LATEST: Go to for the latest Article II eligibility news ...
Tuesday, November 30, 2010

David Neiwert of Crooks and Liars isn't the only person that's clueless about the grandfather clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Many obots and even non-obots like to say none of our founders could have become President if Article II required two citizen parents. All you have to do is read Article II of the Constitution and you will see the founders clearly knew "natural born Citizen" and "Citizen" were not one in the same: the irrefutable proof is here;

"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;..."

Via Real Truth Online; - Dave Neiwert Embarrasses Himself by Being Clueless About the Natural Born Citizen Grandfather Clause -

In defending Obama’s citizenship and attempting to refute 'birthers', Neiwert suggests most founding fathers wouldn’t be eligible for the Presidency if they needed two American citizen parents, but completely ignores the grandfather clause which exempted those born before 1787 from needing two American citizen parents

by Larry Simons
November 30, 2010

Leave it to the Bill O’Reilly of the Left, Dave Neiwert to make his points by completely ignoring facts and embarrassing himself in a grand display of ignorance for thousands to see. In his latest article [from the site ironically called Crooks and Liars] titled, “Birthers' newest claim: Obama not a 'natural born citizen' because father was Kenyan UPDATED”, Neiwert discusses the matter of a “new” claim made by “birthers” [which is actually an old claim] that Barack Obama is not eligible to be President because his father was a British citizen [Kenya was under British rule in 1961, the time of Obama’s birth].

Then, in sheer hilarity, Neiwert says this:

“What's really funny about this theory is that these fetishists of all things from the Founding Fathers would thus have disqualified one of the leading founders, Thomas Jefferson, from the presidency.”

Actually, the thing that is really, really funny is the fact that Neiwert apparently has never read the actual section of the Constitution that exempts all Americans who were American citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution [in 1787] from needing two American citizen parents.
Article II, Section I, clause 5 states:

“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.”

What is also equally rib-tickling is that after quoting attorney Mario Apuzzo, who is bringing a lawsuit against Barack Obama, as saying, “The courts and Congress have never changed the definition,” said Apuzzo. “The founding fathers understood that the commander-in-chief of the armed forces needed to have two American citizens as parents so that American values would be imparted to him.”, Neiwert says, “This is pretty odd reasoning. Especially when you consider that the same standard would have disqualified Thomas Jefferson -- whose mother, Jane Randolph Jefferson, was born in London, England.” Although Neiwert is correct that Thomas Jefferson’s mother was born in England, she would have become an American citizen anyway by marriage to Peter Jefferson if America had been formed at the time of her marriage in 1739.

Turns out, Jane Jefferson did not have to be an American citizen anyway, because the Constitution’s grandfather clause clearly states that all American citizens [even those not natural born] who were alive at the adoption of the Constitution are eligible for the Presidency. Two Presidents were automatically grandfathered in: Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. Four other presidents who were born after the adoption of the Constitution who some consider not to be natural born citizens are as follows:

James Buchanan ---father became American citizen upon marriage to Buchanan’s mother, Elizabeth Speer. The reason why Obama’s father cannot claim American citizenship status upon marriage to Ann Dunham is because he was a Kenyan national [therefore a British citizen] and the British Nationality Law of 1948 does NOT allow dual citizenship. He could not have enjoyed American citizenship after marriage to Ann Dunham while at the same time stayed a Kenyan national. [see Obama info below].

Chester Arthur---(1881-1885) Born: October 5, 1829 in Fairfield, Vermont. Father- William Arthur, when eighteen years of age, emigrated from Co. Antrim, Ireland. Father did not become a naturalized citizen until 14 years after Chester Arthur’s birth. Mother- Malvina Stone born April 29, 1802 in Berkshire, Franklin, Vermont. Chester Arthur born with dual citizenship of the United Kingdom and the United States. Chester Arthur lied numerous times about his past to obfuscate his ineligibility to hold Vice-Presidential and Presidential office. Burned all personal records upon his death.

Woodrow Wilson’s mother Jessie Janet Woodrow automatically became a US citizen upon her marriage to his US citizen father, Reverend Dr. Joseph Ruggles Wilson.

Herbert Hoover’s mother, Hulda Randall Minthorn, automatically gained US citizenship upon her marriage to Hoover’s father, Jesse Hoover in 1870.

Only one President [outside of Chester Arthur] has been questioned about the citizenship of his parents: Barack Obama.

