Work From Home

Is Barack Hussein Obama a natural born citizen?  I used to be certain that he was not, but lately a number of conservatives are saying that he is natural born, and that the meaning of natural born citizen isn’t what it used to be. 


A lot of people now believe that it doesn’t matter where you were born (John McCain was born in Panama) or whether or not your parents were American citizens at the time of your birth (Marco Rubio’s parents were citizens of Cuba). The prevailing belief -- some say “consensus” -- is that it doesn’t matter whether or not Obama’s parents were American citizens or not at the time of his birth.  Some say it doesn’t even matter where he was born.


Excerpt from Section 1 Article 2 of the United States Constitution


I always believed that the natural born citizen requirement for the Office of President (Section 1, Article 2 of the Constitution) was specifically designed by our founding fathers to ensure that our President and Commander-in-Chief would not be influenced by any foreign ideology or hold allegiance to a foreign power.  


This would be assured (it was thought) because a natural born citizen was a person born on American soil of two parents who were both citizens at the time of his birth.  He could not be influenced by the ideology of a foreign nation (Communist Russia for example), because neither he nor his parents were born and raised in a foreign country.  Further, his parents would be American, not foreign (a Kenyan for example), who might influence him to have anti-American or anti-Christian convictions, or cause the child to have allegiance to their foreign nation rather than to the USA.


A natural born citizen classification is distinctly different from all other forms of citizenship.  Or so I thought.   The apparent prevailing definition holds that any foreign female can come into the country and deliver children, and the children are all natural born citizens.


Those who hold the apparently prevailing view, including educated conservatives I have a lot of respect for, say that Obama’s parent’s citizenship doesn’t matter.  One of them directed me to Cornell University Law School for a better understanding of the term ‘natural born citizen’ reproduced below:



Overview  Resources  For example  In caselaw 

A phrase denoting one of the requirements for becoming President or Vice-President of the United States.  Anyone born after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 must be a "natural born Citizen" of the United States to constitutionally fill the office of President or Vice-President.  See U.S. Const. art. II, § 1id. at amend. XII.


Some debate exists as to the meaning of this phrase.  Consensus exists that anyone born on U.S. soil is a "natural born Citizen."  One may also be a "natural born Citizen" if, despite a birth on foreign soil, U.S. citizenship immediately passes from the person's parents. [Emphasis added] 

The operative phrase in this definition seems to be “Consensus exists…” I don’t’ know who forms the consensus, unless it’s liberal law schools. The Cornell definition completely obliterates any distinction between citizenship and natural born citizenship. If you click on the For example link (above) you get this: 

Bob's parents are British citizens.  Bob is born in Hawaii and is subject to the jurisdiction of that state. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a) (2008), Bob acquires U.S. citizenship at birth.  Therefore, Bob is a "natural born Citizen" of the United States.

“Bob” was born in Hawaii and his parents are British citizens.  Let’s just say that “Bob” is Obama.  And his mother is an American citizen and his father is Kenyan or British or has dual citizenship.  According to this definition, Obama is a natural born citizen. But what about the citizenship laws that obtained in 1961 when Obama was born? Don’t those laws apply to him? 

Does The Constitution Matter Anymore?


The Constitution makes an explicit distinction between a “natural born Citizen” and a “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.”  However, the Constitution does not provide a clear definition for the term ‘natural born citizen’. I do not trust the current “consensus” definition of the term. The Supreme Court needs to sort this out for us.


If a future Supreme Court rules that a natural born citizen means anyone born on American soil, or even on foreign soil if his parents are citizens, then we will have nothing further to say on this issue.  According to our rule of law, the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter on what the Constitution says and means.  But so far the Supreme Court has not ruled on the matter and is doing its best to avoid the issue.  The Constitution is undefended. Does the Constitution even matter any more? 


Eligibility Challenge Filed by a Democrat in Florida


A lot of citizens have filed lawsuits trying to get the courts to intervene in the matter. The courts have dismissed virtually all of them due to legal technicalities, such as lack of standing. Obama has reportedly spent millions of dollars on attorneys fighting citizen petitions for discovery and declarative rulings.  Nothing remotely like this has happened before in American history.  A few judges have ruled that the matter is settled law, based on legal precedent.  However, there is a pending lawsuit that helps focus the issue.


