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

PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY MEANS NO FOREIGN ALLEGIANCES

by Dwight Kehoe, ©2011

The Framers distinguished between "Citizen" and "natural born Citizen" when they wrote the U.S. Constitution

(Nov. 25, 2011) — Patriots, Over the past several months as I watched and listened to those concerned with preserving our Constitution, trashed, and belittled, I decided to lay out exactly what the positions of the so called “birthers” are and try one last time to get some official, somewhere to join the cause of right.  I will spend the next week, sending this letter to every Sheriff, every State Election Commission in the country in hopes that we can find a few persons of integrity.

Each of these people will get a personally addressed letter, in the vein of what I have written below.

Why has America become the most economically powerful, productive and wonderful country, not just in the world today, but in all the history of mankind? If someone were to ask you that question, what would be your answer?

It is true we have always had brave, hard working, God loving people and this country has been blessed with beautiful land, lakes and resources.  But so too have  many other places in the world that have failed to even come close to the freedom and prosperity of America.  The answer, for certain, is the brilliant document that was meticulously and  assiduously forged by our founding fathers.

The Constitution of the United States.

The Constitution spells out the limits of the government and the rights of  men, in that each man will be afforded, not equal outcome, but equal rights and opportunity, and that the rule of law will prevail over the rule of man.

Let us move from those thoughts to a very famous revolutionary, Saul Alinsky.  A Marxist radical, who preached, organized and worked for the overthrow of our Constitution and economic system.  His fairly well known, but little dissected book, written in 1971, “Rules for Radicals”, details how the “minority thought” can overcome and prevail over the majority.  He describes how opposition and dissent  can be silenced. The method is, identify your opposition, ridicule and label them, then isolate and finally, destroy them.  This tactic of the left has been in full operational mode for years, but never more so than right now.

That brings the conversation to the “Birther” movement.  While the term, in its origination, was adopted in the fashion of Alinsky- “Identify, label, isolate and ridicule”, many patriots have come to look on the term as a sign of someone concerned with the Constitution and is willing to counter the relentless assault on it.

Having said that, in fact, the tactic has worked and it has worked well.  So much so, that no one in the news media, including those that claim conservatism, few politicians, either on the  left or right, have had the courage to stand up for the principles of our Constitution for fear of being labeled and isolated.  In other words, far from the sacrifices our founding fathers made during the struggle for Independence, our leaders today are willing to sacrifice or chance, nothing.

When one hears the word “birther”,  what comes to mind?  For me, it is a Constitutionalist.  Someone with respect for  America and a person who is willing to live by the Constitution, not just under it.

And now let’s discuss the Constitution and what it says about the eligibility for persons seeking to run for President and then to be the Commander in Chief and in that light, does Obama’s citizenship comply?  Although there are many indications that he has had multiple ventures into forgery and obfuscation on the matter of state, hospital and documentation of his birth and it is very important that someone be held accountable for possible felonious actions, in the end, Obama is indeed a citizen because he was born to an American, his mother.

What is not in contention is the undisputed fact that Obama’s father was not at the time of Obama’s birth, nor was he ever an American citizen.  That fact makes it illegal for him to be placed on any ballot, in any state, to run for the office of the President as required in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.

Here is the wording of that Article:

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.

Many have said, “But the Constitution does not define natural born” in their excuse to not take on this very important struggle to protect and abide by the law.  It’s true, the Constitution was written without an attached glossary of terms. It seems the framers were under the assumption that those entrusted with protecting and enforcing it would be able to read a sentence and understand the intent, without an interpreter or the application of verbal gymnastics.

The founding fathers were intelligent, deliberate and educated men. To suppose words or phrases, used by them, were less than intentional or erroneously used, would be an insult to them and their memory.

There can be no other meaning or intent for the insertion of natural born  than the intent of its meaning at that time in history, and there can be no other reason for it to have been included except to prevent people without the proper and assured allegiance to the United States from gaining control of the military and Executive Branch.

Proof of this concern can be found in a letter written by John Jay, in 1787, to George Washington, where in which he requested the term “Natural Born Citizen” be included in the Constitution relating to persons who would serve as President and Commander-in-Chief of the military. Writings and case law, then as it does now, defined exactly what the term natural born citizen meant.

John Jay (1745-1829), American diplomat and politician, guided American foreign policy from the end of the Revolution until George Washington’s first administration was under way.  Jay headed the U.S. Supreme Court during its formative years.

The following is a letter John Jay wrote to George Washington:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Sir,
Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.

