Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Originally Posted by BetsyRoss

Remember the fuss about JFK's loyalties when he was running? When my kids were young, we were Mormons, but I sent them to a Catholic school. I told them that the kids had Catholic relatives, so go ahead and involve them appropriately in religious exercises because I wanted them to learn respect and appreciation for that part of their heritage. Now, if my son were running for president, and if we were still back in the days when people worried about the loyalties of Catholics, would he be a valid target of criticism for having attended a Catholic elementary school for a number of years? His father was a lapsed Catholic, similar to the way Obama's father was a skeptical Muslim.

Neither the Constitution nor the writings of our founders made it a requirement for the President to be of a certain faith. However, they did make it a requirement that he be a natural born citizen[/b]

Furthermore, if I were chosing and grooming a future president to carry out my nefarious plans, the next to last child I would have chosen in 1961 would be a African-appearing boy from a 'broken home" (which was a very big deal back then, I can testify from personal experience. People assumed you were inherently, irretrievably flawed, i.e. damaged goods). The only type of child even less likely for that role would be a African-appearing girl baby. That is why I find the birth announcements in the paper to be so reassuring that he really was born in Hawaii. While politics is inherently sinister, I don't get the feeling that anyone was up to anything concerning him back then.

This is the most interesting and the most intelligent comment I have ever seen on this issue.

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

Originally Posted by BetsyRoss

Vattel was an 18th century philospher who was influential, but some of his thinking has been superceded. A lot of 18th century thinking has been modified over time. Nowadays, the state department typically only takes into account the deliberate actions of an adult as compromising the citizenship of someone who was born a citizen. If the despotic emperor of Hypothetical Land were to bestow citizenship upon you and me because he liked what we were wearing when we took the palace tour, we could still return to America and run for President, to give a whimsical example. I believe that the modern view is that a natural born citizen is someone who does not have to undergo the process of naturalization to become a citizen. In other words, he or she was born a citizen and no further action on their part is necessary to attain the rights of citizenship.

I believe that the issue of Obama Sr.'s citizen is moot, especially since he essentially abandoned Stanley Ann and their baby, choosing to take the academic post that would not provide funds for them to join him (when he had the choice of one that would). I am not aware of any custody battle for the baby, as some are describing.

Furthermore, if I were chosing and grooming a future president to carry out my nefarious plans, the next to last child I would have chosen in 1961 would be a African-appearing boy from a 'broken home" (which was a very big deal back then, I can testify from personal experience. People assumed you were inherently, irretrievably flawed, i.e. damaged goods). The only type of child even less likely for that role would be a African-appearing girl baby. That is why I find the birth announcements in the paper to be so reassuring that he really was born in Hawaii. While politics is inherently sinister, I don't get the feeling that anyone was up to anything concerning him back then.

I have no idea where you get your legal positions, but to my knowledge, Vattel has NOT been overruled legally, and if you interpret the law (in this case, the U.S. Constitution) according to the intent of the authors, Vattel is still valid legal thought.

Regarding grooming Obama from birth, that seems to be a rathole. Life is what happens while you're making plans, and there are NO guarantees that early life planning will ever happen.

And, finally regarding the newspaper birth announcements, I can't believe your comments. You must be joking.

A good way to think about Vattel is to regard him as a chronicler of what the thinking of the era was, on the topic of citizenship, but not as the "Great Decider" who was in any position to "lay down the law" and expect the Framer to slavishly follow his writings.

The Framers had ideas of their own. George Washington in particular had personally followed an evolutionary path in how his subordinates were to handle enlistments and promotions within the military ranks fighting the Revolutionary War. Those seeking their liberty/independence had their own experientially developed notions of 'natural born' and it was consistent with an era in which dual citizenship was basically unknown in the law.

Interesting information about what the Framers intended comes more from them than from Vattel. For example:

Going back to 1787 when the qualifications for POTUS were being written, it might be noteworthy that the first draft dated June 18, 1787 from Alexander Hamilton would have read as follows:


“ No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."

Then came the July 25, 1787 letter from John Jay to George Washington, presiding officer of the Convention. Jay wrote:

“ Permit me to hint, whether it would 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 Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."

Obviously, the two proposed requirements appear to have been regarded as two different things. Citizenship at birth versus "natural born citizen" and the Framers elected for the latter. As a "strong check" like future SCOTUS Justice John Jay had proposed in his letter to Washington.

I've already come around to the view that Obama is a NBC but not for the simple-minded "citizen at birth" arguments that some of his supporters endorse, because I think that those arguments dangerously undermine what ought to be a definitional requirement of "sole U.S. citizenship" at birth for any future POTUS.

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

I've already come around to the view that Obama is a NBC but not for the simple-minded "citizen at birth" arguments that some of his supporters endorse, because I think that those arguments dangerously undermine what ought to be a definitional requirement of "sole U.S. citizenship" at birth for any future POTUS.

Because I respect your comments so much, I hesitate to say I hope you are wrong, but that is my thinking - I do hope you are wrong.

And, if Obama IS really an NBC, why is he hiding all of his personal information? Didn't he get the memo that everything is OK?

My guess would be that some advisor is telling him something like, "Don't stoop to get involved in this. It would only add an aura of legitimacy to the issue."

Originally Posted by BetsyRoss

My guess would be that some advisor is telling him something like, "Don't stoop to get involved in this. It would only add an aura of legitimacy to the issue."

OK, that's fair. But behind the scenes, he is still hiding all of his own history. How can we build a memorial to where he was born, or how can we build a library for him if there is nothing to put into it?

Part of the problem is modern privacy laws. Everybody's history just got a lot more hidden over the past decade. They just haven't noticed it yet. It hasn't become an issue with most people.

Originally Posted by BetsyRoss

Part of the problem is modern privacy laws. Everybody's history just got a lot more hidden over the past decade. They just haven't noticed it yet. It hasn't become an issue with most people.

On this point I disagree. Almost every facet of our lives is now on a database somewhere. I've had law enforcement tell me there is no personal privacy anymore, and I'm almost in agreement with them. Until the subject of Obama comes up, and he, through his power and his money is able to hide his privacy.

The idea that government actually knows a lot more about every one of us (who is poor, legal, and honest) than we are aware of, is very threatening. Only criminals, public servants, and the very rich seem to have maintained their privacy.

Doesn't this beg the question why we shouldn't all become invisible to government as our fearless leader has done? Why is Obama so privileged? Do we have a two class society in America?

Yes but the databases are not publically accessible. At least not the accurate ones. I tried tracking a rent skipper - only partial success.

Originally Posted by BetsyRoss

Yes but the databases are not publicly accessible. At least not the accurate ones. I tried tracking a rent skipper - only partial success.

He who controls the data controls the process.

The knowledge and understanding that only government has the information, to the exclusion of the people, would lead to the conclusion that the people are subject to, or subservient to, the government, and that is clearly wrong in America. Might work in China or Russia, but doesn't work in America.

One more argument for becoming invisible to government if we are to remain a free people.