GOVERNMENT ENTITIES, CITIZENS, EDUCATORS ACCESS THE POST & EMAIL’S EXTENSIVE WORK ON PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY
by Sharon Rondeau
Whether by design or happenstance, by far, the most popular article today was John Charlton’s “4 Supreme Court cases define ‘natural born citizen.'”
The term of art is found in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution and has been the subject of much debate over the years among constitutional scholars and writers. It again became a focus when the late Sen. John McCain sought the Republican presidential nomination in 2000 and again in 2008, when he received it.
McCain was born in Panama in 1936 to two U.S.-citizen parents when his father, a Navy admiral, was stationed there. A key element of Americans’ understanding of “natural born Citizen” is generally having been born in the United States, at a minimum.
Many of those reviewing our articles were schools and institutions of higher learning; some were U.S. government departments. Readers’ searches may have been prompted by a report by Axios Tuesday morning of an interview with President Trump stating that he plans to issue an executive order revoking the custom of granting “birthright citizenship” to children born in the country to illegal aliens and non-residents.
The reaction from the mainstream media was swift and condemning, claiming that Trump would be violating the 14th Amendment or the Constitution if he issues such an order.
There was little such reaction when Obama issued an “executive-action” memorandum to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2012 granting pseudo-legal status to approximately 800,000 illegal aliens age 30 and younger who were brought to the U.S. by their parents without documentation.
Some of those who registered for and were qualified for “DACA” were found to be criminals.
During the interview with Axios, Trump did not refer to the term “natural born Citizen,” reserved as a constitutional requirement only for the nation’s chief executive.
In 2007, many Americans raised concerns about the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama given that a number of mainstream media reports stated that he was born in Indonesia or Kenya rather than Hawaii, as his oft-repeated life narrative claims. The discrepancy between those previous reports and the “Hawaii” narrative has never been officially. explained.
After the White House posted what it said was an image of Obama’s “long-form” birth certificate from the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH), several experts declared it a forgery. That prompted a five-year investigation carried out by a former detective, Mike Zullo, under the authority of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO), concluding that the image, as well as Obama’s alleged Selective Service registration form, is fraudulent.
Despite being aware of the conclusions, neither the FBI, Justice Department nor Congress launched a probe to verify or disprove them. Zullo has spoken on numerous radio shows detailing his findings, which were supported, in regard to the long-form birth certificate, by two reputable forensic analysts working independently from different disciplines.
Zullo has specifically said that the U.S. intelligence community, which appears to have taken part in circulating an unverified Russia “dossier” of political opposition research on Donald Trump in 2016, was aware that Obama did not meet the requirement of having “being born on American soil.”
Some readers were specifically reading our articles about Obama.
The above list does not include the unusually-high number of likely average citizens who accessed Charlton’s article and others Tuesday on the topic of “natural born Citizen” or Obama’s eligibility.
This article was updated at 10:58 p.m. EDT.