Defend Israel

The Patriots Call
The Black Robe Regiment - The Patriots Call

Democrats party of Racism
Racism of the Democrat Party
Herman Cain - The DNC has BRAINWASHED most of the Blacks of this Nation
Racism - the Nemesis of the Democrat Party
Democrats invented racism and democrats HATE all blacks
The Snooper Report articles on Democrat invention of racism

The March on DC
Callin’ All the Clans Together
Sick and tired - marching towards the Constitution of the United States
We. Are. Finished. With.  DC.
We. Are. Finished. With. DC. - Addendum Part 1

Civility: The Leftinistra Own None Of It
Civility: The Leftinistra Own None Of It Part 2(?)
Civility: Leftinistra Own None Part Three
Obama, Civility and The Clansmen of Dumb
Brain Dead Leftinistra: Their Stoic Civility
Libtards Have No Class - Civility Escapes Their Brain Deadness
The States Will Be the Next Battlefield in the Fight Over ObamaCare
War Is Coming: Blood On Our Own Streets - Thanks Democrats
Civil War…
We Are In The Midst of Chaos and Civil War
Live Free Or Die
Live Free Or Die Trying
State’s Sovereignty or Live Free Or Die
Live Free Or Die - The Movement Marches On
The Country Surrounds The City

When They Came
Is The Left Still “Proud To Be a Left-Wing Extremist”?
Be It Known - Attention Unconstitutional Congress
Obama: One Big Ass Mistake America
Do Birthers Rock and Roll or Stop and Drool?
Good vs Evil…It Is Your Choice
I Apologize For My Nation
Obama’s Civilian National Security Forces (CNSF)
Obama’s Brown Shirts - Civilian National Security Forces
What Is It About The American Liberal?
The Plan To Destroy America
Another Soldier Has Been Given the Haditha Treatment!
Callin’ All The Clans Together
Callin’ All The Clans Together Show
A History of the List of 45
Constitutionality: The Movement
Vindication: Iraq’s Saddam and Al Qaeda Links Revealed
Redefining The Center or the Moderate
The HIC (Hoax In Charge) Going To Copenhagen
We Didn’t Start This Goddamn War!

Copy Cat Frauds of the IAVA

Contract With America
Snooper’s Declaration of Independence
Thanks Obama

Contract From America

Timothy McVeigh
Thoughts To Ponder and Reflect Upon
Snooper Report Vindication: Al Qaeda, TWA Flight 800 and OKC Bombing
Clinton alludes to 1995 bombing, says words matter

Missing 13th Amendment
TITLES OF “NOBILITY” AND “HONOR” - The Missing 13th Amendment

The Coup
Military Coup Against Obama

The United States Constitution
Our founding document wasn’t set in stone for a reason

Deepwater Horizon
Did Hugo Chavez Sink the Deepwater Horizon Oil Platform?

The New Right

Arizona Rising

Texas Wars

Editor's Choice


Powered by Squarespace



Wake Up GOP

« Top Ten Articles From Last Week | Main | Danny Glover - A Chavez Anti-Americanist »

The Bigamy of Obama’s Citizenship

Interesting note from "jigsaw"...

Not saying that I believe in this in its totality but it does show another view on the UNNATURAL BORN Obama.  And, yes, I already know all about the various Justices that say that he is but the problem with that is this - they don't know what the United States Constitution says on the subject.

THE PRESIDENT MUST HAVE LIFELONG ALLEGIANCE, by Sally Vendée - I wonder where THAT is in the United States Constitution.  Any guesses?  I already know the answer so don't try and tell me what I already know.

The following is directly from the article and naturally, the pingbacks are ever present...

