Given the freak-out his campaign has had over Mitt Romney having a diversified banking and investment portfolio that includes foreign banks and companies, I think we have to ask the same question about Obama's foreign sources of income.

[I]n the three tax years in which Barack Obama has been President (2009, 2010, and 2011), fully 30.1% of the Obamas’ gross income has come from foreign sources: ($2,711,340 out of a 3-year total gross income of $8,993,449). In 2009, 26.5% of the Obamas’ gross income came from foreign sources. In 2010 it was a whopping 41.4%, and in 2010 it was 30.2%.

The salary that we taxpayers pay him as President (just under $1.2 million over the 3 years) accounted for less than 13% of the Obamas’ income, a share dwarfed by their 30% from foreign sources over the same period.

From 2009 through 2011, the Obamas paid $87,429 in foreign taxes, which they applied toward a credit to reduce their U.S. tax bill. The amounts I examined are reported on Form 1116, of which there are two filed along with their 1040 when they had both general and passive foreign income.

In other words, in every year of Barack Obama's presidency he has earned more income from foreign sources -- at least twice as much each year -- than he did from his salary as president of the United States. Not only that, he has paid foreign taxes -- in an amount higher than the average income of an American worker -- and used that to reduce the taxes he pays to the United States government. Do we want to talk about who isn't paying his "fair share"?

Only a fraction of Mitt Romney's income comes from outside the United States, and only a fraction of it is invested or banked outside the United States. Why are we more worried about that than the fact that a sitting president is drawing a 1/3 of his income from foreign sources -- while getting only 1/8 of his income from the American taxpayer. Whose loyalty -- and whose patriotism -- should be questioned based upon the standards applied by the Obama campaign to Mitt Romney?