Replies

... to prove his claims that's he's a “natural born” citizen as required by the Constitution!”

Time to read just a little bit. Barack did not claim to be a “natural born citizen.” He said on “FightTheSmears” that he was a “native born U.S. Citizen.” Today, a "native born U.S. citizen" is a "jus soli" citizen, born on our soil, but not necessarily of citizen parents. There are many, some calling themselves globalists, who believe anchor babies should be able to attain the presidency. They believe that naturalized citizens should have a "right" to be president. The only statements by Obama II associated with a claim to be a natural born citizen were his signatures on two state qualification forms required only by Arizona and Hawaii. Even those simply ask if he is qualified to run for the office, but don't specify the criteria. Obama is not, nor has he explicitly claimed, to be a constitutional natural born citizen. By the Constitution he doesn't respect, he is not our president or commander in chief.

Read just one statement - there are dozens of them - defining the common law of the framers, or the common law of today; that understanding is unchanged except that all our legislators have conveniently forgotten since all senators signed the Leahy McCaskill Senate Res. 511 in 2008. A natural born citizen is “born on the soil of citizen parents.” Leahy, McCaskill, Michael Chertoff who was a paid dupe for the sponsors of the bill left off the “born on the soil” part because their goal was to be sure everyone who didn't know the Senate has no control over who is a natural born citizen - most people - would assume McCain, not born on our soil or even on land over which the U.S. had absolute sovereignty, was eligible. Everyone in government knew he wasn't. Because it was a black guy and a former prisoner of war, everybody kept their mouths shut, and the enemies of our Constitution are now dismantling capitalism as they said they would.

We have congressmen, except for the one who dared to ask, Nathan Deal of Georgia, whose answer came in the form of ethics charges, who all know but, having said nothing, know they are complicit in the fraud. They are bound by their oaths of office to report infringements upon our Constitution. Both Republicans and Democrats are parties to it. Orrin Hatch, who tried his own amendment to the natural born citizen provision in 2003 to try to make Schwarzenegger eligible, now can't recall the definition.

Our media pundits, with a few exceptions, have careers to protect. Limbaugh has at least put his toes in the dangerous waters, his family has some good attorneys, but he hasn't explained the issues as God has given him the talent to do. He could have interviewed Mario Apuzzo or Leo Donofrio. Levin's books point the way, see Liberty and Tyranny on p37, where Madison explains the importance of the interpreting as the framers did; but Mark is afraid to talk. Dr. Lakin, the Army Lt Col, took a courageous step by demanding proof of Obama's authority, and has refused orders to return to Afghanistan. Dr Lakin and Commander Kerchner, who has the best formed lawsuit, have been a few to show the courage of their convictions. Lakin is facing jail, and lost his promotion to full Colonel by asking for verification of Obama's authority, as his military officer's oath requires. Dr. Lakin saw that the courts have become tools of the executive and has the faith in military justice to take a chance on reaching discovery, something federal courts have thus far avoided.

Obama's father was a British subject thus Obama was born a British subject. Being "natural born" means being born with natural and sole allegiance to the U.S. Being born British makes that impossible. No birth certificates are necessary. Obama is a usurper, and we are not being governed by a Constitutional executive and our military has a deceiver as commander in chief. It should be obvious that Obama and his team have no regard for the Constitution.

You don't need the Globe or the Enquirer. You need enough people with the confidence to think for themselves and who aren't cowed by the ridicule of Obama shills, and who will take the time to read a few pages of the eight or nine supreme court cases in which the Vattel definition is repeated. Try The Venus 12 U.S. 253 at paragraph 289 in the words of our greatest Chief Justice, John Marshall. Don't be fooled because Marshall, fluent in French, used “indigene and naturale” in place of natural born citizen. The English translations of Vattel use “natural born citizen.”

Our representatives are complicit. They have let this happen. McCain has let this happen, and may very well have had an agreement with Obama’s cadre. McCain used Obama’s law firm, Kendall and Ellis, to defend him for at least one of the lawsuits challenging his eligibility. McCain's legal director, Kendall's Christopher Landau employed junior attorney Sarah Herlihy to write a Kent Law Review article attacking the National Born Citizen provision in 2005. The suits were dropped. McCain's ineligibility has been written about and researched extensively by the left. They were right. McCain probably felt entitled and has sold out his nation to allow him a last chance at the presidency.

Don't pay attention when they try the old "it isn't defined in the Constitution" ploy. It was justice Joseph Story who explained that seventy percent of the Constitution is found in the common law understood by the framers. The Constitution isn't a legal dictionary. The legal dictionary most used by the framers, and by all U.S. jurisprudence until about 1830 was Vattel's law of nations. "Born on the soil of citizen parents" means Obama, or whatever his name is, is not our president. Everyone playing along has irons in the fire and is afraid of the truth; while they should be afraid of the justifiable consequences of having later, after another revolution, not spoken the truth earlier.