(May 5, 2010) —  Following the publication of a previous editorial which explored the status of Obama’s citizenship and allegiance while he was aged 18 through 23, the argument was presented that only his status at birth is of consequence in the argument of Article II eligibility. Attorney Mario Apuzzo explains:

“Natural born Citizen” status requires not only birth on U.S. soil but also birth to parents who are both U.S. citizens by birth or naturalization. This unity of jus soli (soil) and jus sanguinis (descent) in the child at the time of birth assures that the child is born with sole allegiance…

US citizenship (not necessarily “natural born”) is required of Senators and Representatives under Article I, thus “naturalized” US citizens are eligible for these positions. Those officials who became naturalized at some point in their adult lives would have taken the Oath of Naturalization. This Oath requires the following declaration:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same…”

Mr. Apuzzo also makes this point regarding naturalization:

[N]aturalization takes an alien back to the moment of birth and by law changes that alien’s birth status. In other words, naturalization, which by legal definition requires sole allegiance to the United States, re-creates the individual as though he were a born Citizen but only does it by law and not by nature.

Sole allegiance is thus a requirement of US citizenship, and the method of attainment of this citizenship, whether at birth or later by law, is the key difference in eligibility qualifications for office. The Oath of allegiance is made as a deliberate act as an adult for a naturalized citizen but is assumed to have been made naturally by a natural born citizen, at birth.

If sole allegiance is required of Congressmen who are naturalized citizens, or any other citizen, for that matter, would not the founding fathers and framers of the 14th Amendment have expected the same of a natural born citizen and the President? Could they possibly have required this sole allegiance only at the time of birth, for Presidents, while requiring a more stringent lifetime allegiance for others?

An act in violation of this allegiance could feasibly be made at any time, after birth as a natural born citizen or “rebirth” as a naturalized citizen. Undoubtedly the founding fathers would have required not only this “unity of citizenship” at birth, but at every point in a Presidential candidate’s life, and especially the years after reaching the legal age of majority. Assertion or attainment of some other citizenship as an adult would probably have been regarded as an act bordering on treason.

In fact, the framers would not have even envisioned “birthright citizenship” or “dual citizenship” as being allowed under the Constitution at all. These notions were discussed in articles here and here and were the subject of a 2005 Congressional Hearing. All representatives and experts present at the Hearing affirmed that both dual citizenship and birthright citizenship, while currently allowed in practice, were unconstitutional. Dr. John Eastman, an expert witness at the Hearing, in a recent interview stated:

[T]he real shift in popular perception began to take root in the late 1960s, when the idea that mere birth on American soil alone ensured citizen status. “I have challenged every person who has taken the opposite position to tell me what it was that led to this new notion,” he said. “There’s not an executive order. There’s not a court decision. We just gradually started assuming that birth was enough.”

Obama, as the son of a non-US citizen father, would not have even been granted US citizenship at his birth if he had been born in America a decade earlier. Obama would have only been granted US citizenship as a minor if and when his father naturalized, or Obama Jr. could have applied for US citizenship at 18. Either way, he would have been a “naturalized” US citizen, not natural born.

Dr. John Fonte, also an expert witness at the Hearing, published a report in 2005 on Dual Citizenship. His views were summarized in this introductory paragraph:

The Founders, along with Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Louis Brandeis, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Felix Frankfurter, and Newt Gingrich, among others, have all affirmed that undivided political loyalty to the United States should be an absolute condition for citizenship.

He further states that:

[D]ual allegiance contradicts our core principle of equality of citizenship. The normative values of our nation’s principles — what could be called our “constitutional morality” — tell us that “We the People of the United States,” the American people, consists of individual citizens with equal rights and responsibilities.

Fonte gives as an example a dual citizen voting in both Great Britain and US elections as a violation of this constitutional morality and calls it an act of “civic bigamy:”

First, he violated the Oath of Citizenship in which he had promised to “absolutely and Entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance” to his birth nation. He had a moral obligation to take this oath seriously regardless of any legal loopholes that currently exist. Second, he participated in and expressed loyalty (explicitly and implicitly) toward two different constitutions… and exercised the rights of membership in two different peoples…The dual citizen, in this case, could be described as a type of “civic bigamist,” whose allegiance and loyalty included another constitutional regime besides the United States.

