Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Michael Savage interviewed Philip J. Berg at some time in the past, and some of Berg's comments still ring true today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFh3kSY_gnE


Although Berg has been quiet for a while, here is his latest press release:

http://www.obamacrimes.info/

=======================

Press Release

For Immediate Release: - 05/27/2009

Third Circuit Court of Appeals Delays Oral Argument on Berg’s Appeal regarding “No Standingâ€

Forwarded to me by a colleague, I find Dr. Vaknin's comments very interesting.

Dr. Sam Vaknin is an Israeli psychologist. Background is here: http://samvak.tripod.com/cv.html

Dr. Vaknin has written extensively about narcissism.

Dr. Vaknin states "I must confess I was impressed by Sen. Barack Obama from the first time I saw him. At first I was excited to see a black candidate. He looked youthful, spoke well, appeared to be confident - a wholesome presidential package. I was put off soon, not just because of his shallowness but also because there was an air of haughtiness in his demeanor that was unsettling. His posture and his body language were louder than his empty words. Obama's speeches are unlike any political speech we have heard in American history. Never a politician in this land had such quasi "religious" impact on so many people. The fact that Obama is a total incognito with zero accomplishment, makes this inexplicable infatuation alarming. Obama is not an ordinary man. He is not a genius. In fact he is quite ignorant on most important subjects."

Barack Obama is a narcissist.

Dr. Sam Vaknin, the author of the Malignant Self Love believes "Barack Obama appears to be a narcissist." Vaknin is a world authority on narcissism. He understands narcissism and describes the inner mind of a narcissist like no other person. When he talks about narcissism everyone listens. Vaknin says that Obama's language, posture and demeanor, and the testimonies of his closest, dearest and nearest suggest that the Senator is either a narcissist or he may have narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). Narcissists project a grandiose but false image of themselves.

Jim Jones, the charismatic leader of People's Temple, the man who led over 900 of his followers to cheerfully commit mass suicide and even murder their own children was also a narcissist.

David Koresh, Charles Manson, Joseph Koni, Shoko Asahara, Stalin, Saddam, Mao,Kim Jong Ill and Adolph Hitler are a few examples of narcissists of our time. All these men had a tremendous influence over their fanciers. They created a personality cult around themselves and with their blazing speeches elevated their admirers, filled their hearts with enthusiasm and instilled in their minds a new zest for life. They gave them hope! They promised them the moon, but alas, invariably they brought them to their doom. When you are a victim of a cult of personality, you don't know it until it is too late. One determining factor in the development of NPD is childhood abuse.

"Obama's early life was decidedly chaotic and replete with traumatic and mentally bruising dislocations," says Vaknin. "Mixed-race marriages were even less common then. His parents went through a divorce when he was an infant (two years old). Obama saw his father only once again, before he died in a car accident. Then his mother re-married and Obama had to relocate to Indonesia, a foreign land with a radically foreign culture, to be raised by a step-father. At the age of ten, he was whisked off to live with his maternal (white) grandparents. He saw his mother only intermittently in the following few years and then she vanished from his life in 1979. She died of cancer in 1995".

One must never underestimate the manipulative genius of pathological narcissists. They project such an imposing personality that it overwhelms those around them. Charmed by the charisma of the narcissist, people become like clay in his hands. They cheerfully do his bidding and delight to be at his service. The narcissist shapes the world around himself and reduces others in his own inverted image. He creates a cult of personality. His admirers become his co-dependents. Narcissists have no interest in things that do not help them to reach their personal objective. They are focused on one thing alone and that is power. All other issues are meaningless to them and they do not want to waste their precious time on trivialities. Anything that does not help them is beneath them and do not deserve their attention.

If an issue raised in the Senate does not help Obama in one way or another, he has no interest in it. The "present" vote is a safe vote. No one can criticize him if things go wrong. Those issues are unworthy by their very nature because they are not about him. Obama's election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review led to a contract and advance to write a book about race relations.

