Now
that President Obama is a former president, maybe Congress can now crawl out of
their safe spaces and deal with the issue of what is meant by Article II of the U.S. Constitution: "No person
except a natural born citizen ... shall be eligible to the Office of President."
In
January 2016, Congressman Alan Grayson said he would sue Senator Ted Cruz over his eligibility to be president. Grayson
told MSNBC that he would sue over Canadian-born Cruz's natural-born citizen
status if the senator ever became the GOP nominee. Why?
"Because the Constitution means what it says and says what it
means." In February 2016, presidential candidate Donald Trump jumped
into the fray and said he was "very seriously" thinking about filing
a suit tochallenge Ted Cruz's eligibility to be
president. Senator Cruz's father is Cuban-born; his mother is
American. "He was born in Canada, lived there for years."
Mr. Trump's suit would have determined if his competitor was a "natural
born citizen" as stipulated by the U.S. Constitution.
Under
the straw argument that the U.S. Constitution doesn't define what is meant by
"natural-born citizen," the media and Washington, D.C. Democrats
embraced the media-driven new definition: "natural born citizen"
simply means "citizenship due to place of birth."
During
the 2007 election cycle, Democrats and the media buttressed Senator Barack
Obama's eligibility to be president with an unrelenting campaign that having
been born in Hawaii automatically made candidate Obama – a
child of a British (Kenyan) national –
a "natural born citizen" of the United States. Newspaper and
magazine articles steered away from discussing how the son of a Kenyan national
could be the next president of the United States. He was born in Hawaii,
and that was sufficient. And if anyone challenged the assertion that
"natural born citizen" simply meant "citizenship due to place of
birth," he was branded a racist and bigot, or worse.
We
need a law that enunciates that the constitutional phrase "natural born
citizen" means what the Founders articulated those three little words to
mean: "born of two American parents."
A
child born of two foreign parents is a "natural born citizen" of
their parents' country, per their country's constitution, and, if born in
America, is not automatically an American citizen. If the Russian
ambassador and his wife have a baby at the Georgetown University Medical Center
the baby is a citizen of his parents' country – in this case, Russia.
Little Vladimir or Baby Ivanka is not an American citizen. They are
Russian citizens "by birth." If they wish, they can grow up and
immigrate to the U.S. and apply for citizenship. If accepted, then they
could become "naturalized" U.S. citizens.
A
"natural born citizen" law has to clearly elucidate that naturalized
U.S. citizens are not eligible to become president of the United States of
America. The New York Post published an October 19, 2013 report claiming that Arnold
Schwarzenegger is
"mulling a push to change the section of the U.S. Constitution requiring
presidential candidates to be American-born." Schwarzenegger was born
in Austria to Austrian
parents and in 1983 obtained his U.S. citizenship.
A
child born of one foreign parent and one American parent, irrespective of where
the child is born, is a national of two countries at the same time. From
the U.S. State Department, "[t]he concept of dual nationality means that a person is a national of
two countries at the same time. Each country has its own nationality laws
based on its own policy. Persons may have dual nationality by automatic
operation of different laws rather than by choice."
A
"natural born citizen" law has to clearly elucidate that a child of
one foreign parent and one American parent falls under the concept of
"dual nationality." Dual nationals owe allegiance to both the
United States and a foreign country, the exact condition the Founders
considered "improper and dangerous." It
should be obvious anyone with dual nationality – due to his split allegiance –
is not eligible to become president of the United States.
From
the Federalist blog, under the old English common law, birth was viewed as
enjoining a "perpetual allegiance" upon all to
the king that could never be severed or altered by any change of time or act of
anyone. England's "perpetual allegiance" due from birth was
extremely unpopular in the American colonies, often referred to as absurd
barbarism or simply perpetual nonsense. America went to war with England
over the doctrine behind "natural-born subject" in June of 1812.
Children
born of two American citizens, irrespective of where the children were born,
are "natural born citizens," and unlike those children who were
naturalized citizens or those with dual nationalities, they could even grow up
to be president of the United States. They have allegiance only to the
United States of America.
The
Framers of the U.S. Constitution believed that a rogue president is one who has
a split allegiance. At the time, about half of the new country was still
somewhat loyal to the king. The Founders believed that a candidate for
president was less likely to have a hidden split allegiance (to the crown) if
he or she was the progeny of two American parents. Not a naturalized
citizen. Not the child who held or could have held dual
nationality. Only a child born of two American citizens. Also,
citizenship is automatically conferred, irrespective of where that child is
born.
President
Obama acknowledges, through his two books, that he is the son of a Kenyan
father and an American mother. The media and Washington, D.C. Democrats
sufficiently obscured, redefined, and essentially adjudicated "out of
court" the spirit and intent of Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
Barack Obama, at the time of his birth, was a child who held or could have held
dual nationalities. He was not a child born of two American
citizens. He was an illegible candidate who was elected president.
A law
needs to be passed to prevent another trampling of the U.S. Constitution.
January 20, 2017
What Has Obama Done to Us, and How
Was He Able to Do It?
Now
that his time as president has come to an end, it’s time to ask what Barack
Obama has done to the country, and how he has been able to do it.
Obama
is the most left-wing president in American history. Never mind his speech at
the 2004 Democrat National Nomination Convention, or during the run-up to the
2008 election, when he was presenting himself as a moderate.