Fonte noted that in the early 1930’s, “drawing upon older laws and crafting new requirements,” the Roosevelt administration recommended that US citizens should lose their citizenship by: “…becoming naturalized in a foreign country; taking an oath of allegiance to a foreign state; being employed by a foreign government in a post for which only nationals of that country are eligible; voting in a foreign political election…; using a passport of a foreign state as a national thereof…”

Obama supporters argue that his Kenyan and British citizenships were granted without his consent, as a child, and were of no consequence as he simply let them “expire.” My previous essay explored whether Obama asserted either, in passports or college applications, which would explain why these documents have been as closely guarded as the long-form birth certificate.

Others argue that possibly the marriage of Obama’s mother to Obama Sr. was illegitimate under the assumption that Sr. was a bigamist; thus by law, Obama Jr. would not truly have been a dual citizen, British or Kenyan, as their laws would not have recognized the marriage as valid. It would be interesting to discover if these countries did, in fact, legally recognize the marriage or Obama Jr.’s citizenship, by granting Obama a passport or the right to vote in their elections. In either case, they probably would have required a birth certificate or some sort of affidavit. In addition, the Obama campaign openly acknowledged that Obama did in fact obtain this dual citizenship at birth.

Some research has uncovered that Obama traveled to Kenya in 1983, 1988, 1995, and 2006. Interestingly, Kenya held general elections in September of 1983 and March of 1988. Obama’s father, who died in 1982, worked for the Kenyan government as a senior economist. Could Obama have voted or participated in these Kenyan elections? Did he vote in the 1980 or 1984 US elections? In 2006 Obama appeared to be campaigning in Kenya alongside his cousin Odinga.

The founding fathers, themselves not natural born citizens, made themselves, as well as other patriots of their time, eligible for office in the “grandfather” clause of Article II. Their past citizenships were covered by the blood shed in the Revolution, making their allegiance to the United States unquestionable and pure. The framers attempted, in drafting Article II, to ensure that future generations of Americans would elect a Commander-in-Chief who would hold such a strong, singular and sole allegiance–with no “civic bigamy” or divorce from the country of his birth, who would vow to be faithful, during his entire life, to the Constitution and the United States of America.

C'est la vie.

Many of the Obamabots and "arbitrators" of the USC find it vague and dishonest to say that Barack Hussein Obama is a citizen and therefore a natural born one and they cite Leftist and Marxist-Sociopathic Justices as their cases in point.  Some argue that is is Precedent Law, Case Law or some retarded British Common Law aspect and they take no part in the actual Constitution of the United States.  I find this awefully odd.

A note from Jigsaw...

Another item that becomes very clear form this text is the fact that just because a child is born in our country, that child is not an American citizen unless both parents are citizens of the United States at the time of this birth.

Therefore what is an anchor baby? anchored to what?


The Snooper Report.
Join us as we Take Our Country Back.
Sic vis pacem para bellum
Fight Accordingly

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (12)

An infant thinks that everything in the world has to be for him. A slightly older infant thinks that the law has to be what he thinks because it should follow his opinions. But that is infantile. You are infantile.

The Natural Born Citizen clause has been ruled to include the US-born children of foreigners. The Supreme Court of the United States in the Wong Kim Ark case ruled that every child born in the United States, other than the children of foreign diplomats, is Natural Born. The writers of the Constitution and other American leaders at the time NEVER used the phrase “Natural Born Citizen” to mean “requiring two citizen parents.” They simply used it repeatedly as it was used in the common law to mean “born in the country with the exception of the children of foreign diplomats.”

That is the law and the Constitution. The fact that Obamas’ father might have been a bigamist does not change the situation. Obama was confirmed unanimously by the Congress and sworn in by the Chief Justice of the United States because Obama is a Natural Born Citizen. Not a single member of Congress has called for an investigation of Obama’s Natural Born Citizen status.