The University of Chicago Law School provided him a lot longer than expected and at the end it evolved into, guess what? His own autobiography! Instead of writing a scholarly paper focusing on race relations, for which he had been paid, Obama could not resist writing about his most sublime self. He entitled the book Dreams from My Father.

Not surprisingly, Adolph Hitler also wrote his own autobiography when he was still nobody. So did Stalin. For a narcissist no subject is as important as his own self. Why would he waste his precious time and genius writing about insignificant things when he can write about such an august being as himself? Narcissists are often callous and even ruthless. As the norm, they lack conscience. This is evident from Obama's lack of interest in his own brother who lives on only one dollar per month.

A man who lives in luxury, who takes a private jet to vacation in Hawaii, and who has raised nearly half a billion dollars for his campaign (something unprecedented in history) has no interest in the plight of his own brother. Why? Because, his brother cannot be used for his ascent to power.

A narcissist cares for no one but himself. This election is like no other in the history of America. The issues are insignificant compared to what is at stake. What can be more dangerous than having a man bereft of conscience, a serial liar, and one who cannot distinguish his fantasies from reality as the leader of the free world? I hate to sound alarmist, but one is a fool if one is not alarmed. Many politicians are narcissists. They pose no threat to others... They are simply self serving and selfish.

Obama evidences symptoms of pathological narcissism, which is different from the run-of-the-mill narcissism of a Richard Nixon or a Bill Clinton for example. To him reality and fantasy are intertwined. This is a mental health issue, not just a character flaw. Pathological narcissists are dangerous because they look normal and even intelligent. It is this disguise that makes them treacherous.

Today the Democrats have placed all their hopes in Obama. But this man could put an end to their party. The great majority of blacks have also decided to vote for Obama. Only a fool does not know that their support for him is racially driven. This is racism, pure and simple. The downside of this is that if Obama turns out to be the disaster I predict, he will cause widespread resentment among the whites.

The blacks are unlikely to give up their support of their man. Cultic mentality is pernicious and unrelenting. They will dig their heads deeper in the sand and blame Obama's detractors of racism. This will cause a backlash among the whites.

The white supremacists will take advantage of the discontent and they will receive widespread support. I predict that in less than four years, racial tensions will increase to levels never seen since the turbulent 1960's.

Obama will set the clock back decades... America is the bastion of freedom. The peace of the world depends on the strength of America, and its weakness translates into the triumph of terrorism and victory of rogue nations.

It is no wonder that Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, the Castrists, the Hezbollah, the Hamas, the lawyers of the Guantanamo terrorists and virtually all sworn enemies of America are so thrilled by the prospect of their man in the White House. America is on the verge of destruction. There is no insanity greater than electing a pathological narcissist as president.

In a public letter sent to Kapiolani hospital in Hawaii a few months ago dated Jan. 24, 2009, President Obama/Soetoro states that Kapiolani is the place of his birth.

My question is this:

Does anyone here have any theory as to how Obama could know for sure that Kapiolani hospital is the place of his birth on August 4, 1961, when the short form Hawaii COLB birth certificate we see displayed on Obama's site---an internet site recently referred to by White House press secretary Gibbs at one of his daily press briefings---does NOT have the name of Obama's birth hospital or Obama's birth doctor on it?

Originally Posted by mirse

In a public letter sent to Kapiolani hospital in Hawaii a few months ago dated Jan. 24, 2009, President Obama/Soetoro states that Kapiolani is the place of his birth.

My question is this:

Does anyone here have any theory as to how Obama could know for sure that Kapiolani hospital is the place of his birth on August 4, 1961, when the short form Hawaii COLB birth certificate we see displayed on Obama's site---an internet site recently referred to by White House press secretary Gibbs at one of his daily press briefings---does NOT have the name of Obama's birth hospital or Obama's birth doctor on it?

I think it would be worthwhile to see the actual letter and learn from it.

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

Originally Posted by mirse

In a public letter sent to Kapiolani hospital in Hawaii a few months ago dated Jan. 24, 2009, President Obama/Soetoro states that Kapiolani is the place of his birth.