Someone
scrutinizing Obama’s history, including his early years in and out of the U.S.,
his time in school, his stint as a Chicago community organizer, his law school
experiences, and his political career as an Illinois state senator and a U.S.
senator, should have recognized him for what he is: a radical leftist, steeped
in Marxism, contemptuous of America’s Constitution, hostile to traditional
values, and committed to Alinskyite notions of social justice.
It’s
stupefying to realize how little the Mainstream Media (MSM) vetted him before
January 20 2009. Perhaps it is therefore understandable that some who could
not, or would not, recognize Obama for what he was believed he was some kind of
moderate capable of uniting the nation along post-partisan and post-racial
lines.
Obama’s
term as chief executive has been disastrous for the U.S. in terms of both
domestic and foreign affairs. There is no need to reprise the litany of Obama’s
deleterious policies. If one wants a partial glimpse of the damage Obama and
his minions have done to our domestic institutions, read Yuval
Levin’s article in the
December 2016 issue of Commentary. His disastrous cuts
to America’s military, and his commutation of “Chelsea” Manning’s sentence show how little he cares about U.S.
national security.
These
terrible developments stem from his successes in fundamentally transforming the
country.
One
hopes that Donald Trump’s presidency, along with GOP control of both houses of
Congress, and perhaps even a future Supreme Court majority leaning rightward,
will be able to offset the myriad damages the Obamians have inflicted in the
last eight years. But if history teaches us anything, it is that once a nation
has been fundamentally transformed, it’s very difficult to set it aright. Study,
for example, the history of Rome from the Republic’s demise to the first
decades of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, or that of Germany from the advent of
Kaiser Wilhelm II to the end of the Hitler regime in 1945.
Yuval
Levin’s article in Commentary also indicates that Trump may
exacerbate damages already done by Obama. John Daniel Davidson wrote in The Federalist(January 9 2017) that
Trump’s presidency is already inducing some Republicans to “love big government
more.”
It
would be one thing if the damage done by Obama and his tong were strictly a
matter of the accidental takeover of Washington by progressive elites in 2009.
Were that the case, come January 20 2017 things could readily be set aright.
Alas,
there’s the rub.
The
sad truth is that millions of ordinary Americans now vote to support left-wing
candidates and the Democrat Party. From Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, to Obama
in 2008 and 2012, and the Red Queen in 2016, leftists have drawn enough votes
either to win the presidency, or to come perilously close to doing so. Leftists
-- some, such as the Black Caucus because of race, others, such as Nancy
Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, Patrick Leahy, etc. out of some kind of
ideological conviction -- occupy seats in Congress. Those types also draw
substantial popular support.
It is
small consolation to note that large slices of voters who back leftists live on
the east and west coasts, in big cities, or work in government or the
educational establishment. Like it or not, their votes count the same as people
in small towns, rural areas, and/or flyover country.
If we
are to prevent a future left-wing inspired fundamental transformation of
America, as well as to begin dismantling what’s already been done, we must
understand why these people -- we already know who they are -- are inclined to
back leftist candidates and the Democrat Party.
Undoubtedly,
one reason why so many people vote left is because, for this or that reason,
they are dependent upon some sort of government largesse. As Mitt Romney noted
in 2012, 47% of the American populace receive some kind of government benefit,
and are therefore unlikely to react favorably to the prospect of that
beneficence being curtailed or eliminated. After four more years of Obamaism,
that percentage may actually be higher. Republicans will find it hard to wean
people from the government benefits bestowed during Obama’s presidency.
Okay,
start dismantling as much government largesse as possible. One assumes that is
what some of the “swamp draining” notion amounts to. Get government out of
people lives, and, presumably, they’ll have less reason to vote for candidates
and parties plumping for more big government.
But,
even if it is possible, that will be only one step toward coping with Obama’s
successes.
We
must acknowledge that millions of people not in the ruling class vote left for
reasons other than the expectation of a quid pro quo.
Some do
so because of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual preference, or
whatever. Take 2016, as an example. No doubt some of those who voted for
Hillary Clinton did so just because they wanted to see a woman elected
president. Nothing one could say about the many flaws inherent in Mrs.
Clinton’s character and background would keep those types from backing her.
The
same was true in 2008 and 2012, when overwhelming percentages of
African-Americans voted for Obama just because he identified as black.
Since
Obama has further divided Americans into quarreling tribes, it’s unlikely that
this pattern of voting behavior will change greatly in the near future. A
candidate like Trump can substantially shift the particular tribes backing the
major parties, but he’s not likely to be a uniter. He will more likely continue
the pattern of America’s chief executive being a divider.
We
must realize that there are also people -- such as Hollywood trendoids,
denizens of the MSM, leftist teachers and professors and their brainwashed
acolytes -- who want to see America’s proverbial nose rubbed in the muck. Who,
for example, lauded Obama’s multiple apology tours during his presidency?
Probably not many who read the American Thinker.
America’s
haters have been around since at least the 1960s, and some even before then.
Sadly, there has been a relatively small, but very influential, group of
radicals who have rejected virtually every facet of American culture and
politics for over half a century.
Granted,
Obama leaves the Democrat Party in disarray. But parties have been in disarray
before -- the GOP after Hoover and Goldwater, and the Democrats after McGovern
and Carter -- but they come back. Today’s Democrats just have farther to go than
parties in the past.
Obama’s
real legacy is his damage to America, and, unless we find some way to peel
portions of his backers away, there is a risk that another leftist could do it
again.