Some conservative congressmen and legislators in several states have introduced legislation to require proof that the candidates for president in future elections were born in the USA. But no member of Congress and no legislator in the states has introduced legislation to require candidates for president in future elections to prove that their parents were citizens. Why not? Because they agree, with the Wong Kim Ark ruling and with Black’s Law Dictionary, and with Senators Graham and Hatch, that ALL citizens who were born in this country are Natural Born Citizens.

This should hardly be surprising. All persons born in Ohio are Ohio-born. The parents of a person cannot make her or him not Ohio-born; nor can a law (especially not a foreign law). The meaning of Natural Born to the writers of the Constitution was simply a geographic term. If you were born in the USA and you were not the child of a foreign diplomat, you were Natural Born. You were not necessarily a citizen. If you were a Native American or a slave, you were Native Born but not a citizen. But when blacks and Indians became citizens, those of them who were born in the USA were as much Natural Born Citizens as others who were born in the USA.

Grow up.

May 10, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterEllen

You were aware that Thomas Jefferson accepted French citizenship, and was therefore a dual citizen of the US and France when he was twice elected president?

I continue to marvel at the creative reinvention of our nation's history, such as in the article above.

May 10, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterDr. Conspiracy

And, you marvel in your inception of reasonableness as to The Why the USC was written in the first place.

Perhaps you should at least read it first before confirming what an ass you are.

And, Ellen, repeating falsehoods makes your childishness "Rather" apparent.

Get some more material but first read the actual document that you are trying so desparately to challenge by using leftist rhetoric from leftist "judges".

Please. get a clue.

The following are not falsehoods. They are true: The Supreme Court of the United States in the Wong Kim Ark case ruled that every child born in the United States, other than the children of foreign diplomats, is Natural Born. The writers of the Constitution and other American leaders at the time NEVER used the phrase “Natural Born Citizen” to mean “requiring two citizen parents.”

May 10, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterEllen

They are only true to the demented mind and you are a mind demented by Obama. And yes, read Madison's notes. The Framers referred to Vattels Law of Nations and if that bothers you, oh well. Natural Born means exactly that the person must be born of TWO citizen parents. Get over it. The USC? Screw that, right? Moron.

Re Vattel:

The framers did not refer to Vattel, the Swiss monarchist who himself never recommended that the leader of a country should be even a citizen, much less a two-citizen-parent citizen. He gives several examples of countries picking their leaders from the nobility of other countries, and he never says that that is a bad thing. He also recommends that each country establish a state religion, and force people to join it or to leave the country.

So, since they did not follow Vattel in this, what evidence is there that they followed him in the Natural Born Citizen clause? None. Vattel is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers, but the common law was mentioned about twenty times, and that is what the framers were referring to. And, in the common law, the meaning of Natural Born was always "born in the country with the exception of the children of foreign diplomats." I have read Madison's notes, and he does not give a more detailed description of Natural Born. In fact, his lack of mentioning it, means that it refers to the most common of common meanings at the time, to the common law. Madison also in a later speech said that the place of birth is the sole criterion of allegiance in the United States, confirming that Natural Born refers to the place of birth not to the parents.

May 10, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterEllen

Sorry! Wrong answer, dolly! Read Madison's Notes - AGAIN. Like I said before, always try and actually read the documents your leftist asses are trying to destroy.

It is YOU who are trying to destroy the Constitution. The Natural Born Citizen clause of the constitution bars foreigners from being president, and it bars naturalized citizens from being president. It does NOT bar the US-born children of foreigners from being president.

May 10, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterEllen

Ummmmm.....yes, the USC does bar children of foreigners from being President. That's why Arnold will not become a President, dumbass. Try reading the USC. We already know what a quack you Leftinistra are.

It does not bar the US-BORN children of foreigners from being president. Arnold was not born in the USA, and hence he is barred. If he were born in the USA, and his parents were both foreigners, he would be eligible. All citizens who were born in the USA are Natural Born Citizens.

May 11, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterEllen

And you are an unconstitutional fruit loop. Where do you get your two-faced BS from anyway? Obama? Judas H Priest. Read what you said again and them compare it to what you have already said. Frikkin' idiot.

Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.