My question is this:

Does anyone here have any theory as to how Obama could know for sure that Kapiolani hospital is the place of his birth on August 4, 1961, when the short form Hawaii COLB birth certificate we see displayed on Obama's site---an internet site recently referred to by White House press secretary Gibbs at one of his daily press briefings---does NOT have the name of Obama's birth hospital or Obama's birth doctor on it?

I think it would be worthwhile to see the actual letter and learn from it.

*********

Here's the Jan. 24, 2009 Obama letter to Kapiolani hospital:

"Read a very special congratulatory message sent by President Barack Obama and read by Representative Neil Abercrombie.

January 24, 2009
Kapi`olani Medical Center

Dear Friends,

I am writing to share congratulations on the centennial celebration of the Kapi`olani Medical Center for Women & Children.

Kapi`olani was one of Hawai`i's earliest hospitals, and it has served many generations of Hawai`i's people with distinction. The Medical Center reaches out to children of all backgrounds, and treats more than 62,000 children per year. As a beneficiary of the excellence of Kapi`olani Medical Center - the place of my birth - I am pleased to add my voice to your chorus of supporters.

Hawai`i has always been a home to me, and I'm pleased to take part in your celebration. Thank you for your hard work, and I wish you all the best for the next one hundred years.

Sincerely,
Barack Obama"

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

Originally Posted by mirse

In a public letter sent to Kapiolani hospital in Hawaii a few months ago dated Jan. 24, 2009, President Obama/Soetoro states that Kapiolani is the place of his birth.
My question is this:
Does anyone here have any theory as to how Obama could know for sure that Kapiolani hospital is the place of his birth...?

I think it would be worthwhile to see the actual letter and learn from it.

I think it would be worthwhile to see the Admission/Discharge/Transfer Registers (ADT's) issued by Kapi'olani Medical Center for Aug. 4, 1961, and for Barack Obama II's (supposed) discharge date, redacted to show only his name and reason for admission (birth) and then notarized.

If I sin or err by stating that I believe little of what comes out of Mr. Obama's mouth, may the Lord forgive me. But Jesus said Himself, "You will know them by their fruits."

[Jesus rebuked those Jews who sought to stone Him, saying] “Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word. You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it." - John 8:43,44

Please pray for Mr. Obama's physical safety in the days to come, and especially on Aug. 4,

• that no wacko does anything stupid or crazy, and
  that nothing prevents him being legitimately brought to justice.

nobarack08.wordpress.com has another excellent analysis of the forgery of a Hawaii Certification of Live Birth for Barack Obama II.

Well, I got as far as the citation of Vattel on Natural Law about citizenship coming via the father. That will not fly today because of the primacy it gives to the role of the father, vs. modern family reality. Vatell lived an died in the 18th century (and was Swiss) when people thought differently about a lot of things. Laws have changed a lot since then. The State Department puts no weight on passive situations concerning a minor when it comes to deciding citizenship. They would not put more weight on the status of a father's citizenship over that of the mother, especially where the father abandoned custody of the child at an early age. Obama had a citizen mother and was back in the US by the age of 10, being raised by citizen grandparents.

Besides, if someone who is at birth a citizen of some other country can never have 100% loyalty to the US, then the oath of citizenship is meaningless, and maybe we should not let naturalized citizens serve in a lot of other capacities besides President either. Not that any of this is relevant if he really was born in Hawaii.

Vattel's opinion was his own (he was a philospher, not an American legislator) so his words, while taken seriously by many of our nation's founders (who also thought differently than modern folks on a lot of issues), do not carry any force of law.

Let's take my situation for example. I was born in America to an American citizen mother. My father was gone from my life while I was still a baby. I was raised by my maternal grandparents, who were also American citizens. If my father had been a foreigner, would America be merely my place of birth and not my country? Would there be some other country I would be automatically loyal to, never having seen it or lived there?

BORN IN THE USA?
Obama asks which public records you want to see
On White House site, 30% answer establishing his eligibility to serve

Posted: May 31, 2009
8:17 pm Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily



WASHINGTON – The White House's "open government dialogue" website asks how the government can make data more accessible to the public – and some are suggesting he should start by releasing Barack Obama's long-form birth certificate to establish his constitutional eligibility to serve as president.