Thank You. Spaulding. You covered this very well. I want to keep the following short so as not to loose the emphasis.

To all freepers and lurkers:

The American people are now governed by an illegitimate government. It is well known or at least highly suspected in the Congress of the United States, in the highest echelons of the U.S. Armed Services, by the Secret Services, by the Supreme Court, to both political parties, and soon will be known to the average citizen on the street that Barack Obama is a usurper to the Office of the President of the United States.

Ask yourself this question: whys has no one in authority done anything about this?

I can think of only two reasons: 1) fear, 2) conspiracy.

First, fear. The fear may take many forms. Fear that:

* His exposure and removal from office may lead to widespread racial rioting
* His exposure would lead to the general conclusion that the main stream media in this country is willingly cooperative with those that would hide the truth from the American people
* Individuals that have taken the oath to protect the Constitution of the United States have too much at stake to rock the boat, and should Obama win a power struggle, that their lives, positions, and/or fortunes would be jeopardized
* Of exposure as a willing accomplice

Second, conspiracy. There may be many and varied conspiracies; some linked others independent. The conspiracies may be/are not imaginary in most cases and in many instances are linked to the items above. Most are conspiracies of silence. Others are sure to be nefarious in nature.

Obama may have no plans to instate the installation of a long lasting left wing regime in the U.S. He may simply, for whatever reason, hate this country, its peoples and institutions, and is out to wreak as much havoc as possible in his first and only term so as to lead to the eventual demise of this country and government as we know it.

On the other hand he may intend to transform this country into some form of socialist dictatorial regime that will last a thousand years (in his imagination).

In any case: he is a TRAITOR! Those who by intent, actions, or there silence assist in his remaining in office are TRAITORS!

Every action taken by the government of this country since his swearing in is ILLEGAL!

Every second of his continued presence in office is a SHAME and DISGRACE. His continuance in office is a direct INSULT of the highest order to those that have fought and died for this country since its very inception.

Failure to remove him from office immediately is an act of COWARDICE by those sworn to uphold and the laws and defend the Constitution of this country.

No greater cause has ever existed, including the Civil War, for INSURRECTION by the people of this country leading to the re-institution of rightful law and order.

Those found to have participated or assisted in his USURPTION should be dealt with legally and where found guilty suffer the severest form of punishment.

The USURPER must not escape punishment even though some may argue that it would bring disgrace to the office of the President. The Usurper must suffer the severest penalty allowed under the laws of this country in order that the HONOR, DIGNITY, and RESPECT of the office of the President may be restored.

How can a USURPER command our armed forces?
How can a USURPER sign any treaties with foreign governments?
How can a USURPER sign anything into law, let alone the health care monstrosity?

HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html

Factcheck.org goes on to say this about Obama Sr., Jr. and the British Nationality Act of 1948:

In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html

Even the modern day State Department rules discusses the problems associated with dual citizenship:

7 FAM 081: U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality:
(e)While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person.
...
the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that dual nationality is a "status long recognized in the law" and that "a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both." See Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952).

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86563.pdf

So, back to the question: "HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?"
It can't. Of course not. Yet, right there, on his campaign web site F.T.S., it's stated that a foreign government "governed" Barry from birth and the reason it did, was that Barry inherited that foreign citizenship by way of his foreign national father (no matter where he was born), a fact backed up by Factcheck.org. Assuming, of course, that Sr. was his legal father at birth.
How, then, could he possibly be a "Natural Born Citizen" of the U.S.?
Barry Soetoro, the divided citizen at birth!

Barack Obama a/k/a Barry Soetoro *	NOT Obama / Soetoro

* This assumes HI birth. A citizen of 2 countries at birth.

http://www.jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com

Furthermore: Hawaii's Territorial Law, Chapter 57 - "VITAL STATISTICS, I", shown beginning pg 23 of 29, (the law in effect in 1961) allowed the parents (or grandparents or other relative) of baby's born anywhere in the world to be eligible to apply for a Hawaiian birth certificate. A mailed-in form (without mention of a hospital, doctor, or midwife) signed by one of his grandparents (who forged the parent signature(s)) would have been enough to set up a birth record and a birth certificate at the Dept of Health. The Dept of Health would (presumably) then have automatically sent the names of the parents, their address as given on the mailed-in form , the gender of the child, and the date of birth to the Honolulu Advertiser and Star-Bulletin. The address given for the parents in the newspaper announcements is actually, however, the August 1961 home address of Obama’s maternal grandparents Stanley and Madelyn Dunham [6085 Kalanianaole Highway], and not the 1961 home address of Barack Obama, Sr. [625 11th Ave].) This notification would then have automatically generated the newspaper announcements. (This was the practice of the Honolulu Advertiser and Star-Bulletin at the time).

Bottom line: Even IF (big IF) he was born in HI, he inherited his father's foreign citizenship as well, making him a US citizen by US law and a subject to the crown of her majesty the Queen of England by inheritance, birthright and England's law. He could not be considered a Natural Born Citizen as known by and as intended by the framers.

