Being a dual citizen =/= being a natural born citizen, which is required by our constitution to be president.
Is this point too subtle for most citizens, or for Free Republic readers? Are respondents to this issue drawn from Obama supporters? This is all about insuring allegiance, an issue which should resonate with Free Republic readers.
I notice that when I state the facts, I very seldom get arguments. If every other Freeper feels enrollment records or birth certificates - long forms - which we will likely never see are the key to protecting our republic, why don't they contest my factual assertions?
The issue is the Constitution. Understand it or continue to lose its protections. Obama is not qualified by our constitution. He provided all the evidence we need. Dual citizenship is not sole allegiance at birth - In the country of parents who are its citizens. I have seen no cogent argument to contest this. The rest say "but what if his father was..., or "His Grandmother from Kenya..." or "The Hawaiian DOH director said he was a natural born citizen...". Those are all interesting questions, but you don't need them answered. He told us he was born a subject of the British Commonwealth. He is not a natural born U.S. citizen. Obama even tells us he is "A Native born U.S. citizen". A native born U.S. citizen is not a natural born U.S. citizen. Obama is being legally careful, but is still illegitimate.