I remain, dear sir,
Your faithful friend and servant,

John Jay.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

George Washington, serving as President of the Constitutional Convention, submitted the term to the delegates and it was approved.  So those trying to provoke or illicit an ulterior meaning to the clause need to explain why John Jay wrote his concerns in the fashion he did and why Washington and the delegates agreed to include it in  Article 2.

In closing, there will continue to be many, for whatever personal reasons they harbor, who will refuse to stand up for the Constitution while  belittling those Americans that do.   A terrible offense  wounded our founding documents in 2008 when an entire country of scholars, law enforcement officials and politicians cast their eyes away from what was right for that which was easy.

No single man or single President is bigger or more important than the preservation of the Constitution and those that think and act otherwise will be the perpetrators and culprits of its eventual demise.  It is time to end the “ostrich act”, separate your self from the Alinsky attack pack and join the effort to keep a second illegal presidential election from occurring.

There will be a final determination of this.  Will you be part of the preservation of our Republic or will you continue to ignore your oath to defend and protect our constitution?

Mr. Obama is ineligible to run for President of the United States.  Your duty is to see that his name is not allowed on the ballot for that office.

If you have any information that would disprove anything written here please contact me.  I will be glad to entertain any thought you have if your determination runs contrary to my reference work.

Join the Conversation

6 Comments

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. With all due respect, I take exception with this statement in the article:

    “There can be no other meaning or intent for the insertion of natural born than the intent of its meaning at that time in history, and there can be no other reason for it to have been included except to prevent people without the proper and assured allegiance to the United States from gaining control of the military and Executive Branch.”

    That is only one aspect, and frankly, it is probably the LEAST important aspect of the obvious meaning and intent of the natural born wording in the Constitution.

    Everyone who investigates this issue seems to be omitting or lacking in their understanding of the lessons of history and political science and are failing to apply the proper historical context and political enlightenment of the time that the Constitution was written, and are omitting the application of Natural Law, in order to understand the other more important aspect, meaning, and intent of why the words “natural born” are in the Constitution.

    Prior to 1776, the Colonies of America were ruled over by a monarchy form of government, in which the king, who is an artificial SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY, was the master of all his subjects who were essentially his property. People lived under what is called serfdom which is a form of slavery. The king came from a privileged class of nobility and only the king’s children could become the political head of the state, and he dictated the laws.

    Our founding fathers realized and declared that “sovereignty” is a Natural Political Right that belongs to everyone (“all men are created equal” Declaration of Independence) and is endowed to you at birth from your parents by the Laws of Nature (“…endowed by their Creator with Life LIBERTY…” Declaration of Independence). Liberty is a political right and means freedom from slavery or from the political dictatorship of an unelected king and parliament.

    It was common custom at the time that the political rights of the offspring followed the father (see Vattel Law of Nations Book 1, Chap 19, Sections 212 and 215). This is why the children (particular males) of the king were the ones to follow in his footsteps and become king of their father’s nation one day, and why male children were required to give military service to their father’s country (even today males must register for the draft, but not females, even though females can voluntarily serve in the military). Our founding fathers wanted this same natural right for their children to follow their fathers and have the same political opportunity to be the political heads of the country that kings and nobility had. This was declared as a self-evident truth to naturally be the common right of all men, and not just a legal privilege of the nobility.

    This awareness came as a result of illegal taxation, called “taxation without representation”, because an unelected king and parliament were passing laws upon the common people of the colonies to pay for debts created by the nobility without the CONSENT of the common man. The right of CONSENT is the essential element in order to realize one’s natural SOVEREIGNTY. Without your natural right to have your consent obtained prior to being required to obey any law, you would not be free but would be a subject of another authority without your consent, just like living under a monarchy of nobility or privileged class. It is for these reasons that the words “natural born” are put into the Constitution, in order to preserve the common rights of the common people to preserve and protect the political rights of their offspring to their sovereign rights of consent to the laws, so that they would not be subject to taxation without representation, and to allow the common man the opportunity for his offspring to one day be the political head of the state as a natural representative of the Sovereign People.

    The words “natural born” in the Constitution are also meant to remove any authority away from Congress to act like a parliament and bestow an artificial title of nobility, so that Congress cannot determine or declare who the President or head political leader of the country is. This removes from Congress the ability to create a monarchy form of government and ensures that sovereignty (political freedom) remains with the common man, and prevents Congress from subjecting the people to taxation without representation under a declared leader/king, like was done by the Parliament in England in the colonial days. This is why naturalized citizens cannot be President becaue that would grant authority to Congress to determine who can be President with a statute, or judges opinion.