A Democrat, Michael Voeltz, represented by attorney Larry Klaymen, has filed suit in Florida claiming that Obama’s recorded votes in the last election are invalid because he is not a natural born citizen.  You will not hear of this lawsuit in the mainstream media for obvious reasons.  In the Appellant’s Initial Brief, Voeltz claims

The only so called evidence of Appellee Obama's birth within the United States has come in the form of an electronic version posted on the internet. (R.112) There is uncontroverted evidence, however, on the record, to show that this "birth certificate" has either been altered or is entirely fraudulent. (R.260-278) No physical, paper copy has ever been presented to firmly establish that Appellee Obama was indeed born within the United States. (R.112)

Yet even if his purported "birth certificate" is to be believed, Appellee Obama was born to a mother who was a citizen of the United States, and a father who was a Kenyan citizen. (R.112) The U.S. Constitution requires that all who serve as President of the United States must be "natural born citizen[s]." The U.S. Supreme Court has defined this term to mean a child born to two citizen parents. (R.245-260) Since Appellee Obama was not born to both parents who were citizens of the United States, he is not a "natural born citizen" as required by the Constitution. 

World Net Daily reported recently on the case as follows: 

The case earlier this year was dismissed by Circuit Judge Terry Lewis, who said Obama’s eligibility could not be challenged at that time because under Florida election law, technically, Obama hadn’t been nominated to the position. [of President]

As WND reported, Michael Voeltz, who identifies himself as “a registered member of the Democratic Party, voter and taxpayer in Broward County,” had challenged Obama’s eligibility, arguing that the “natural born citizen” clause was rightly understood in historical context to mean a child not only born in the U.S., but born to two American-citizen parents, so as not to have divided loyalties. Obama, however, readily admits to being born a dual citizen because of his father’s British citizenship.

In his decision then, Lewis noted that the United States Supreme Court has concluded that “every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States.”

However, attorney Larry Klayman, who is representing Voeltz, said, “The judge equated being a ‘citizen’ with a ‘natural born citizen’ and cited no authority to conclude the two terms are the same. He quotes other state’s cases, where judges reached that conclusion, but that’s not precedent for him. What other courts said in lower cases means nothing to him.”


The amended complaint states the following under Cause of Action

  1. 29.  Barack Hussein Obama is not eligible to serve as President of the United States based on the requirements set forth by the U.S. Constitution of being a natural born citizen of the United States. Barack Hussein Obama has also defrauded the state of Florida  (and by definition the rest of the 49 states) that he is eligible to be president, and he must be disqualified by this court and the election results nullified.


The Most Important Question in the History of Our Republic


Larry Klayman is saying that it does matter whether Obama’s parents were American citizens at the time of his birth, and it does matter where he was born. Klayman also claims that Obama’s official documentation for his citizenship and birthplace are proven forgeries. The question of Obama’s eligibility is the single most important question that has been presented to the American people since the founding of our republic.


Is Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, a natural born citizen?  The nation is divided on this question.  If I were the Republican leader in charge of the party’s agenda, I would make this my number one priority and enter motions in both houses and the Supreme Court until official investigations were satisfactorily begun.  Does anyone expect this to happen? Or will the GOP again bring a plastic spoon to a gunfight?  What are they afraid of? The mainstream media? The truth?


Two other high profile eligibility lawsuits are currently wending their way through the courts. Hugh McInnish in Alabama and Blair Sibley in Washington, D.C. have eligibility cases pending and both are based, in part, on the question of natural born citizenship. Why can’t President Obama answer this question once and for all? Because doing so would reveal information he needs hidden from the public, or because he can’t prove that he is a natural born citizen.


We can’t wait for Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, George Will, Greta Susteren or Bill O’Reilly to gather the courage to openly ask the question and investigate the matter.  Most of these conservative luminaries have already accepted the status quo, either rationalizing that Obama has proved his case, or that the question is too hazardous to their careers to ask. Many conservatives have abandoned the question because they are convinced that it makes us look like fringe kooks, and is a futile effort that will cost votes, not win them.


Those of us who are not convinced are pretty much on our own. We can’t expect any help from the Republican Party or even much help from our own ranks.  If we want this question answered we’re going to have to raise hell to get any attention, and just take the abuse that comes with it.  The Electoral College meets on December 17 to cast their ballots for the presidential election.  Regardless of how the Electors vote, the quintessential question of the age demands an answer.


JT Hatter is the author of Lost in Zombieland: The Rise of President Zero, a political satire on the Obama administration.  JT can be reached at

Views: 2807


You need to be a member of Tea Party Nation to add comments!

Join Tea Party Nation

Comment by Thomas Angle on December 20, 2012 at 5:38pm

Maybe it should be We the People that go take the floor of the House and and object.

