Post by stephen on Jan 1, 2009 21:33:51 GMT -5
I have sent the following article to the Las Vegas Tribune for publication in the next issue. I know the editor, and he usually publishes anything I give him. It is being kept anonymous for obvious reasons.
Here is the text of the article:
Is Obama a 'Natural Born' Citizen?
By Anonymous
Eligibility for the office of President of the United States of America according to the Constitution of the United States in the 14th Amendment Article 2, Section 1 says as follows: “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.”
Does Barack Hussein Obama qualify for eligibility to be the President of the United States?
Apparently there are a lot of questions being raised about this, and there are now over 20 lawsuits around the country challenging Barack Hussein Obama on that very issue. The first of these lawsuits was brought forward by Philip J. Berg of Pennsylvania. The case of Berg vs. Obama, U.S.S.C. Case No. 08-570, in the U.S. Supreme Court has recently been scheduled for two [2] Conferences [January 9th and 16th, 2009]. Not long after, two other cases, one by a New Jersey man Leo Donofrio and one by a Connecticut man, Cort Wrotnowski were reviewed by the full Supreme Court and were dismissed without opinion from the court. What makes the Berg case interesting is that it was the first case brought before the court and is only now scheduled for conference just one day after the Electoral votes are officially certified. There is some blogosphere speculation that the court has chosen that day for the conference because Berg will at that point have standing with regard to his case and that the two other cases were dismissed because the court already had a solid case before them.
The Philip Berg case contends that Barack Hussein Obama is not eligible for the Office of the President on the grounds that he has not proven that he is a "Natural Born' citizen. The case points out that there is evidence to suggest that he was born in Kenya and not in Hawaii which he claims. Obama has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on legal counsel to prevent the release of his long form birth certificate which would put the matter to rest. This is a point which has raised a lot of concern because it would only cost $20 to simply release the document. Across the blogosphere we hear the question being asked over and over ad infinitum...does he have something to hide?
Berg also makes the point that when Obama's mother divorced his Father, and married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia, and moved the family to Indonesia, which Barack, a minor at the time lost his U.S. citizenship and became a citizen of Indonesia as his Fransiskus Assisi School registration document clearly shows. And further that there is no declaration of allegiance required at age 18 to regain his U.S citizenship which, even if its exists would make his citizenship status 'naturalized' which still renders Obama as ineligible for the Presidency. Berg contends that Obama, may hold Kenyan citizenship or Canadian citizenship as well. Bergs case also brings up the issue of his mother's ability to confer U.S. citizenship upon Obama at birth citing that "If in fact Obama was born in Kenya, the laws on the books at the time of his birth stated if a child is born abroad and one parent was a U.S. Citizen, which would have been his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother would have had to live ten (10) years in the United States, five (5) of which were after the age of fourteen (14). At the time of Obama’s birth, his mother was only eighteen (18) and therefore did not meet the residency requirements under the law to give her son (Obama) U.S. Citizenship. The laws in effect at the time of Obama’s birth prevented U.S. Citizenship at birth of children born abroad to a U.S. Citizen parent and a non-citizen parent, if the citizen parent was under the age of nineteen (19) at the time of the birth of the child. Obama’s mother did not qualify under the law on the books to register Obama as a “natural born” citizen. Section 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S.C. §1401(b), Matter of S-F- and G-, 2 I & N Dec. 182 (B.I.A.) approved (Att’y Gen. 1944). Obama would have only been naturalized and a Naturalized citizen is not qualified and/or eligible to run for Office of the President. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section I, Clause 4."
Bergs case brings up several other points but I think the one which may have caught the Supreme Court's interest is one which Barack Hussein Obama gives full admittance. And that is the fact that he was of 'dual' citizenship at birth. Obama refers to himself as a 'Native Born' citizen of dual citizenship (U.S. and British) at birth. Noteworthy here is the difference Obama uses in terminology using 'Native' instead of 'Natural' born citizen as required by the 14th amendment. His father was a British citizen at the time because Kenya was under British rule and the laws of the British Commonwealth conferred British citizenship upon him. This Obama clarifies on his website fightthesmears.com and is again reported on factcheck.org a website of the Annenberg Foundation on which Obama once served on the board.
