Natural Born Citizen – Circa 1787.
If ever there was a debate that screams for a wild analogy just to bring the debate back to earth, it’s the silly debate over what the Founding Fathers meant by the term “natural born citizen” at the time they wrote those words in Article II – Section I of the U.S. Constitution, ratified by the original thirteen colonies, later agreed to by all 50 states.
Allow me to mix yesterday’s “intent” with today’s “circumstances” in order to illustrate the insanity in the ongoing debate, which is really nothing more than a contrived effort to subvert the language and intent of the Constitution.
Imagine if you will that Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1741 instead of 1961. That instead of being the son of an under-aged white American mother and black Arab-African father, who was also a British subject and legal citizen of Kenya rather than the U.S. .... he was born the son of an under-aged white American mother and King George of England.
That after ratification of the Constitution in 1787, Barack Obama decided to run for president, an American born son of King George. Would the “natural born citizen” clause in Article II – Section I have prohibited him from running for the office of president, while the Founding Fathers who wrote those words, were still alive?
According to St. George Tucker, the natural-born citizen requirement for the President of the United States had one purpose:
“The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. …The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora’s Box.”
In short, would the son of King George, even if he were born on American soil to an American mother, be trusted in the office of Commander-in-Chief? - Would the Founders have accepted the son of King George as the chief executive of the United States, and if not, why?
Charles Pinckney in 1800 said the presidential eligibility clause was designed “to insure … attachment to the country.”
President Washington warned a “passionate attachment of one nation for another, produces a variety of evils,” -
“Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation, of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill- will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. -- And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearance of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.”
On this basis, how would the Founders react to news that King George’s son wanted to be president of the United States?
No imagination is required here... Could the son of King George have any loyalties to his father or England, which could be at odds with American interests? Under the heading of “blood is thicker than water or politics,” would the Founders have had a reasonable objection to King George’s son being president of the United States?
He could have been a “citizen” of the United States, living with his mother. He could have even been a “native born citizen,” born on American soil. But the mere fact that his father was King George would have been a factor at the heart of the Founders “natural born citizen” clause, in that the son of the British Empire would certainly have had questionable loyalties and at best, dual loyalties with another nation.
For this reason alone, the Founders were very specific in the three basic requirements for being president of the United States.
First and foremost – “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;”
Not “citizen” or “native born citizen” or “naturalized citizen,” - - NO PERSON EXCEPT a “natural born citizen.”
What was the key determining factor in this idea?
Even the U.S. Senate, under the control of Democrats, was able to answer this question... v“Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”
Taken from the Senate Resolution clearing John McCain to run for President in 2008 and then Senator Barack Obama agreed, as did all members of the U.S. Senate.
However, this same interpretation of “natural born citizen” is NOT being applied to King Barack Hussein Obama. Why not?
Well, because he cannot pass Article II – Section I requirements under this interpretation, so a new progressive interpretation is needed, and since the senate answered this question just last year, it will be hard to come up with a better interpretation for Obama without noting the blatant double standard involved in such an effort. So, we are told to focus on the missing birth records instead...
Clearly, Barack Hussein Obama was NOT “born to American citizens on an American military base” like John McCain. He was instead born the son of a foreign British subject and citizen of Kenya. He is therefore, for the very reasons expressed by the Founders, NOT a “natural born citizen” of the U.S.
A “citizen,” maybe, though no authenticated proof has been offered by Obama. Even a “native born citizen,” maybe, though again, no proof has been offered by Obama. But a “natural born citizen” he is NOT, no matter when or where he was born.
As the son of a foreign father with a family tree abroad, his loyalties are in doubt. End of story! On this basis alone, he cannot be Commander-in-Chief of the United States of America.
Now for a more modern day example:
Imagine that for some reason, Kenya decided to side with Russia, Cuba and Venezuela against the U.S. and war was imminent.
Is there a chance that Barack Hussein Obama would feel compelled to notify his family in Kenya of an impending U.S. invasion of Kenya? Or maybe resist the need to invade altogether, on the basis that his family in Kenya would be at risk? Or maybe share secrets that could save the lives of family members in Kenya that could jeopardize the national security mission of the USA?
The answer is YES to all of the above!
The “natural born citizen” clause is a matter of national security. The office of president is the highest office in this land and the most powerful political office in the entire world. It can be entrusted to No person except a natural born Citizen, according to Article II – Section I of the US Constitution.
Ignoring the “natural born citizen” clause and allowing someone with dual or divided loyalties to sit in the Oval Office is a matter of unnecessary and unwanted national security risk.
America is currently at war with Arab-Islamic terror organizations scattered all over the globe. Our Commander-in-Chief is the son of an Arab-African Muslim father, with family living in a part of the world which is heavily corrupted by both Extreme Islam and Communist dictators, some of whom happen to be blood relatives of the Commander-in-Chief.
It is clear to any level headed American that Barack Hussein Obama is EXACTLY the situation that the Founding Fathers tried to prevent with Article II – Section I of the Constitution.
Yet not ONE member of the U.S. congress is willing to even raise the question.... not one court is willing to hear evidence, and half of Americans see no problem whatsoever.
To add fuel to the fire, realize that Obama was raised by people like Communist Frank Marshall Davis, schooled by mentors like Bill Ayers, funded by Saudi Royalty front-men like Dr. Khalid al-Mansour and international socialists like George Soros, preached to for 20 years by Black Nationalist thugs like the Rev. Wright.
Despite being 50% Caucasian-American on his mother’s side, there is not an ounce of evidence that Barack Hussein Obama has a drop of American in him anywhere.
Obama is the very man the Founders wrote Article II – Section I for, and yet, he is the only man in America that the clause is not being applied to???
Still, no state legislature, no member of congress, no court and no American news agency will seriously raise the question. What’s wrong with this picture? It amounts to national suicide...
There is NO honest debate over what “natural born citizen” means or that Barack Obama does not meet the definition. All efforts to debate the matter are contrived efforts to subvert Article II – Section I on Obama’s behalf, via Ivy League Law School mental masturbation full of childish what-if scenarios not grounded in history or law.
Since not a single elected official in America wants to raise the issue, what does that tell you about EVERY elected official in America?
There is no honest debate over this issue. Barack Hussein Obama is NOT a constitutional president; he is a fraudulent resident of the White House. This means that the constitution no longer stands, that the federal government is operating without authority, and that the American people are in deep excrement....
The only debate worth having at this point is - what are the American people prepared to do about it, since their elected officials have left the matter in the hands of the people?