Obama fails unitary loyalty test to US

July 25, 2009

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5907183/Right-Wing-US-conspiracists-question-Obamas-birth-certificate.html

“Right Wing US conspiracists question Obama’s birth certificate
On the fringes of the American right, a growing conspiracy claims that Barack Obama is hiding a Kenyan birth certificate, making him ineligible to serve as president.

By Leonard Doyle in Washington
Published: 5:31PM BST 25 Jul 2009”

As usual, the Daily Telegraph gets it wrong when Political Correctness gets in its way.  In the hands of the MSM, bad conspiracy theory drives out good.  Despite the long coverage of Pakistan’s involvement in 9/11 issues and also Saudi Arabia and UAE, the establishment has settled on the only alternative to 19 lone hijackers is the most extreme conspiracy theory that Bush did it.  This crowds out Pakistan, UAE and Saudi Arabia despite the many links and substantial evidence.

The overall question of Obama’s fitness for office, legal and moral, based on his record is still very much in question.  This is complex and has many issues.  TD has done a great job raising many on her blog especially in the early days.  Judah Benjamin put us and that part of the country paying attention onto the issue of dual citizenship disqualifying under Article II even if Obama was born here.

Associate Justice Story in the first commentaries on the Constitution by a US Supreme Court associate justice together with documents found by JB and others show that the Founding Fathers had a concept of unitary loyalty from birth to being president as what they had in mind.

If a person was born in the US to two US citizens, taken to Russia and told he was Russian by his teacher and his adopted father, pledged allegiance to Russia  in school every day, and was made to believe that Russia was the center of his life and his future and that his loyalty lay with Russia, then if he came back to the US at age 17 and stayed in the US thereafter, he would not be eligible to be CINC.

The Founding Fathers wanted the reality of sole loyalty to the US during formative years. The FF didn’t want a formal test empty of content.  They did not exalt form over substance. An example of what they found acceptable was John Quincy Adams being raised abroad for a few years while his father did diplomatic work for the US.

Obama’s known history does not fit the pattern of what the Founding Fathers intended, that every year of a child’s life he is told his sole loyalty is to the US of A and that his future is solely as an American.  It is certain that Obama does not fit that.

Obama was told by his teacher in the language of Indonesian schools that Obama was a citizen of Indonesia, that Indonesia was the center of his life then and as an adult and his stepfather and his mother both told him that.  Obama learned Indonesian to fit in with his future country which his mother and father told him would be the land of his future life.  That means Obama fails to have had the US as his sole center of loyalty from birth to presidency and as the sole center of his future life in citizenship and loyalty terms.  It is this substantive sole loyalty test that the FF had in mind.

Texas Darlin covers the latest CNN denial of this story.

http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/to-cnns-jon-klein-ask-the-hawaii-health-dept-this/

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cnn/jon_klein_on_birthers_it_seems_this_story_is_dead_122546.asp

When the Democratic Party or its candidates challenge a voter’s qualification in any forum, administrative or court room, they are asking for equity.  To get equity one must do equity.  Qualification for an election as voter or candidate is a single common controversy.  To get equity to strike unqualified voters, a party must itself vet its own candidates qualifications.  The Democrats failed to do that with its presidential candidate who is now president.  That is a huge failure to do equity.  Because of that the Democratic party and its candidates are disqualified to challenge the qualification of any voter or candidate to run in any election, until the Democrats remedy this.

This means release of all Obama’s records from birth to the present.  That includes Indonesian identity papers, KT identity card, Indonesian adoption records, school records, mosque records, Hawaii’s file, US passport file, entry to Pakistan records, Occidental records, Columbia and Harvard Law School record.  It includes any other relevant records from any country.

It also required a candid discussion of the issues raised above and elsewhere on the natural born citizen question under Article II.

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2008/12/08/common-controversy-standing-to-sue-obama-birth-certificate/

http://blogs.creativeloafing.com/theclog/2009/07/14/obamabirth-certificate-case-may-make-it-to-court/

Advertisements

8 Responses to “Obama fails unitary loyalty test to US”

  1. smrstrauss Says:

    Re: “If a person was born in the US to two US citizens, taken to Russia and told he was Russian by his teacher and his adopted father, pledged allegiance to Russia in school every day, and was made to believe that Russia was the center of his life and his future and that his loyalty lay with Russia, then if he came back to the US at age 17 and stayed in the US thereafter, he would not be eligible to be CINC.”

    Who says? If that person, was as you say BORN in the USA. And that person came back to the USA and lived in the USA for the required 14 years and was 35 years old, and he was elected president by US citizens ( meaning winning the electoral college), who would take that away?

    Moreover, he would be eligible, meaning that he could run for the job, though he would not necessarily win, and probably would not win. But he has the right to run and we have the right to vote for him, and if he did win the Supreme Court is not going to overrule us and say “we consider him disloyal” when we by voting for the guy said that we considered him to be the better of the candidates.

    The US Supreme Court certainly would not take the election away. Why not? Because the elected president was a Natural Born Citizen.

    Natural Born Citizen stems from Natural Born Subject, which was the law in the colonies before the Revolution, and a Natural Born Subject was simply someone who was born in the colony. No one has shown any evidence that the writers of the Constitution followed Vattel in requiring two US parents.

    And that is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

    Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

    “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

    Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

    “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 hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

    Of course, If a person was born in the US to two US citizens, taken to Russia and told he was Russian by his teacher and his adopted father, pledged allegiance to Russia in school every day–then we would not have to vote for him.

  2. oldatlantic Says:

    The Constitution is about stopping people voting for what’s bad for them in this case. Restricting who can be president is a restriction on voters. The original intent of the Founders is clear from their papers and the Constitution itself. The Constitution is not an empty set of formulas to be followed by rote.

