Sunday, January 4, 2009

Barack Obama may not be a Natural Born Citizen.

According to wikipedia, the constitution is vague on what is meant by "natural born". The truth may lie in finding what the original founding members meant by "natural born" by investigating their writings in other books and newspaper articles written prior to and around the time that the constitution was written.

It is quite possible that what the founding constitutional members were concerned with was English aristocracy coming to the United States to have a kid so that that kid could one day be president.

Therefore, Natural born citizen as defined over 200 years ago probably refers to two actual US citizens living on US soil who have a child on US soil, thus allowing the child to be called "natural born".

Because the early days of the U.S were almost entirely slanted towards the male point of view, I think a compromise position to the natural born rule was allowed. If the male was a citizen of the United States, and lived on US soil, and the birth mother lived in the United States but was NOT a U.S. citizen, the child would be still be considered natural born because of the status of the FATHER, not the mother.

Isn't it ironic how after all the sexism allegations that have been leveled against the Barack Obama campaign that they must now cling to "mummy is a US citizen" as justification for Barack Obama being a natural born citizen.

If a FATHER was NOT a US citizen, but the birth mother was, that would NOT be considered natural born because 233 years ago the man was considered the primary wage earner of the family. For the son or daughter to be considered naturally born, the father would need to be an american citizen, otherwise British Aristocracy could impregnate american women citizens and hold future influence over their "Natural Born Citizen" son, even if the father's own allegiances remained with Great Britain.

Let us examine a very important challenge to Chester Arthur's run for vice presidency, from wikipedia, natural born citizen Chester A. Arthur (1829-1886), 21st president of the United States, might have been born in Canada.[21]

This was never demonstrated by his political opponents, although they raised the objection during his vice-presidential campaign. He was born to a U.S.-citizen mother and a father from Ireland who was eventually naturalized as a U.S. citizen. Arthur was sworn in as president when President Garfield died after being shot.

Arthur's VP candidacy was challenged even though his mother was a US citizen! Even though there were allegations Arthur was born in Canada, It wasn't until his FATHER became a US citizen that the controversy subsided. I don't know when Chester Arthur's father became a US citizen, but it apparently was before Chester Arthur became president.
One could argue that the above viewpoint is now outdated and sexist, and that probably is accurate. However, the spirit of the natural born citizen clause was that anyone who can become president of the United States needs to have familial roots on US soil, familial roots being defined as the parents living on US soil, the father most likely a wage earner, and you know, as they say on the Barack Obama side, "bro's before ho's. Mama's standing just wasn't the thing back then.
Barack Obama is a naturalized citizen, but he may not be a natural born citizen. However, both of his daughters are natural born citizens because Barack Obama IS a naturalized citizen of the United States. If Barack Obama's father had never become a United States citizen, then Barack Obama would not be a natural born citizen. Barack Obama would however be, a naturalized citizen of the United States, but not eligible to be president.

However, Barack Obama's father RUINED his own citizenship a couple of different ways. This is the part of the story that nobody talks about. Barack Obama Sr. broke a morals clause, and later on became a political figure in Kenya, BOTH of these actions would INVALIDATE Barack Obama Sr's standing as a citizen of the United States. If Barack Obama's father is not a citizen of the United States, than Barack Obama may not be a natural born citizen.

The most effective way to have the Natural Born Citizen issue be decided in Barack Obama's favor is to show other examples of past presidents whose fathers were never US citizens, or lost their citizenship before their son tried running for president. If there are no examples, then Barack Obama's presidency could actually be breaking constitutional law.

If there are past presidents that had fathers who never became american citizens and therefore have already broken this specific constitutional law, and no challenges were filed, then Barack Obama would possibly have an out by arguing that you can't just pick and choose who the natural born citizen rule is applied to, it either applies to all presidents, or to none.

If there are no other presidents whose father was from another country AND never became a US citizen, and if it is true that Barack Obama's father did not retain US citizenship, then Barack Obama may not be eligible to become president of the United States until a change in the constitution would make him eligible for future presidential races, because the law cannot be backdated.

