Is the O really legal?

More on the legality of our President.

Unraveling of Barry Soetoro: the sequel

Following the publication of our article titled “The unraveling of Barry Soetoro, a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama”, we’ve been inundated with hundreds of e-mails pointing out two alleged errors in our report.  We’ll accept the fact that we need to be taken to the proverbial woodshed over one of those errors. Officer John McClane did not fire at the police car in the original “Die Hard” movie as we stated. It was one of the terrorists. We stand corrected, and stand even more amazed how many people are so astute in their movie trivia but have no idea what the actual eligibility issue is all about. (ed note: whew, that really matters!)

The hornet’s nest we stirred was by citing the U.S. Constitution, followed by the intent of our founding fathers based on their subsequent writings. It is the primary issue that lies behind the smokescreen of the elusive birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama, or perhaps to be more legally correct, Barry SOETORO. Specifically, we wrote the following paragraph that contains two highlighted sentences that appeared to cause confusion with some readers, while others deliberately exploited our intent:

I urge those reading this and those who are pursuing the truth to avoid “battlefield myopia” and not merely cling to the existence or lack thereof of the long form, authenticated birth certificate. The issue is much greater than the birth certificate or where Obama was physically born, as he could have been born in the Lincoln bedroom during the Kennedy administration and still be ineligible to hold the office of president under Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution. Our founders determined that future presidents must be born to two parents who are both U.S. citizens. Clearly then, the place of Obama’s birth is merely one concern, while the citizen aspect of his parents remains another.

Read the rest of this for all the legal details that have been determined through the many years of our country.

This entry was posted in birthers, natural born and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Is the O really legal?

  1. Anonymous says:

    Obama (that is his real name since it was never legally changed nor was he adopted) was born in Hawaii, as his official birth certificate and the confirmation of three Republican officials in Hawaii shows.

    And there were notices of Obama's birth in the newspapers in Hawaii in 1961, and these were not ads that could have been placed by relatives (Hawaii newspapers did not accept birth ads in those days). They only took their notices from the Hawaii government, which only sent the notices out for births IN Hawaii, and which could not have been fooled by claims of birth at home because in such cases it requires witness statements.

    Your interpretation of the meaning of Natural Born Citizen is absurd. The reason that Obama's election was confirmed UNANIMOUSLY by the US Congress was that none one member agrees with it.

    “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

    “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).

    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President …"—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

  2. Rockport Conservative says:

    Anonymous,
    I have always heard that, also, but I have never looked into whether it meant one parent or both parents were citizens of the United States. I alway assumed it was just one, it is possible that you and I are wrong on this. I am not a constitutional lawyer, are you? I actually met Ed Meese but the subject just didn't come up in 1993.

    I have read in numerous places that in fact he was adopted by his mother's husband who was named Sotero. I do not believe he has ever denied that as a fact. It should have nothing whatsoever to do with the facts of birth, however. Many children have been adopted in that way, including one of my own. All their rights to the natural father (or mother) are reserved at the time.

  3. Anonymous says:

    I've read the Nixon/Watergate stuff. I've read the offical report on what Clinton did with Lewinksi and a cigar. Obama being inelgible on a technicality of his father's birth seems lame in comparison to those other presidential infractions.

    So take note: Obama misrepresenting himself on some gov't form? Come on. Not far fetched at all. It happens every day. Those other things — with Nixon and Clinton — are absurd. And they actually happned. So stop pretending it's totally beyond the realm of possibility. It's not. Unlikely, sure. Impossible, not at all.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Obama was never adopted. He was not adopted in Indonesia, the Indonesian government will tell you (just call up the Indonesian Embassy and ask for the press officer to check). He was not adopted in Hawaii, since that requires the action of a district court, and the records would still exist, and there have been none found.

    I am not a constitutional lawyer, but the reason that the US Congress voted to confirm Obama's election UNANIMOUSLY (every one of 100 senators and 435 members of the House) was that not one single one among them believed either that Obama was born outside of the USA or that the citizenship of one or two parents affects Natural Born Citizen status.

    The latter is because the original meaning of Natural Born in the USA (NOT Switzerland) referred only to citizenship due to the place of birth. None of the writers of the Constitution or other American leaders at the time EVER used the term Natural Born to refer to citizenship due to the parents.

    To be a Natural Born citizen you have to be both a citizen (duh) and Natural Born, and the meaning of Natural Born today is a citizen at birth (of which the overwhelming majority fall into the original definition, a citizen due to the place of birth). The only kind of a US citizen who is not Natural Born and hence not eligible is a naturalized citizen.

    So one or even two parents can be foreigners, and if the child was born in the USA and is a citizen (the children of foreign diplomats would not be, of course), then she or he is a Natural Born Citizen.

  5. Rockport Conservative says:

    Oh good grief! I am in South Texas a very, very long way from where you are. Do you not realize I can see where from where you are posting? I have seen illegals giving birth in a Texas rest stop so they will have a "natural born" citizen. I also have a brother and sister who were born in Mexico City of American, natural born, citizens. The truth on them is they had dual citizenship until they declared otherwise.
    The reason congress accepted Obama as president is because that is the way the electorate voted, everyone was very tired of Bush, and the Demorcrats have yet to cross him in any way. It has nothing to do with where he was born, adopted or not adopted, Muslim or Christian, the PEOPLE voted and with as much energy and money as Democrats and the media invested in him there is no way it even matters.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Anti SPAM - do the math *