Barack Hussein Obama II---(2009-) Born: August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii. Father- Barack Obama, Sr. was born in Kanyadhiang village, Rachuonyo District, Lake Victoria, Kendu Bay, Kenya (at the time a colony of the British Empire) in 1936. Mother- Stanley Ann Dunham, later know as Ann Dunham Soetoro after divorce from Obama II’s father, was born at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas on November 29, 1942. Father was not a naturalized citizen at the time of his birth. Barack Obama II was born with dual citizenship of the United Kingdom and the United States. Possible adoption by Indonesian father coupled with continuance of Indonesian citizenship as an adult (travel to Pakistan, possible US college enrollment as a foreign student) could negate US citizenship or at least imply another dual citizenship. Circumstantial evidence exists Obama II born in Kenya and his parents later registered the birth in Hawaii. If born in Kenya, Obama II is not a US citizen at all due to 1952 statute not allowing mother to convey citizenship due to her age and time residing in United States past the age of 14.

Of all the comments posted under Neiwert’s story, only one [at the time of my writing] understood the grandfather clause while still dismissing that Obama is uneligible for the Presidency.

“dad23g” wrote:

Let's clarify a few things. While the Birther argument is preposterous, we should be clear on the facts on which the argument is based, for easier refutation. Article II of the US Constitution states: “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.” As the Founders were Citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, they were exempt from being natural born citizens to be eligible for the presidency. So arguing that the Birther theory would invalidate Jefferson's presidency gets us nowhere.

The Birther argument is that a "natural born citizen" must be born in the US of two parents who were citizens at the time of the birth. So someone born in the US, whose parents are citizens at the time of the birth, can be a "natural born citizen" (and therefore eligible for the presidency) even if one or both parents are merely citizens but not "natural born citizens." In other words, if you are born here, and both parents are naturalized citizens of foreign birth, you are eligibile for the presidency but your parents are not. So, if Obama's father was not a US citizen at the time he was born, their position is that Obama is not eligible for the presidency. Again, everyone born here whose parents were citizens but not born here are still eligible for the presidency, so arguing that those people are no longer eligible gets us nowhere.

The real refutation of the Birther argument is that the courts have held that the citizenship status of the parents is irrelevant. "Natural born" means born here. The rest is noise.

Whether “dad23g” is correct about the courts deeming citizenship of the parents irrelevant or not does not mean that the true definition of “natural born” does not mean both parents of a presidential candidate must be American citizens.

In my view, there would have been no need for the founders to include the grandfather clause, stating “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” if they simply meant that any U.S. citizen was eligible for the Presidency. They could have simply stated, “No person, except a United States citizen, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

...continued here;

Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of evidence against Hawaii officials and all of the people questioning Obama's eligibility; [].
Irrefutable Proof that Obama is Not Eligible to be President of the United States, the Facts Don't Lie!
Obama Ineligible - I tried and lied but it won't go away! Wash Times Natl Wkly 2010-11-29 pg 5


  1. The name of the website is very fitting.

  2. I too did not understand the difference until I actually read article 2. After reading it it was very clear to me that they are not the same. It makes sense that if the founders wanted just citizens to be eligible they would not have put natural-born citizen in the clause. The problem is people don't take the time to read and research what our founders intended.

  3. Great article, everything you need to know about this issue is answered here.

  4. Birther/Dualer/Doubter from CANovember 30, 2010 at 1:48 PM

    Ditto. This article shoots down David's arguments into a flaming heap. Dad23g's point that the courts held that "natural born" means born here. That is a bunch of crock. At best, Obama/Soetoro/Soebarkah would be a native-born citizen. Big difference. His papa's British/Kenyan citizenship DENIES him natural-born status. Of course, the courts haven't that determination official, but it's clear that is what the Founding Fathers intended. Therefore, it's a disgusting shame that the Supreme Court would reject Kerchner's lawsuit yesterday; making that decision stink even more was the illegitimate president's illegitimate appointees (Sotomayor and Kagan) weighing in on the issue when they clearly should've recused themselves due to having a financial conflict of interest. A dark day for our nation, indeed.

  5. obama is hoping to confuse the facts but the fact is hes is not eligible to be prez. why would he be hiding all his records if hes got nothing to hide? we must demand obama be removed by this new congress. all they got to show is he dont meet the requirements and hes a jail bird. keep pounding and let not let up on this.


“As long as I am an American citizen and American blood runs in these veins I shall hold myself at liberty to speak, to write, and to publish whatever I please on any subject.” - Elijah Parish Lovejoy(1802-1837)

Comments posted here do not necessarily reflect the views of Readers are solely responsible for the content of the comments they post on this web site.