Besides violating the morals clause for incoming immigrants by having an affair, Barack Obama's father became a Kenyan political consultant later on in life, and that is SPECIFICALLY unacceptable for that persons son laying claim to being a natural born U.S. Citizen.

For you Barack Obama supporters who love to ridicule the whole natural born citizenship issue, it was your guy who has used every loophole imaginable to get ahead in his political career, so don't be so quick to presume the chosen one is above the very system he has used to defeat his rivals. Remember, "bro's before ho's" also counts in the natural born citizen debate and if Barack Obama's father never became and or REMAINED a US citizen, Barack Obama  may not be a natural born citizen.

But then there remains one final issue that becomes Barack Obama's get into Presidency free card. Is it fair to deny Barack Obama's eligibility based on the actions of his father? And even if the answer is  yes, once Barack Obama's father passes away, which occurred before he ran for president, should the prior actions of Barack Obama's father  continue to cloud Barack Obama's eligibility to run for president? 

Since Barack Obama's father passed away before Barack Obama ran for the presidency, would that take precedence over all other discussion and immediately make Barack Obama a Natural Born Citizen?  Probably yes.


Ted said...


When counting the electoral votes, either Congress finds by 1/8/09 that Obama -- not being an Article II “natural born citizen” (father Kenyan/British, not American, citizen) -- fails to qualify as President whereupon Biden becomes the full fledged President under 3 USC 19 (free to pick his own VP such as Hillary) or thereafter defers to the Supreme Court to enjoin Obama’s inauguration with Biden becoming only Acting President under the 20th Amendment until a new President is duly determined.

The preferable choice, at least for the Democrats, should seem obvious.

Alessandro Machi said...

Barack Obama may be the man without a natural born citizenship, and you may be the Ted without a blog who heroically posts his message far and wide.

I was actually completely unconvinced by everything I had read about Barack Obama's eligibility UNTIL I understood there was a reason for the term "natural born citizen" being used in the constitution. Barack Obama IS a US Citizen, he IS NOT a natural born citizen.

I read the wikipedia article on natural born citizen and on the second or third reading things started to click. The Chester Arthur example is spine tingling.

The scenario is identical to Barack Obama's, except that Chester Arthur's father BECAME a US citizen whereas Barack Obama's father did not.

In the Chester Arthur lawsuit, the fact that the mother was a US citizen WAS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT, it's all about the dad based on how our constitution was written.

Anonymous said...

pls post this video:


Anonymous said...

The issue with Chester Arthur is ironically similar to Obama. He used a sort of smokescreen to mask the real issue at hand. While Hinman was investigating WHERE he was born, the real fact of his ineligibility came from his father not having naturalized BEFORE Chester's birth. He didn't actually natural until 14 years after Chester's birth - which wouldn't have helped his ineligibility issue.

Like Hinman, Berg is looking at WHERE Obama was born, rather than the issue that Obama has himself admitted to - he was born with dual-citizenship, dual-loyalties, rendering him ineligible to POTUS.

Some want to say that he gave up his citizenship (loyalty) at age 21; however, after the age of 21 Obama himself travelled to Kenya to campaign for a paternal relative (one who believe in Sharia Law, no less!) - which, in my mind, doesn't exactly support the fact that he no longer has dual allegiences!!!

Obama is NOT a natrual born citizen and is NOT eligible to the office of POTUS. So get over it. Period.

Ted said...

This Vietnam Vet says it all; audio link:--

kat in your hat said...


Weblog Awards 2008:

It's the PUMA Blogs vs. the OBOT blogs. And PUMAs need your help!! It takes only a minute. It's easy!

Vote Here:

Thank you so much!
Have a wonderful day!

Alessandro Machi said...

Anonymous, so are you saying that WHERE Barack Obama was born is less of an issue than where his father was born and whether his father ever became a U.S. Citizen and REMAINED a U.S. citizen?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.