***********
Hawaii verified two things that are fatal to Obama’s qualifications for the presidency: first, he has a foreign father who was never an American; second, Obama is a dual citizen.
Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett’s Milquetoast email request for Hawaii to confirm the ‘information on Obama’s birth in Hawaii, and to accept an email response, got him what he, the republicans, and Obama wanted: another false ‘official’ statement from Hawaii’s Department of Heath (HDOH) supposedly validating Obama’s birth in Hawaii. Ah, more ‘stuff’ that they can hide behind, claiming ‘due diligence’ has been done.
Hoping to put an end to the story,those pesky ballot challenges and Sheriffs, Hawaii and the AZ SoS perpetuate the myth and meme of ‘born in the USA”, or “American citizen”–as the only qualifying factor for President– to deceive the voting public. The Hawaii release did not authenticate Obama’s 2011 electronic version of the Birth Certificate, leaving Sheriff Arpaio’s investigation in tact and relevant. Hawaii also did not verify anything about Obama’s adoption.
We told you.
What no one expected was to have Barack Obama’sdual citizenship confirmed,again, by listing the name and birthplace of the father Barack Obama Senior and Kenya, East Africa (lots of name changes there since the 2008 short form). Barack Obama junior was born a dual citizen of Britain and the United States. The failure for Mr. Obama is that once born a British citizen, one cannot lose that citizenship unless it is specifically renounced. His Kenyan citizenship may have expired unless he claimed it in 1983-but not his original British bonafides.
Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution requires the president to be either in either one of two citizenship categories:
- a ‘natural born citizen’, or
- a ‘citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution’:
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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Solid Constitutional, legal, and historic information support the definition of natural born citizen that must be used until the United States Supreme Court says differently. A natural born citizen is born in the United States of parents who are American citizens. Not a single parent; not the mother or the father, but both parents.
Obama has a foreign father thus fails the two-citizen parent test.
The consistent mistakes made by all deniers of Article II include citing erroneous case law, the 14th Amendment, or stating Article II reads that ‘citizens’ are allowed to be President, ignoring the necessary phrase ‘at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution’ in context. Other mistakes are made in looking to English Common Law’s definitions of and rules for acquiring ‘citizenship’. A British citizen-subject is not an American natural born citizen.
But even if these common mistakes that Obama supporters and attorneys make are allowed to stand in court, no one can say that Article II permits a dual citizen to be the president.
You have to be ‘natural born’ or, a ‘citizen at the time of the adoption of this Constitution’. The Constitution does not add that category dual citizen as eligible for the Presidency. Nothing in any further legislation or amendment makes the Presidency open to being filled by a ‘naturalized’ American citizen.
The bottom line is that even if you think there is ambiguity in the definition of ‘natural born citizen’, there is NO AMBIGUITY that a dual citizen cannot be presidentor vice president of the United States.
Bennett’s Mistake is an Opening
Bennett makes his first mistake by asking only if Obama was born in Hawaii. In doing so, Bennett actually takes it upon himself to define natural born citizen as ‘born in the USA” in contrast to 200 years of Constitutional law and Supreme Court case law in the United States. Furthermore, by ignoring the citizenship of Barack Obama’s father and Obama’s resulting dual citizenship, Bennett is unlawfully expanding the definition of natural born citizen to include dual citizens. As the State’s top election official, he has no authority to change the definition of natural born citizen nor to expand the classes of citizens qualified to hold the office.
After informing Secretary Bennett of Mr. Obama’s statement admitting the British Nationality Act governs his citizenship, the next series of questions for Secretary Bennett could include:
- Does the Constitution permit a dual citizen to hold the office of President?
- Does the Constitution permit a ‘naturalized’ citizen to hold the office of President?
- Has Barack Obama renounced his dual citizenship with Britain?
- Does Barack Obama’s known adoption by an Indonesian affect his existing dual citizenship?
- Has Barack Obama naturalized as an American citizen?
These are questions Secretary Bennett should forward to the Attorney General. An honest investigation will find that unless the Constitution is formally amended or the Supreme Court rules on these questions, Mr. Obama cannot qualify for Arizona’s ballot.
(update) This information, coupled with his publicist’s printing of his biographyraises significant doubt as to the legal validity or wisdom of placing Barack Obama on the ballot. After all is said and done, this is misprision of felony!
Let this be the due diligence Arizonan’s require and their public servants provide. Let this effort lock him out of our White House forever!