    The intent is that a person had to believe they are solely loyal to America for their entire life to be eligible to be CINC. As Judah Benjamin made clear at Texas Darlin, this was about the CINC powers, this clause in the Constitution. The original writings of the FF at the time of drafting make that clear.

    As to who will say no, that is the job of the judges. They are not supposed to be in a popularity contest.

    Thanks for your detailed and thoughtful comment.

  3. oldatlantic Says:

    Graham is entitled to be called an anti-Founding Father. Hatch sometimes is too.

  4. oldatlantic Says:

    Natural born for Article II CINC does not mean born in country. The history of this and the arguments you make were covered by Judah Benjamin in 2008 at Texas Darlin. The record of the Constitutional Convention is that they wanted someone with sole loyalty to the US and to avoid someone with foreign sympathies being CINC. Obama himself talks about being brought up in Indonesia as being formative on his outlook. That is what the Constitution intended to prevent in the CINC.

  5. smrstrauss Says:

    Re: “that they wanted someone with sole loyalty to the US and to avoid someone with foreign sympathies being CINC.”

    Yes. This is very clear. They excluded two categories of people who they did not want to be CINC. No foreigner can be CINC. And no naturalized citizen can be CINC.

    But the question is, did they exclude the children of foreigners who were born in the USA? If they wanted to, they certainly could have said so. But the did not say so.

    What does this mean? It means that they were referring to the laws that used the term “Natural Born” that they were familiar with. If they had created a new meaning for Natural Born, or used a specialized meaning that was not common at the time, they would have said so. They would have had to say so, otherwise people would believe that they used the term “Natural Born” that stemmed from the laws of the colonies at the time.

    Well, the term Natural Born WAS used in the Colonies at the time, and it simply meant born in the colony. It was used as a synonym for born in the country. Anyone born in the country, was considered a Natural Born Subject regardless of the number of parents who were already subjects or citizens.

    Moreover, you will recall that the Constitution says that to be eligible a person must not only be a Natural Born Citizen. He or she must also have lived in the USA for 14 years and be 35 years old.

    Notice that 14 years is LESS than half of 35. In other words, the writers of the Constitution were not worried about foreign influences to the extent that the required a person to reside in the USA for all his life or even for 75% of it. A good deal of foreign influence was okay, so long as the child was Natural Born.

    But Natural Born simply meant born in the country. Vattel said something about two parents being needed, but there is no evidence that anyone else did.

    For example, it can be shown that John Jay, who apparently was the US leader who first used the term Natural Born Citizen in a letter to Washington, also used the terms “Natural Born Citizen” and “Natural Born Subject” as synonyms. Jay was very familiar with the definition of a Natural Born Subject as someone born in the country (excluding the children of foreign diplomats)

  6. Old Atlantic Says:

    Thank you for your learned and courteous reply.

    One of Obama’s parents was a foreign citizen, his father, who was never a US citizen. Was Obama a natural born citizen assuming he was born in the US? This is a matter of dispute. See links below.

    You assert but provide no reference to the meaning of NBC in 1787 or earlier.

    Some would say NBC means born of two US citizens. The 1790 act said that if born of 2 US citizens abroad, the person was to be treated as NBC. That may mean they were not NBC.

    Some say NBC means born in the US of 2 US citizens.

    There may also be a requirement implicit in Article II that there was no interruption. A person born to two US citizens in the US who lives here until age 22, goes to Russia, becomes a Russian citizen and returns to the US would not be eligible is one view of Constitutional intent. Thus Oswald was not eligible to be president after he returned from Russia. This may have been his motive.

    Links on NBC

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States

    http://washingtonindependent.com/52718/willie-horton-ad-creator-dips-a-toe-into-birtherism

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/01/new-case-filed-kerchner-et-al-v-obama.html

    Obama left the US and was adopted in Indonesian as a child. He became subject to its laws as a subject. Even if not his will this happened during his formative years. Birth is not an act of will either, but can remove a person from eligibility. Thus an act need not be of volition to cause the failure of NBC status for Article II purposes.

    One Constitutional Law Lecturer has seen all the records and knows the history of the Constitution. That person has sealed every single record in the Obama case. From that we can conclude Obama is not eligible. We can conclude, Obama decided as a Constitutional Law Lecturer who studied his own eligibility that he Obama was not NBC or otherwise had become ineligible by his actions or by events that happened, whether he willed them or not.

    I posted the following comment at the Washington Independent along these lines:

    Obama was a Constitutional Law lecturer for over 10 years at University of Chicago Law School and was President of Harvard Law Review. Obama knows what is in all the records he didn’t release. Based on his careful analysis of his own eligibility as a Constitutional Law lecturer at University of Chicago, Obama decided to keep all of his records sealed.

    Facts like the above from Glenn Flowers that very few know are ones that Obama long ago studied. Based on that, Obama concluded that if people saw all of his records at the same time, and researched the law, that they would conclude Obama was not eligible. So he has kept his records sealed. Will they be kept from his own Presidential Library? His Obama the only president who will withhold his own long form birth certificate from his own Obama Presidential Library? As well as all the other sealed records. Does any other presidential library not have the birth certificate, kindergarten records, etc? What sort of person seals his kindergarten records? A person who taught Constitutional Law at University of Chicago and knows what is in his kindergarten records. Will Obama withhold his own kindergarten records from his own presidential library?

  7. Old Atlantic Says:

    His mother also chose the father with the intent that Obama not be solely loyal to the United States. She then repeated that with the adopted father and she intended Obama to sever his ties to the US and raised him with that intent in Indonesia.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: