it might lead.
U.S. Rep. Bill Posey	A new member of Congress arrived in Washington to a flood of questions from his constituency about Barack Obama's eligibility to be president. Was he really born in the United States, and was he qualified under the Constitution's requirement that the office be occupied only by a "natural born" citizen? So U.S. Rep. Bill Posey did what most congressmen would do regarding a subject of grave concern to their voters. He proposed a bill that would require future presidential candidates to document their eligibility, and that action has earned him scorn and ridicule. U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-HI, a close, personal friend of Obama's mom and dad, has gone so far as to suggest that Posey's judgment is skewed, saying, "It's one thing to try to be responsive to your constituents, no matter how marginal. I understand that. But to take it to the point of putting it into a bill -- you open yourself up, then, to having your judgment questioned." Abercrombie, whose judgment is obviously beyond question, said legislation generally is to "address common issues or concerns. The citizenship of someone who has reached the point of running for president of the United States is not really an issue," Abercrombie said, ending all debate (sarcasm off). "Why'd I do this?" Posey wrote on his blog. "Well, for a number of reasons and the more and the more I get called names by leftwing activists, partisan hacks and political operatives for doing it, the more and more I think I did the right thing." He said, "I've been called some pretty nasty things. That's fine. But none of these tolerant people actually want to discuss the issue at hand - whether or not a presidential candidate should have to file these documents with the government. "I could easily fill up a page listing all the activities an American needs to show their ID for everything from playing youth soccer to getting a drivers license, buying cigarettes and alcohol, to opening bank accounts and even playing little league. So I was pretty surprised to find out that to run for president, despite the constitutional requirement and the media scrubbing that goes on, it's not required for a candidate to file these documents when they submit their statement of candidacy with the FEC," he said. "I thought I could offer a solution to this question on eligibility," he wrote. "There's nothing anyone can do about changing past elections' the president won. All the lawsuits in the world are not going to change that. But if what some folks are worried about -- that presidential candidates don't have to submit to the same documentation that average folks have to submit to -- well, then we can change that for the next election." Posey cited an AOL poll that found three-quarters of Americans participating in the survey agreed. "I'm willing to discuss this issue with anyone who wants to talk in a rational manner, but I WILL NOT engage in name calling, smear campaigns, or any other venomous activity," Posey wrote. "For one thing, it's childish. But on another level, we're supposed to be able to have a civil debate on the issues in this country." Posey's spokesman, George Cecala, said the congressman has no plans to withdraw the proposal, even though it may not get a lot of support. Abercrombie told the Times that Posey's suggestion is "the kind of sick politics that permeates a certain portion of the electorate." Here are some comments from the geniuses in Congress.