If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!

Welcome Back!


by Sally Vendée

General George Washington took his oath of allegiance to the new United States at Valley Forge, PA

(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.

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. I am, in a sick way, looking forward to the constitutional nightmare we will face when it is proven that the usurper in chief is not eligible. Everything he has signed will be null and void. The most brain-dead V.P. ever cannot assume the office because he was part of an ineligible ticket, and must go. (To prison with BHO for impersonation.) Pelosi could not assume the office for the same reason as the V.P.!
    Maybe in prison BHO could really get back in touch with his “people.” The Blacks, Latino’s and women. Of course he left out White Men. We are everything he hates. White men believe in free markets, hard work and self-reliance. BHO believes that a big Government can control the money, and, therefore control the people. To hell with him!

  2. Ok, another acronym for Obama…….OBMPOTUS,II as opposed to
    OBMPOTUS,I…………………OClinton of course.

  3. Thank you for this excellent follow-up to your last post, especially the possibility that Obama returned to Kenya in 1983 and 1988 to vote in their elections. I don’t recall seeing that elsewhere.

  4. Obama,Sr. was a Brit. Obama,Sr. was a bigamist brit. Regardless of whether or not his marriage to Dunham was legitimate or not is moot. The notion of Jus Sanguinis was not met. A natural-born american’s parents must BOTH be American. Obama,Sr. is the father of Obama,Jr. no matter if Obama,Jr’s parents were legally married or not. Obama is an illegitimate son of one american parent and one foreign parent. The MOST that he could have been,if proper legal actions were taken,is naturalized. He has never been nor could he ever be a “natural-born” american. If the controversial claim that Obama,Jr. was born in Kenya,as many have claimed is true,Obama,Jr. was a brit at birth. Obama,Jr. likewise,if in arguendo,Obama,Sr. and Dunham WERE legally married and Obama was born in Hawaii,was in that ciircumstance,a Brit at the time of his birth.

    Insofar as campaigning for Odinga,a known enemy of the USA in 2006, was an act of treason,Obama,Jr. Is additionally encumbered from being POTUS by the provisions of 18USC,Part 1,Chapter 115,Sec.2381:

    “Whoever owing allegiance to the United States…adheres to their enemies,giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere is guilty of treason and shall suffer death…” [or lesser punishment] “and SHALL BE INCAPABLE of holding ANY OFFICE UNDER THE UNITED STATES”

    Obama was a US Senator in 2006 and as such “ow[ed] allegiance to the United States”. Obama gave Raila Odinga “aid and comfort” in the form of assisting him to vote out a US ally President Kabiki of Kenya in favor of Odinga who is associated with felonious genocide of christians and the
    bombing of two US Embassies in Tanzania and Nairobi. Odinga is a radical islamic supremacist,as is Obama,Jr.
    See also Clinton v. Jones,520 US681 (1997)

    “A sitting president is not immune from prosecution for acts committed before taking office”.

    I do not,however,believe that Obama IS a “Sitting president” in any event.
    He is a fraud and a traitor encumbered from being POTUS. So the Clinton ruling is not really necessary to litigate against Obama.

    I have personally filed an ICE charge against Obama and Pelosi as well as
    a “Criminal Information” with the Tonawanda,NY Police (who have subsequently forwarded that to the feds).

    Obama will be visiting Buffalo,NY soon. While here,in the jurisdiction in which those charges were filed,the “feds” should endeavour to arrest Obama on those pending formally filed charges.

  5. This from CNN – Regarding the case of the Navy Seals Found Not Guilty:

    Maj. Gen. Charles Cleveland, the convening authority in all three cases, on Thursday defended his decision to let the courts-martial go forward.

    “Despite the opinions of some who preferred that these charges not proceed, I allowed these charges to go forward because I truly believe that the best process known for uncovering the truth, when the facts are contested, is that process which is found in our adversarial justice system,” Cleveland said in a statement after McCabe’s acquittal.

    “There is no better way to discover the truth than by presenting the evidence to an unbiased panel of members, having witnesses testify under oath, and having rigorous cross examination,” he said.

    This is great Philosophy –
    Major Cleveland should let the rest of the US Justice System in on his “little secret”.

  6. WND posted a link to The Washington Post which has an article talking about the Hawaii governor saying Obama was born in Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii.


    Most of the people commenting, and making fun of the “birthers” of course, seem to think that all that is required for Obama to be Constitutionally eligible is for one parent to be a US Citizen. They conclude that if Obama was born in Hawaii he is a citizen and they don’t use the term “natural born citizen”.

    It’s a tough battle.

    1. Bob, here’s the real scoop on Lingle’s statement from WND.

      Lingle just lied to the public by saying that she “issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii.” The hospital was not mentioned in the press release Lingle issued in 2008 during the campaign. Read it here:

      Lingle lied in this latest statement about what was in her own press release. Her word is worthless.

  7. Anderson Cooper moved Lt. Lakin’s interview to Friday 5-07-10 10:00 pm est.
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: Very interesting.

    1. According to CNN, Cooper was in Tennessee covering the flood. Uh huh.
      I’ve been waiting all day….on pins and needles. I still don’t feel good about this.

  8. All of congress is compliant and all of the socialist dems in congress set this up for him to be in the oval office. It’s their fault and if the creep goes down he takes down those that propped him up. They did it for personal gain of $.

  9. Less we all forget. In his own words he states, “I will stand with my muslim brother if the political winds turn to evil.”

    What a Natural Born Citizen would have said, “I will stand with my American brothers when the political winds turn to evil.”

    See the simple……..yet very important difference? Allegiance….that’s what it is all about.

  10. The disgraceful cover up of Obama’s lack of a BC is heating up, and a bit late I might add. Femi Nazi Pelosi seated him knowing he did not abide by our Constitution, therefore she should also be impeached.

    The massive liberal media cover up, or entirely ignoring O’s illegal status is a total outrage.

  11. The problem is the vow no longer holds power hungry liars to the law. It appears that to enforce the law one must first have the cash to seek justice and secong the time to wait. Having those two then one must have standing , an open wound with the perpetrators hand in it, so a court can see you may indeed have a case a jury may be required to hear. After that it better not be a politicians hand or congress will be the house to hear your political grievance, only if the majority is of the opposite party of the one with the hand in your wound. By the time all is justly settled your grandchildren will be cursing you because their school teacher will have a textbook stating you were unAmerican. Have a nice day, when you don’t lie.

  12. I guess political bigamy is important, but I still think BHO (Barack HUSSEIN Obama) is a Muslim. What happens if he wants all 3 wives? Is that “TRIGamy?” (LOL!)

    Girl Reporter