As national polls show Donald Trump increasing in popularity while Hillary Clinton continues to decline, it is clear that Clinton and her surrogates are frantically searching for a single issue that they can use to blunt the Trump popularity surge. It now appears that they will put on a full-court-press, using the \u201cbirther\u201d issue to make Trump appear racially bigoted, elitist, and conspiracy-minded.<\/p>\n
The question of Trump\u2019s status as a \u201cbirther\u201d was raised once again in a recent interview with the Washington Post<\/em> when he was asked if he believed that Barack Obama was born in the United States.\u00a0 Trump replied, \u201cI\u2019ll answer that question at the right time.\u00a0 I just don\u2019t want to answer it yet.\u201d\u00a0 Shortly after that interview, Trump\u2019s senior communications adviser emailed a statement to reporters insisting that Trump no longer has questions about Obama\u2019s birthplace.<\/p>\n Article II. Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, states that, \u201cNo 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.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n What Trump and his legions of supporters and detractors clearly fail to understand is that the place<\/em> of Obama\u2019s birth has no more impact on the question of his presidential eligibility than does the color of his underwear.\u00a0\u00a0 If he was born in Hawaii, as appears to be the case, then he is an American \u201ccitizen,\u201d but that has nothing to do with his status as a \u201cnatural born\u201d citizen.<\/p>\n In 1866, John A. Bingham, chief framer of the 14th Amendment, which granted citizenship to the freed slaves, wrote as follows:\u00a0\u201cEvery human being born within the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty<\/em> (emphasis added) is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.\u201d\u00a0 While Obama\u2019s mother was clearly an American citizen when he was born, his father was not.\u00a0 His father was a citizen of Kenya, a British crown colony.\u00a0 He owed allegiance only to the British crown, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.<\/p>\n That being the case, it is indisputable<\/strong> that Obama was born with dual US-British citizenship (see Part 2, Section 5[1] of the British Nationality Act of 1948); he acquired dual US-Kenyan citizenship on December 12, 1963 (see Chapter VI, Section 87[3], Subsections 1 and 2 of the 1963 Kenyan constitution); he lost his Kenyan citizenship on August 4, 1984, his 23rd<\/sup> birthday (see Chapter VI, Section 97[1] of the 1963 Kenyan constitution); and he became a \u201ccitizen of Kenya by birth\u201d on August 4, 2010 (see Chapter 3, Section 14 of the 2010 Kenyan constitution).<\/p>\n The Founders rightly understood that the most influential factor in a child’s upbringing is the parenting he\/she receives as a child, and that the cultural, philosophical, political, and religious influence of a child’s parents through the formative years fundamentally establishes the direction of his\/her future conduct and intellectual development. Accordingly, what the Founders feared most, and what caused them to limit access to the presidency only to the \u201cnatural born,\u201d was the fear that a future president\u2026 during the years in which he was developing intellectually\u2026 would be exposed to an environment and\/or a political ideology that would cause him to reject the values and the principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution.\u00a0 Accordingly, while Obama appears to have been born on American soil, making him a U.S. \u201ccitizen,\u201d precisely what is it that differentiates a \u201ccitizen\u201d from a \u201cnatural born\u201d citizen?\u00a0 Those who agree that the two terms are mutually exclusive, not synonymous, but who also argue that Obama is \u201cnatural born,\u201d are obliged to support their argument with facts and reason.<\/p>\n At the time the Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788, there were three types of citizens: 1) The former British subjects who\u2026 having renounced all foreign allegiances and having pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor\u2026 became citizens of a sovereign American nation when the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776; 2) The post-Declaration children of those who became U.S. citizens on July 4, 1776, the first \u201cnatural born\u201d citizens of the United States, and all less than twelve years old at the time the Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788; and 3) A class of citizens comprised of those who were naturalized after July 4, 1776, having taken a loyalty oath and having renounced all foreign allegiances.<\/p>\n A great many well-intentioned, but ill-informed, Americans refuse to accept the fact that, while the Founders intended that only \u201cnatural born\u201d citizens should ever serve as president, there were no 35-year-old \u201cnatural born\u201d citizens available during the first 35 years of our nation\u2019s history. Accordingly, it became necessary to provide an exemption of limited duration<\/em> covering those citizens born prior to July 4, 1776.\u00a0 All were \u201cgrandfathered\u201d and made eligible under the phrase, \u201cor a Citizen<\/em> of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution\u2026\u201d <\/em><\/p>\n To fully understand the significance of that phrase it is necessary to recognize three very important dates:\u00a0 1) July 4, 1776, the date on which the Declaration of Independence was signed, making all citizens of the thirteen colonies citizens of the United States; 2) June 21, 1788, the date on which ratification by the State of New Hampshire made the Constitution the official law of the land; and 3) July 4, 1811, the date after which the first \u201cnatural born\u201d citizens\u2026 those born to U.S. citizens after<\/em> the signing of the Declaration on July 4, 1776\u2026 became 35 years of age.