    So, I have just shown and proven that there are many more reasons that the words “natural born” are in the Constitution, and that the reasons just declared are even more important than the issue of foreign loyalties or allegiances, even though that is also an important aspect of the intent and consequence of Article II “natural born” Citizen. However, the issue of foreign allegiances is a weak argument to make in a court of law with regard to Obama. This brings us to what is the correct and stronger argument to bring in a court of law against Obama that will have standing.

    So far, every case against Obama has been properly dismissed for lack of standing due to no recognizable injury. You cannot have standing in a court of law unless you have an injury and there is only one injury to the common citizen due to Obama not being born to a citizen father. That is the loss of one’s political status as a sovereign citizen, which means the right of consent to the laws has been unlawfully taken away, and the protection from taxation without representation no longer exists. Everyone who voluntarily pays their taxes waives any right to claim an injury.

    As far as I can determine, not one case has properly claimed these issues as the injuries that are occurring to a minority (taxpayers) of the people. Unless and until someone wakes up to these realities and sues the IRS and DOJ for taxation without representation and loss of the right of consent to the laws (sovereignty of the People), due to maintaining Obama in the Office of President, you will continue to be citizen “subjects” of the unlawful privileged authority emanating from Congress. Essentially, slaves of Congress. Remember this come tax day when you all fill out your tax returns. You will be voluntarily enslaving yourselves and giving up your sovereign rights and any right to complain about Obama not being a “natural born” Citizen. You will be voluntarily complicit in your own taxation without representation, and it is you, ultimately, who will have made the choice and been responsible for overthrowing the Constitution and freedom and sovereignty of the People and installing and maintaining an unqualified President in Office. This is not the fault or responsibility of someone else. You cannot blame others for Obama being in office. For those who are asking or expecting Orly Taitz or Mario Apuzzo or someone else to rescue you, it is up to you alone.

  2. In light of that which transpired following the assassination attempt on Gen. Washington; that is to say the establishment of regulations to prevent the reoccurrence of an individual with possible divided loyalties from obtaining a position from where they could do our country harm; and in consideration of what the author of the above article, Dwight Kehoe, wrote: “Washington, serving as President of the Constitutional Convention, submitted the term to the delegates and it was approved.  So those trying to provoke or illicit an ulterior meaning to the clause need to explain why John Jay wrote his concerns in the fashion he did and why Washington and the delegates agreed to include it in  Article 2.” is it not reasonable to conclude that the importance of the status of being a “natural-born citizen” or not was decided upon by both John Jay and Gen. Washington with that very incident in mind?

  3. Quote:

    “in the end, Obama is indeed a citizen because he was born to an American, his mother.”

    Does that quote mean the author of the article assumes there is no chance Obama was not born in America, or is he saying Obama would be a Citizen even if he was born in Kenya to an America Citizen mother, regardless of her age or any other circumstances?

    1. The incident may have influenced the members of the Constitutional Convention and John Jay too in determining that any person who did not have two American citizens as parents could be highly likely to have divided loyalties and in circumstances where the national security of our country was at stake it would not be prudent to rely upon the potentially divided, arguably questionable, loyalties of such a person; a citizen of the U.S.A., but NOT a ‘natural-born’ citizen. If you have a problem with the delineation then your problem is with the founders for it was they who decided to specifically differentiate between the two. Obama is now and always has been ineligible to hold the office of POTUSA. Samuel Adams said, “The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.” ABROGATION NOW!

    2. Who made the above quote?? In her last interview-before leaving the U.S,the interviewer said to her::: You do know that if you leave the U.S.that you will lose your citizenship don’t you? Her reply was i don’t care,this isn’t MY country anyway! Find those interviews-you’ll find the truth.

  4. When an attempt to poison Gen. George Washington was made by an officer recently transferred to his staff, the officers responsible for, what then we would equate with extending him a security clearance, stationing the soldier felt so deeply ashamed at having failed their beloved General that regulations were established that from that time on no soldier but a natural-born citizen would be eligible to serve under Gen. George Washington. It had been uncovered that the would-be assassin had one parent from England – I do not recall if that fact was known prior to the attempt on Gen. Washington’s life or it had simply not been a disqualifying factor prior to the assassination attempt. This is my recollection from a book on George Washington’s correspondences in the last year of the Revolutionary War. I’d be obliged if – in the case I happen to be wrong on any point in my relating this from memory – anyone out there would correct me and more accurately testify to the historicity of the events to which I have referred. ABROGATE THE ILLEGAL ELECTION OF THE INELIGIBLE FRAUD AND FORGER NOW!