When the Constitution was written the founding fathers had just fought a war of independence against the British and wrote the 14th amendment in such a way as to prevent anyone with a foreign birthright (allegiance) to gain the seat of power in America. They knew that they themselves were British citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and that is why they put in the clause which qualifies them but restricts future generations from holding anything less than the status of a 'Natural Born' citizen. The Constitution itself is not defining the term in any detail so we must look to case law and letters from the founding fathers to make a case for defining the term. We need to look at the precedent established by the fact that with the exception of one controversial President Chester Arthur (*Chester Arthur has recently been proven by Leo Donofrio to have usurped the office by means of fraud) there has not been a single President which was not born on U.S soil and had both parents U.S citizens. The letters of some of the founding fathers and case law provide for a very solid definition regarding the term 'Natural Born' citizen. Even as recently as Senate Resolution 511, a resolution which was co-written by Obama as the Illinois senator, defines 'Natural Born' as requiring both parents be U.S. citizens and born on U.S. soil in order to qualify as to the status of 'Natural Born' citizen. Senate Resolution 511 is a non-binding resolution which was used to allow John McCain to be included on the ballot. Several of the lawsuits contesting Obama's eligibility are also contesting McCain’s eligibility in deference to Senate Resolution 511.
In conclusion, I would remind all members of Congress, all Secretaries of State“, and all the Electors, that they have taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States like the following Congressional Oath of Office: "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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.” And in this concerned citizen's humble opinion it is the responsibility of every person taking this oath to demand that a candidate for the office of the President show proof that they are eligible for the office under the Constitution which they have sworn to defend against all enemies foreign OR domestic, even if there is no specific law which explicitly requires them to do so. It is also my sincere hope that on January 9 the Supreme Court will demand that Barack Hussein Obama finally put all doubt to rest as to his eligibility to be sworn in as President of the United States of America.
*To learn more about Chester Arthur go to naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/ where Leo Donofrio provides detailed information about him on his blog.
Here is the text of the article:
Is Obama a 'Natural Born' Citizen?
By Anonymous
Eligibility for the office of President of the United States of America according to the Constitution of the United States in the 14th Amendment Article 2, Section 1 says as follows: “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.”
Does Barack Hussein Obama qualify for eligibility to be the President of the United States?
Apparently there are a lot of questions being raised about this, and there are now over 20 lawsuits around the country challenging Barack Hussein Obama on that very issue. The first of these lawsuits was brought forward by Philip J. Berg of Pennsylvania. The case of Berg vs. Obama, U.S.S.C. Case No. 08-570, in the U.S. Supreme Court has recently been scheduled for two [2] Conferences [January 9th and 16th, 2009]. Not long after, two other cases, one by a New Jersey man Leo Donofrio and one by a Connecticut man, Cort Wrotnowski were reviewed by the full Supreme Court and were dismissed without opinion from the court. What makes the Berg case interesting is that it was the first case brought before the court and is only now scheduled for conference just one day after the Electoral votes are officially certified. There is some blogosphere speculation that the court has chosen that day for the conference because Berg will at that point have standing with regard to his case and that the two other cases were dismissed because the court already had a solid case before them.
The Philip Berg case contends that Barack Hussein Obama is not eligible for the Office of the President on the grounds that he has not proven that he is a "Natural Born' citizen. The case points out that there is evidence to suggest that he was born in Kenya and not in Hawaii which he claims. Obama has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on legal counsel to prevent the release of his long form birth certificate which would put the matter to rest. This is a point which has raised a lot of concern because it would only cost $20 to simply release the document. Across the blogosphere we hear the question being asked over and over ad infinitum...does he have something to hide?