<\/p>\n The Constitution requires that, in addition to being a \u201cnatural born\u201d citizen and a resident of the United States for at least fourteen years, those who would seek the presidency must be at least thirty-five years of age. However, the only \u201cnatural born\u201d citizens available on June 21, 1788, the day the Constitution was ratified, were children under twelve years of age.\u00a0 To solve that problem, the Framers added a \u201cgrandfather clause,\u201d making it possible for newly-minted US citizens\u2026 all residents of the United States for at least fourteen years and all at least thirty-five years of age, but none of them \u201cnatural born\u201d because they were born to parents who were not U.S. citizens on the day they were born\u2026 to serve as president.\u00a0 This was necessary until such time as a body of individuals, all \u201cnatural born\u201d citizens, reached age thirty-five.<\/p>\n For example, our first seven presidents\u2026 George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, and Andrew Jackson\u2026 were all \u201ccitizens\u201d of the United States.\u00a0 However, because all were born prior to the signing of the Declaration of\u00a0\u00a0Independence, to parents who were British subjects, none were \u201cnatural born\u201d citizens.\u00a0 Martin Van Buren, our eighth president, was born at Kinderhook, New York on December 5, 1782, six years and five months after<\/em> the Declaration of Independence.\u00a0 Unlike his seven predecessors, he was not just a \u201ccitizen,\u201d he was a \u201cnatural born\u201d citizen\u2026 the first president, at least thirty-five years of age, who was born to US citizen parents after<\/em> July 4, 1776.<\/p>\n Every U.S. president since Van Buren\u2026 with the exception of Republican Chester A. Arthur, whose Irish father was a British subject at the time of his birth, and Democrat Barack Obama, whose Kenyan father was also a British subject\u2026 has been a \u201cnatural born\u201d U.S. citizen, as required by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.<\/p>\n The official U.S. government policy regarding dual citizenship is found in publications of the Consular Affairs Division of the U.S. Department of State. They read, in part, as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cThe concept of dual nationality <\/em>means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time.\u00a0\u00a0 Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy.\u00a0 Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice\u2026 <\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0\u201cThe U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it\u2026 because of the problems it may cause.\u00a0 Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law\u2026\u00a0 However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country<\/u>. They are required to obey the laws of both countries<\/u>\u2026<\/em>(emphasis added).\u201d \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n The Framers found it inconceivable that a president of the United States, commander in chief of the Army and the Navy, should ever be required to obey the laws of a foreign nation.\u00a0 Since, as a citizen of Kenya, Barack Obama is required to obey Kenyan law while in that country, it was mandatory that, during his visit to Kenya in July 2015, he should have invoked the 25th<\/sup> Amendment, making Joe Biden Acting President during his stay in that country\u2026 but he didn\u2019t.<\/p>\n However, what is so disturbing at this late date is the fact that so many otherwise well-informed people, including lawyers, judges, members of Congress, and presidential candidates, remain ignorant of what is at issue in the \u201cbirther\u201d debate. They continue to use the terms \u201ccitizen\u201d and \u201cnatural born citizen\u201d interchangeably, as if they are synonymous.\u00a0 They most certainly are not.<\/p>\n It is indisputable that, for the past seven years and eight months, a usurper has been occupying the Oval Office, performing all the duties of a legitimate president.\u00a0 Is it possible that we could still right the Ship of State, bringing Barack Obama to justice?\u00a0 No, that opportunity is long past.\u00a0 However, should we ever accept Obama as our 44th<\/sup> president?\u00a0 No, that we cannot do.\u00a0 Instead, we must continue to educate our fellow Americans so that, for all of American history, Barack Obama will have a large asterisk next to his name.<\/p>\n More importantly, we must see to it that our next president, Donald Trump, is fully conversant on the \u201cbirther\u201d issue.\u00a0 His organization has been provided with everything they need to know to educate him.\u00a0 Either they do not read their mail, or they are content to allow him to be victimized by a false flag issue.\u00a0 Their ineptitude could cause him to lose the November 2016 election.<\/p>\n Paul R. Hollrah is a retired government relations executive and a two-time member of the U.S. Electoral College. He currently lives and writes among the hills and lakes of northeast Oklahoma\u2019s Green Country.<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" As national polls show Donald Trump increasing in popularity while Hillary Clinton continues to decline, it is clear that Clinton and her surrogates are frantically searching for a single issue that they can use to blunt the Trump popularity surge. … Continue reading