The forum is open to the public for participation, and Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND, is urging those concerned about this issue to get involved.

"So far, only 30 percent of those who have posted believe establishing, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the president's constitutional eligibility to serve is an important task in conducting open government," Farah said. "I think that's appalling. Obama is very willing to release the secrets of previous administrations and very unwilling to release the most basic information about his own life and his own credentials to hold the highest office in the land. Let's take advantage of this public forum to 'speak truth to power,' as they say."

Meanwhile, as WND reported Friday, Obama's elusive long-form birth certificate that would establish his eligibility to serve as president as a "natural born citizen" is the hottest discussion topic at the Fox News Channel's website.

Under the heading, "Should Obama release his birth certificate? Or is this old news?," nearly 1,000 comments were posted – all of them since White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was questioned about the document earlier this week by WND White House correspondent Les Kinsolving.

The rush of posts at the Fox News site made it the "most talked about" issue, according to a ranking on the right side of the page.

The visibility of the Obama birth certificate issue has also been raised by a new national billboard campaign initiated by Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND. Launched just over a week ago, the campaign has raised about $55,000 and begun erecting billboards that ask the question, "Where's the birth certificate?"

That campaign followed one launched months earlier to collect names on an electronic petition demanding accountability and transparency on the issue. So far, that petition has gathered nearly 400,000 names.

In his questioning of Gibbs, Kinsolving specifically made reference to the WND petition.

"Are you looking for the president's birth certificate?" he asked incredulously. "Lester, this question in many ways continues to astound me. The state of Hawaii provided a copy with the seal of the president's birth. I know there are apparently at least 400,000 people – (laughter) – that continue to doubt the existence of and the certification by the state of Hawaii of the president's birth there, but it's on the Internet because we put it on the Internet for each of those 400,000 to download. I certainly hope by the fourth year of our administration that we'll have dealt with this burgeoning birth controversy."

It was the first time any member of the press corps has publicly asked a member of the administration a question directly related to Obama's constitutional eligibility for office as a "natural born citizen."

Politico has video of the exchange, which is embedded below:

The question comes as the controversy is heating up nationally – sparked in part by a new billboard campaign asking the question: "Where's the birth certificate?" The campaign has also raised more than $50,000 in contributions from the public.

Just last week, Farah announced the billboard campaign to raise public awareness of the fact that Obama has never released the standard, "long-form" birth certificate that would show which hospital he was born in, the attending physician and establish that he truly was born in Hawaii, as his autobiography maintains.

The "Certification of Live Birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information like the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.

Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.

Both the petition and the billboard campaign are part of what Farah calls an independent "truth and transparency campaign."


Presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs bends over laughing at a question over Obama's eligibility

The first sign to be posted under the week-old campaign, a digital, electronic one, is up and online on Highway 165 in Ball, La. – the result of a donation by the owner. In addition, based on the heavy volume of financial donations in the first two days of the campaign, WND was able to commit to leasing two more standard billboards – one in Los Angeles and the other in Pennsylvania. It will take several weeks to get those billboards up because of the vinyl printing and shipping involved. Yesterday, WND agreed to lease another electronic billboard in Orange County, Calif.

While the campaign is off to a robust start, many viewers have asked why Obama's name is not included in the billboard. Farah said the matter was carefully considered.

"There are several reasons we chose the message: 'Where's the birth certificate?'" he explained. "There is only one birth certificate controversy in this country today – despite the near-total absence of this issue from coverage in the non-WND media. This is a grass-roots issue that resonates around the country, as our own online petition with nearly 400,000 signers suggests. In addition, I like the simplicity of the message. I like the fact that the message will cause some people to ask themselves or others about the meaning of the message. It will stir curiosity. It will create a buzz. I'm assuming when these billboards are springing up all over the country, it might even make some in the news media curious. And there's one more factor that persuaded me this was the way to go.


Birth certificate question being raised in Ball, La.


