If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
IF YOU LOVE THE CONSTITUTION AS YOU CLAIM, WHY WON’T YOU ADDRESS THE MOST EGREGIOUS VIOLATION OF IT IN U.S. HISTORY?
(Apr. 1, 2010) — I know that you are preparing a special program. I’m asking you to include in that program a discussion of a problem of upholding the U.S. Constitution – the problem that is frustrating a lot (maybe millions) of Americans. I know that you got a lot of emails about this problem from members of RestoreTheConstitutionalRepublic.com. I’m one of the members of that movement and I’m also sending you my letter.
Now about the problem. We all know that according to the Constitution, only a “natural born Citizen” (NBC) has the right to be President of the United States. The greatest concern for all those people, including me, who signed petitions, sent letters and emails, is the fact that Mr. Obama didn’t prove his status as a natural born Citizen, and it turns out that no government agency vetted him for it, either. For some unknown reason, the media didn’t inform the American people about this problem. Without a doubt, the results of the election might have been different if the voters had been informed of it.
The courts have also refused to discuss the case on its merits. Instead of showing all necessary documents and simply proving his “natural born Citizen” status, Mr. Obama chose a tactic of legal delays and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars. Before December 15, 2008, the date the Electors met to cast their votes, all Presidential Electors were informed about this Constitutional problem but chose to ignore the warnings. All members of Congress were informed of the question but chose to ignore it. All of this put a lot of Americans who are already informed by now through the Internet in a state of deepest frustration. It’s obvious that eventually all Americans will know about this serious Constitutional matter.
I’d like to stress that this problem is of interest to any American citizen because it is a matter of upholding the U.S. Constitution.
Let’s consider just two fundamental documents that govern this country: the Constitution and the Oath of Allegiance (and accepting The Oath of Allegiance I swore “…that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America…”), and we will then infer the following:
- There is no need to obtain Mr. Obama’s birth certificate to prove his ineligibility to be President of the United States, according to the Constitution.
- There is nothing personal in this inference; it’s just a result of straightforward reading of those two fundamental documents.
Consider both possibilities of Mr. Obama’s birthplace – abroad and in Hawaii (as he alleges):
1. If Mr. Obama was born abroad (there are allegations about that on the Internet):
In this case he committed a crime because he has stated that he was born in the U.S., and he must be turned over to the Department of Justice to face all possible consequences. Of course he can’t be President of the U.S. in such a case.
2. If Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii (as he alleges):
a. According to the Constitution, there are two groups of U.S. citizens: “natural born” and “naturalized” Citizens. The U.S. Constitution, Amendment 14, Section 1, states: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…”;
b. According to the Constitution, natural born Citizen and naturalized Citizens are absolutely equal except for one thing: only a “natural born Citizen” can be President;
c. according to the Oath of Allegiance, naturalized Citizens are subject only to the U.S. jurisdiction. Persons wishing to become naturalized U.S. citizens have to take the Oath of Allegiance to the U.S., renounce and abjure any foreign jurisdiction and be a subject of only the U.S. jurisdiction. The words “renounce and abjure any foreign jurisdiction,” are the key. It means that only one jurisdiction is allowed for naturalized Citizens – only the U.S. jurisdiction. It was a clear intention of the Framers not to have any foreign influence on U.S. citizens;
d. because according to the Constitution, citizens of both groups are equal (except for being able to become President). Both a natural born Citizen and a naturalized Citizen are subject only to the U.S. jurisdiction. This requirement is automatically met for persons born to two U.S. citizens, so there is no need to take the Oath of Allegiance; if such children are also born in the U.S., they become not just U.S. citizens; they are “natural born” Citizens;
e. In light of the citizenship types mentioned above, persons born in the U.S. to a foreign parent and a U.S. citizen, which we presume is exactly Mr. Obama’s situation, cannot be U.S. citizens because they are subject to two jurisdictions at birth (not only to the U.S. jurisdiction). Such persons can become U.S. citizens only through the process of naturalization. After that, they cannot be a natural born Citizen.
I don’t see any flaws in this chain of five arguments. If you and your colleagues at Fox News cannot find any flaws in it, there is only one thing to do: admit that unfortunately Mr. Obama isn’t eligible, according to the Constitution, to be President of the United States.
Everybody who agrees with what I believe to be an accurate portrayal of different types of U.S. citizenship can use it as his or her own proof. Please just use it!
If you find a flaw, please send me an email with your arguments. I’ll consider them and answer without delay.
I repeat that the proof is based only on two fundamental documents: the Constitution, especially the 14th Amendment, and the Oath of Allegiance.