Dear Editor:
A natural-born citizen is a person born within the Republic, i.e. the United States of America, of parents whom are citizens of the Republic that owe allegiance to no other sovereignty.
Citizen, for purpose of this definition, is any person born into the jurisdiction of the Republic or naturalized into the Republic according to the laws of the Republic.
The aforementioned paragraph is the essence of many Congressional discussions about natural-born citizens.
Note that Obama had a Kenyan parent owing allegiance to Kenya not the United States of America. Consequently, Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen and is an invalid president of the U.S.A. Obama freely admitted associating with Marxists, Communists, and progressives because he felt more comfortable with such folk.
Obama as POTUS hired flat-out Communists, i.e. Van Jones, so is it any wonder that Obama really holds allegiance to foreign countries and ideologies rather than the U.S.A. and its core ideology of freedom?
The Constitution needs a new amendment to incorporate the correct definition of a natural-born citizen and apply the requirement to be a natural-born citizen to members of the U.S. Senate and Supreme Court.
Any citizens that can't meet the requirements of being a true natural-born citizen can always pursue a position in the House of Representatives.
So who is in favor of a new constitutional amendment is ensure citizens in high US offices should hold allegiance only to America and freedom?