"Come 2012, campaign laws will pose restrictions on political advertising mentioning the names of presidential candidates. This one clearly doesn't. I would like to see the federal government make the case that this is somehow a political ad," he said.

Farah said the campaign was born of frustration with timid elected officials in Washington, corrupt judges around the country and a news media that show a stunning lack of curiosity about the most basic facts of Obama's background – especially how it relates to constitutional eligibility for the highest office in the land.

"As Obama transforms this country from self-governing constitutional republic to one governed by a central ruling elite, the simple fact remains that no controlling legal authority has established that he is indeed a 'natural born citizen' as the Constitution requires," Farah said. "Obama's promises of transparency have become a bad joke as he continues to hide simple, innocuous documents like his birth certificate and his student records."

The idea behind the billboard campaign is to make sure Obama cannot avoid this question any longer. He must be asked to produce it at every turn, Farah says. Billboard space is currently being hunted in Houston, Dallas, Sacramento, San Francisco, Seattle and other metro areas.

"Is it unusual for a news agency to launch such a campaign?" asks Farah. "Yes it is. But we live in very unusual times. The founding fathers built special protections into the First Amendment for the free press. The reason they did that is because they understood a vibrant 'Fourth Estate' was necessary as an independent watchdog on government. It is in that tradition that WND assumes this role – since nobody else in the press will do it."

WND previously launched a petition campaign that has collected more than 375,000 names demanding Obama's eligibility be verified and demonstrated publicly. That campaign continues. That list has been shared with members of the Electoral College and the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

"I wish such a campaign were not absolutely necessary," said Farah. "I wish there were checks and balances in our political and electoral systems to ensure that constitutional eligibility of presidential candidates was established before politicians could assume the highest office in the land. I wish my colleagues in the news media believed the Constitution really means what it says and pressed this issue as hard as we have pressed it at WND. I wish radio talk-show hosts were bold enough to ask this question. But wishing is not enough. It's time to raise the visibility of this issue vital to the rule of law in America. I ask everyone to pitch in and help WND make a simple yet profound statement: The Constitution still matters."

Your donation – from as little as $5 to as much as $1,000 – can be made online at the WND SuperStore. (Donations are not tax-deductible. Donations of amounts greater than $1,000 can be arranged by calling either 541-474-1776 or 1-800-4WND.COM. If you would prefer to mail in your contributions, they should be directed to WND, P.O. Box 1627, Medford, Oregon, 97501. Be sure to specify the purpose of the donation by writing "billboard" on the check. In addition, donations of billboard space will be accepted, as will significant contributions specifically targeted for geographic locations.)

If you are a member of the media and would like to interview Joseph Farah about this campaign, e-mail WND.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... geId=99616

Originally Posted by BetsyRoss

Well, I got as far as the citation of Vattel on Natural Law about citizenship coming via the father."

Identity (surname, family, trade or occupation, heritage, land and property and thence, nationality) passed from father to child for thousands of years, and at least as recently as 1939 in Perkins v. Elg, which remains settled case law to this day.

Miss Elg was born in Brooklyn, NY, in 1907; her father had been naturalized the year before. Her mother had not been naturalized, but it was assumed, as it had been assumed since time immemorial, that her nationality followed that of her husband.

In 1911, mother and daughter moved to Sweden to live. After Miss Elg attained majority at age 21, she got a U.S. passport and returned to the U.S. permanently. In 1935, the Department of Labor issued her a deportation order. After contesting that for a year, she applied to State for another U.S. passport. The Secretary of State, at his discretion, denied her application on the grounds that she was not a U.S. citizen.

The court ruled that Miss Elg was and continued to be a U.S. citizen by virtue of her birth in the U.S.. The court also ruled that her parents' emigration and their re-naturalization in Sweden did not affect their minor child's (dual) citizenship in the United States. Therefore, Miss Elg was deemed to have her U.S. citizenship restored upon her return to the U.S., dependent upon her convincing the Department of State, within a reasonable period after her majority, of her election to return to the United States, there to assume the duties of citizenship.

Originally Posted by BetsyRoss

That will not fly today because of the primacy it gives to the role of the father, vs. modern family reality."