Comment by David Farrar on December 20, 2012 at 5:21pm

Sen. Rubio and/or Sen. Cruz should be the ones in the Senate to stand up on the floor of the House and demand their objection to Barack Obama taking the oath of office of the Presidency of the United States be heard, even if, they, themselves, believe him to be eligible. This will be the best and only chance for them to get an objective sense of Congress on the issue, to 'clear the air', so to speak, in time for their future presidential ambitions.

ex animo


Comment by Donald R Laster Jr on December 20, 2012 at 2:24pm

If people would like to know what the Republican Party ignored the facts that both Mr Obama and John McCain are ineligible to be President can read some of the information at

Comment by Donald R Laster Jr on December 20, 2012 at 2:21pm

A number of people have taken into the Courts.  Purpura v Sebelius is just one.  In that one the Court's fabricated a standing claim after the Government defaulted by failing to answer.  Then the Appeals court judges violated Title 28, Section 455 and the Supreme Court refused to hear it.  Court 6 pointed out that Mr Obama is not actual President since he is not a natural born citizen and that the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" was never actually signed into law. 

Comment by Jeff B. Willis on December 19, 2012 at 9:09am

Our "friends" at Fox News need to get the word out! Where are Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham when you need them?

To have this discussion would raise even more questions? If Obama were ruled ineligible, would Romney win by default. Or, if we had it after inauguration, would Biden move into the Presidency?

Obviously, if Obama were ruled ineligible, all of his legisilation would be null and void. Ditto for his appointments, including his Supreme Court picks! The entire year of 2013 would be a matter of Biden attempting to reintroduce legislation passed over the past four years! If Romney were the President, it would be as if the past four years were a bad dream!

These are the considerations that would come into play.

For those who say that the Republic is dead and we are actually run by a large corporation spearheaded by eight family banking cartels, here is your proof! If the Supreme Court takes up the case, you are wrong. If not, you are correct!

At that point, all Americans will need to decide if we want to live in this country; under such conditions! Some may suggest that I am "out of bounds" when I propose a "peaceful separation" of the states. But that may be our best and only alternative! Some states are more in touch with the constitition than others. It's just fact!

Of course, there are other alternatives. I would hope that we aren't forced to explore them. That's why it is imperative for the Court to either uphold or reject the 1875 ruling. This isn't something that can brushed under the rug!

I would think that Jim DeMint may be in the perfect position to lead the charge. He is respected. He knows the ropes. He believes in the constitituion. But it must happen, for better for worse!

If it doesn't, we'll have our answer. Then it will be decision time for all of us.

Comment by Rich Knoch on December 19, 2012 at 9:05am

The only person who's consistently, for years, been actively going for the truth is Orly Taitz.  

She's closing in on the Kenyan and can use your help!

Comment by Debrajoe Smith-Beatty on December 19, 2012 at 8:47am

Jeff - what do we do? Who will take it before the courts?

Comment by Jeff B. Willis on December 19, 2012 at 8:28am

The court simply needs to hear it! Immediately!

What could be of greater urgency? Yes, the timing would be awkward. There are those who would contend that it was "politically driven." And, if Sotomayor and Kagan were asked to recuse themselves, all hell would break lose! But...

We should have entered into this discussion in 2008. The fact that we didn't shows the true politicism of the Democrat party. Obviously, Hillary thought that she would win. When it appeared that she might not, the party elders likely convinced her to keep still about it! 

There is also the possibility that John McCain's status would have come up. True, there were different considerations. But, his nomination was a mistake to begin with! Had the discussion taken place in '08, there is a chance that both Obama and McCain would have been ruled ineligible!

The Democrats obviously saw Obama as a rising star. It is probable that Hillary would have tapped Barack to be her running mate. Prominent Democrats admitted that the party expected Hillary to enjoy an eight-year stint as President, with Obama maturing nicely in his V.P. role. This would have perfectly positioned him for a 2016 presidential run.

The constitutionality of his candidacy was the least of their concerns! 

Why the Republicans sat silently is a mystery. Perhaps they thought that Obama would be easier to defeat than Hillary. Maybe they didn't want to nominate McCain and be forced to change horses. They GOP leadership has been short on insight as of late! Their shunning the "constitutional angle" reflects the state of the party today! 

Comment by Thomas Angle on December 19, 2012 at 8:05am

I think the real question is why do We follow the illegal acts of Congress? We should just stand up and say no that is an illegal law, act, etc... and We will not follow it and We will stop anyone sent to enforce it. But that would take a large number of us and the attitude, if one hangs we all hang.

Comment by Debrajoe Smith-Beatty on December 19, 2012 at 7:53am

Jeff your postings are interesting. The question is we can remove judges from the bench on behavior alone. Why don't we get it done? Because we would rather complain and whin than get into action. That alone will lose us our freedoms. So the questions is are we going to keep our freedoms or become slaves?

Tea Party Nation is a social network

The Instant Survivalist

Young Living Essential Oils


© 2014   Created by Judson Phillips.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service