Skip to comments.Divided Loyalites, Obama’s Eligibility Problem — Part 1
Posted on 07/25/2008 3:49:49 PM PDT by Amityschild
Who is eligible to be POTUS under Article II of the Constitution and why? The answer isnt what most people think and people need to know!
People made a big ruckus about McCains eligibility but what about Obama? He may have held anything up to 4 other Nationalities. If a Naturalized Citizen cannot hold the Office of POTUS neither can a Dual National or a Dual Citizen.
In Part Two of the Article I shall show the evidence that leads me to think Obama has held other Citizenship.
(Excerpt) Read more at texasdarlin.wordpress.com ...
Of course this whole issue is absolutely a legitimate campaign issue.
Gracias, danke, tak, merci, todah, spicybut, ti-tsin! Oh fellow citizen of the world!
“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.”
This article makes a nice legal argument, but I think that the 14th amendment, cited above, will prevail in court. It’s a bit strained to argue that a person who is a citizen because they were born in the USA and subject to its jurisdiction, is not a “natural born citizen”. This interpretation would also exclude any child who had one immigrant parent who had not yet become a US citizen; and no US court will declare that.
Good people are wasting precious energy on this eligibility issue. At this juncture only a fool would think there is even the slightest possibility that Obama’s eligibility is going to be challenged in any venue that actually counts (read the courts or congress), let alone a render a decision against him.
The only hope to unseat Obama this run is to hammer home exactly how his socialist policies would effect the country and its citizens.
That doesn’t logically follow. If he has a social security number he (or his parents) HAD a legal birth certificate at one time. It’s no guarantee that it still exists. I couldn’t produce my original birth certificate to save my life. I have the one I requested when I was 40 years old, which looks nothing like the original (which I used to enlist 20 years earlier).
There is also a good discussion of this same issue in this case:
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
169 U.S. 649
WONG KIM ARK.
March 28, 1898
You don’t need to be a citizen to have a social security number.
If Obama was born in the US, there is no way he can lose his citizenship except by voluntarily renouncing it upon attaining majority. What his parents did while he was a kid (being from Kenya, moving to Indonesia) is irrelevant! So, this discussion is a waste of time.
Dean // July 25, 2008 at 5:35 pm
I spent a lot of time in Military Intelligence and the U.S. Army.
If Senator Obama were entering military service and applied for a Tom Secret clearance it would undoubtedly be denied him due to his being too long a subject of foreign influence and because of having foreign relatives in foreign countries.
I had a really good friend in the Army who couldnt get such a clearance even though his dad was a Noncom. His mom was Japanese and my friend was born in Japan and spent his early years there where his dad was stationed there in the military.
When of age, he, too, joined the U.S. Army. He was granted a Secret clearance but could not get a Top Secret. The reason given when he challenged this? He was subject too much to foreign influence and the possibity of blackmail existed because of his foreign relatives (i.e. they could be held hostage and threatened, etc.)
So this issue is very important. If as a Private in the Army, Senator Obama would not qualify for a Top Secret clearance, how is it he expects to be Commander in Chief?
I think the “Tom Secret” was a typo. Likely “Top Secret” :-)
While that’s fascinating, we look to the constitution to see who is eligible to be president and who is not. Obama meets the constitutional requirements so it’s up to the voters to decide if he’s fit for the security clearance.
Did you read the linked essay, by chance? A deep thinker and scholar read a whole lot of relevant material and came to the well-argued conclusion that Obama would NOT be eligible under the “natural born” requirement of our Constitution. Did you read the essay?
Teddy Roosevelt he ain’t.
Natural born as defined in common law and in all the case law dealing with citizenship refers to loyalty to the United States, not just place of birth. John McCain’s parents were serving the United States in Panama when he was born, there is no question about any divided loyalties on the part of McCain’s parents or John McCain himself. Barack’s dad was Kenyan, his step dad was Indonesian and Obama lived there for four years. Obama’s dad’s loyalty to this country is certain, he had none; the same with his step dad. Obama’s loyalty at birth and growing up was divided and that is what this article asserts disqualifies him as natural born.
Two gold stars for that essay. One for flow and detail, and another for mentioning King Canute. Every star-struck follower of an “exalted” leader would be wiser for learning that story.
I just LOVE Krauthammer!
Just a wee suggestion -- pull "The Lyin' King" text, so people can put the punch line in themselves. A potent graphic always leaves a bit of a vacuum to be filled in by the viewer.
Good posting devolve!