It would depend upon the commitment of the judge to stare decisis, established court decisions, and whether the judge

• adheres to and maintains the (paternalist) law and precedents, or
  rules according to the currently prevailing winds of emancipated feminism.

Originally Posted by BetsyRoss

Vattel lived and died in the 18th century (and was Swiss) when people thought differently about a lot of things.

The courts are supposed to make rulings based upon established law and precedents rather than upon public opinion. Not that they always do, of course.

Originally Posted by BetsyRoss

Laws have changed a lot since then. The State Department puts no weight on passive situations concerning a minor when it comes to deciding citizenship. They would not put more weight on the status of a father's citizenship over that of the mother, especially where the father abandoned custody of the child at an early age.

Some laws have changed radically. Immigration law hasn't (yet). See Perkins v. Elg, above.

Originally Posted by BetsyRoss

Obama had a citizen mother and was back in the US by the age of 10, being raised by citizen grandparents.

If he was born in U.S. jurisdiction, his birth status was governed by both British law and U.S. law, because his father had British protected citizenship, and his mother had U.S. citizenship. If he was born in Kenya, outside U.S. jurisdiction, his birth status was governed by British law only, because his 18-year-old mother had not resided in the U.S. for five years after age 14, as required by the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 then in effect.

Originally Posted by BetsyRoss

Besides, if someone who is at birth a citizen of some other country can never have 100% loyalty to the US, then the oath of citizenship is meaningless, and maybe we should not let naturalized citizens serve in a lot of other capacities besides President either. Not that any of this is relevant if he really was born in Hawaii.

Nice try. Divided loyalty is of course supremely relevant to Mr. Obama's "natural born citizen" status if he were born in Hawaii. His father's British protected citizenship at the time of Barack Obama II's birth Constitutionally disqualifies him from ever being a natural born citizen. Remember: "A natural born citizen is one born in the country of parents who are citizens." It was the common understanding of NBC in 1787, when the U.S. Constitution was adopted.

Originally Posted by former Rep. John A. Bingham, chief author of Amendment XIV,

. . . what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen . . .

The Naturalization Oath of Allegiance reads,

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...

A naturalized citizen thereby disavows (swears off) allegiance and fidelity to other than the U.S. at that time and thereafter. Should we not expect from a natural born citizen - at birth - that same undivided loyalty to the U.S.?

The "natural born citizen" restriction applies only to the office of the President, and nowhere else. When Chester A. Arthur was born in 1829, his father was a Canadian citizen, so Vice Pres. Arthur was not an NBC. This obviously caused a problem in the line of succession when then-President Garfield died in his first year in office, two months after being shot. But Pres. Arthur burned his presidential papers and managed to keep his birth status a secret until just last year.

Originally Posted by BetsyRoss

Vattel's opinion was his own (he was a philosopher, not an American legislator) so his words, while taken seriously by many of our nation's founders (who also thought differently than modern folks on a lot of issues), do not carry any force of law.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution, attempting to disassociate from British case law and common law, relied heavily on international law. The most prominent authority on that was The Law of Nations by de Vattel. Thomas Jefferson and others among the framers used de Vattel's text to phrase the articles, paragraphs, sections, and clauses of the U.S. Constitution. True, de Vattel's words had no force of law in the U.S.. But his words as adapted for the U.S. Constitution by the framers became part of the legal foundation of the new nation. Think, "original intent."

Originally Posted by BetsyRoss

Let's take my situation for example. I was born in America to an American citizen mother. My father was gone from my life while I was still a baby. I was raised by my maternal grandparents, who were also American citizens. If my father had been a foreigner, would America be merely my place of birth and not my country? Would there be some other country I would be automatically loyal to, never having seen it or lived there?

BetsyRoss, you are manifestly a U.S. citizen by virtue of your birth in the U.S. to a U.S. citizen mother. But your father's status at the time of your birth also governed your birth status. Had he been a citizen of another country, you would have been a dual citizen at birth, with divided loyalties, and not a natural born citizen. That may not seem fair to you, but it's the law.