Berg also makes the point that when Obama's mother divorced his Father, and married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia, and moved the family to Indonesia, which Barack, a minor at the time lost his U.S. citizenship and became a citizen of Indonesia as his Fransiskus Assisi School registration document clearly shows. And further that there is no declaration of allegiance required at age 18 to regain his U.S citizenship which, even if its exists would make his citizenship status 'naturalized' which still renders Obama as ineligible for the Presidency. Berg contends that Obama, may hold Kenyan citizenship or Canadian citizenship as well. Bergs case also brings up the issue of his mother's ability to confer U.S. citizenship upon Obama at birth citing that "If in fact Obama was born in Kenya, the laws on the books at the time of his birth stated if a child is born abroad and one parent was a U.S. Citizen, which would have been his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother would have had to live ten (10) years in the United States, five (5) of which were after the age of fourteen (14). At the time of Obama’s birth, his mother was only eighteen (18) and therefore did not meet the residency requirements under the law to give her son (Obama) U.S. Citizenship. The laws in effect at the time of Obama’s birth prevented U.S. Citizenship at birth of children born abroad to a U.S. Citizen parent and a non-citizen parent, if the citizen parent was under the age of nineteen (19) at the time of the birth of the child. Obama’s mother did not qualify under the law on the books to register Obama as a “natural born” citizen. Section 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S.C. §1401(b), Matter of S-F- and G-, 2 I & N Dec. 182 (B.I.A.) approved (Att’y Gen. 1944). Obama would have only been naturalized and a Naturalized citizen is not qualified and/or eligible to run for Office of the President. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section I, Clause 4."
Bergs case brings up several other points but I think the one which may have caught the Supreme Court's interest is one which Barack Hussein Obama gives full admittance. And that is the fact that he was of 'dual' citizenship at birth. Obama refers to himself as a 'Native Born' citizen of dual citizenship (U.S. and British) at birth. Noteworthy here is the difference Obama uses in terminology using 'Native' instead of 'Natural' born citizen as required by the 14th amendment. His father was a British citizen at the time because Kenya was under British rule and the laws of the British Commonwealth conferred British citizenship upon him. This Obama clarifies on his website fightthesmears.com and is again reported on factcheck.org a website of the Annenberg Foundation on which Obama once served on the board.
When the Constitution was written the founding fathers had just fought a war of independence against the British and wrote the 14th amendment in such a way as to prevent anyone with a foreign birthright (allegiance) to gain the seat of power in America. They knew that they themselves were British citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and that is why they put in the clause which qualifies them but restricts future generations from holding anything less than the status of a 'Natural Born' citizen. The Constitution itself is not defining the term in any detail so we must look to case law and letters from the founding fathers to make a case for defining the term. We need to look at the precedent established by the fact that with the exception of one controversial President Chester Arthur (*Chester Arthur has recently been proven by Leo Donofrio to have usurped the office by means of fraud) there has not been a single President which was not born on U.S soil and had both parents U.S citizens. The letters of some of the founding fathers and case law provide for a very solid definition regarding the term 'Natural Born' citizen. Even as recently as Senate Resolution 511, a resolution which was co-written by Obama as the Illinois senator, defines 'Natural Born' as requiring both parents be U.S. citizens and born on U.S. soil in order to qualify as to the status of 'Natural Born' citizen. Senate Resolution 511 is a non-binding resolution which was used to allow John McCain to be included on the ballot. Several of the lawsuits contesting Obama's eligibility are also contesting McCain’s eligibility in deference to Senate Resolution 511.
In conclusion, I would remind all members of Congress, all Secretaries of State“, and all the Electors, that they have taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States like the following Congressional Oath of Office: "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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.” And in this concerned citizen's humble opinion it is the responsibility of every person taking this oath to demand that a candidate for the office of the President show proof that they are eligible for the office under the Constitution which they have sworn to defend against all enemies foreign OR domestic, even if there is no specific law which explicitly requires them to do so. It is also my sincere hope that on January 9 the Supreme Court will demand that Barack Hussein Obama finally put all doubt to rest as to his eligibility to be sworn in as President of the United States of America.
*To learn more about Chester Arthur go to naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/ where Leo Donofrio provides detailed information about him on his blog.