It says more than thousands of text posts
“...maybe a lttle blow...” showed up on several talk shows this week
Not the whole quote - or audio - just those words
part 1 was great, but it said part 2 would be posted today yet i can’t find it!
Second that. Got to keep this intelligent pressure up. It is critical.
Why can’t we pursue this too?
Can’t somebody FORCE him to release a birth certificate?
Has anybody written any Republican congressmen or someone to help with this?
Ping for later reading.
How do you know he meets the requirements? Have you seen his birth certificate?
How did he get into Pakistan in 1981, for example? U.S. citizens couldn’t travel there, it was off limits. You honestly think an American Christian could have walked in there and be greeted warmly? The speculation is that he had dual citizenship. That WOULD disqualify him from running for President as it would mean a split allegience.
That is what the above blog is talking about.
There is a reason his grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, is being kept locked away and denied her freedom: she could disqualify him in a New York minute!
You’ve missed the real gist of this argument.
His mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, married Lolo Soetoro and took little Barry and a new baby girl with them when they all moved to Indonesia. When Barry Soetoro entered school, he was registered not only as a Muslim but as Indonesian.
Indonesia does not recognize mixed religous marriages. Stanley Ann had to convert to Islam. Then there is a question over whether she renounced her U.S. citizenship (she lived and worked in Indonesia for years - preferring it over the U.S.). Was Barry adopted by Lolo Soetoro and therefore given Indonesian citizenship?
Allegience to the United States is an important factor. A person who has had dual citizenship or changed citizenship to another nation, then back again, has questionable allegience to this nation. That is why naturalized citizens are ineligible to run for the Presidency.
The requested BC may just be a red herring, or not. But Senator Obama has some explaining to do over whether he has dual or even triple (Kenya claims him as one of their own) citizenships.
Yes, I read it. As I said, a lot of work was wasted on it. Mark my words, there will NOT be a challenge of Obama’s citizenship in federal court or before congress. When this election is over, and you’re forced to admit that this issue was NOT challenged in any venue that counts, be sure to post up that I told you the truth.
Oh geez, now this just keeps getting thicker. Now we have granny under armed guard so she won’t spill the beans?
You're asking the wrong question. It's not a matter of what could be, but what is and what will be. You don't have to admit I'm right until after the election, but mark my words, it will NEVER be challenged in either of the two venues that count: Federal court or before congress.
So how did he get into Pakistan in 1981?
Senator Obama said that he didn’t want his grandmother “pestered” by the press. So she will be incommunicado, at an unidentified location, for the duration of the election process.
This woman was a bank president who supported her family for years, including Barry. One would tend to think she can make descisions on her own, such as whether to talk to the press or not, without his interference.
I find this scenario troubling.
Except for that little "if".
Well not necessarilly. While the oath of enlistment requires obeying orders, the oath that officer's take does not. Both require supporting and defending the Constitution against *all* enemies, foreign and *domestic*. Even the enlistment oath only requires obeying *lawful* orders at least by implication.
First the enlistment oath:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
Then the officer's oath:
"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
We are a nation who once elected a man because he was humble and honest -- Grover Cleveland. We have since come to love the arrogant and gilded tongue.
True, but taking an oath does focus one's thoughts. Both in the "Am I really serious about this endeavor?" (my reaction lo those many years ago), and a reminder as to one's ultimate duty.
Also, God's law tends to be interpreted differently by different people. Sorry, that's just the way it is. A common oath helps develop a common ethos. It only helps, because the uncommitted or unrighteous can mouth the words without hearing or meaning them.
Well there is one venue that counts even more than the courts. The minds of the electorate.
Affecting the electorate is worth the attempt and the bother. Even if it fails the effort must be made. You're never going to defeat Barry Hussein on the issues, because he'll flip and flop and say what he needs to say, while the MSM does their best to hide his previous positions and his associations.
Yet I am frustrated that more public voices on that claim to be wise on the Constitution are yapping about Obama's polls as if they are important, and the same ignore or deride any questions about his meeting the basic Constitutional requirement, requested by George Washington, that a President be "natural born".
Obama does not seem to met that basic requirement and deafening silence is heard on the issue. What oath to the Constitution would matter if even the masters of the day of it think polls are more important, or worse -- do NOT even know how to think about the Constitution and so rely only on the wisdom of the mob and the intellect of the pop media.
It was for emphasis, but I usually refrain from large print except for those of us with eyes “of a certain age.”
Okay by you?
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.