==============================================================================

What follows, is a bit of information with regards to the Constitutional term "Natural Born Citizen" (specifically) and NOT about the entire makeup, functions, origins and influences that made/make up our form of government, a Constitutional Republic. Clearly, the framers relied upon many different sources to create our new form of government.

Who, or "what" constituted a natural born citizen was well known to the framers. Jay would not have made such a suggestion to the others (Washington & the rest of those in attendance at the Constitutional Convention) unless there was a clear understanding of what that term meant. The definition comes from a source that not only were the framers familiar with, but the founders (many who were both) as well. And yes, even though most could not speak French, most read French (except, notably, Washington who would defer to Jefferson when such interpretation was needed).

NBC in the Constitutional drafts:

June 18th, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States." Works of Alexander Hamilton (page 407).

July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) - John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." [the word born is underlined in Jay's letter which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.] http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29:

September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: "I thank you for the hints contained in your letter"
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=71483

September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay's letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) - The "Natural Born Citizen" requirement is now found in their drafts. Madison's notes of the Convention
The proposal passed unanimously without debate.

Original French version of Vattel's Law of Nations:

Emer de Vattel, Le droit des gens, ou Principes de la loi naturelle, vol. 1 (of 2) [1758]

From Chapter XIX, 212 (page 248 of 592):
Title in French: "Des citoyens et naturels"
To English: "Citizens and natural"

French text (about citizens): "Les citoyens sont les membres de la societe civile : lies a cette societe par certains devoirs et soumis a son autorite, ils participent avec egalite a ses avantages."
-------------------
To English: "The citizens are the members of the civil society: linked to this society by certain duties and subject to its authority, they participate with equality has its advantages."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
French text (about "natural" born citizens): "Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens"
-------------------
To English, gives this: "the natural, or indigenous, are those born in the country, parents who are citizens"

A detailed, historical, etymology of the term "Natural Born Citizen" can be found here: http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn/index.htm

Prior to the Constitution

"This 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel is of special importance to scholars of constitutional history and law, for it was read by many of the Founders of the United States of America, and informed their understanding of the principles of law which became established in the Constitution of 1787. Chitty's notes and the appended commentaries by Edward D. Ingraham, used in lectures at William and Mary College, provide a valuable perspective on Vattel's exposition from the viewpoint of American jurists who had adapted those principles to the American legal experience."

Vattel's Law of Nations, built upon "natural law - which has it's roots in ancient Greece, was influenced by Leibniz.
Even Blackstone affirmed the basis of natural law:
"This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original” (1979, 41). In this passage, Blackstone articulates the two claims that constitute the theoretical core of conceptual naturalism: 1) there can be no legally valid standards that conflict with the natural law; and 2) all valid laws derive what force and authority they have from the natural law."

Thomas Jefferson (for one example) had the 1758 version as well as a 1775 version in his own library:
Thomas Jefferson's Library: A Catalog with the Entries in His Own Order (under a section he titled "Ethics. Law of Nature and Nations."

In AUTOBIOGRAPHY by Thomas Jefferson, he states: "On the 1st of June 1779. I was appointed Governor of the Commonwealth and retired from the legislature. Being elected also one of the Visitors of Wm. & Mary college, a self-electing body, I effected, during my residence in Williamsburg that year, a change in the organization of that institution by abolishing the Grammar school, and the two professorships of Divinity & Oriental languages, and substituting a professorship of Law & Police, one of Anatomy Medicine and Chemistry, and one of Modern languages; and the charter confining us to six professorships, we added the law of Nature & Nations..." This was 8 years prior the the writing of the Constitution! [See the "Law of Nature & Nations" section of his personal library to get an idea of what he included in this curriculum in America's 1st law school].

Note: Vattel, is one of only 10 "footnotes" in Jefferson's Biography, from Yale.

Prior to Jay's famous letter to those in attendance at the Constitutional Convention, we see (one of many exchanges between the founders) a letter from Madison ("father" of the Constitution) to Jay:

"James Madison, as a member of the Continental Congress in 1780, drafted the instructions sent to John Jay, for negotiating a treaty with Spain, which quotes at length from The Law of Nations. Jay complained that this letter, which was probably read by the Spanish government, was not in code, and "Vattel's Law of Nations, which I found quoted in a letter from Congress, is prohibited here.[29]"
From: Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness. How the Natural Law concept of G.W. Leibniz Inspired America's Founding Fathers.

The concepts of "natural law" and the phrase "Laws of Nature" (of which Law of Nations is built upon) are found within the Declaration of Independence itself:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Those (& others) are clearly NOT derived from English law, but rather from natural law concepts (which can be found in Vattel's Law of Nations for ex.).

The Constitution

The concepts of "natural law" continued in the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union
...
Article 1. section 8, clause 10:
"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations"

Again, those phrases are not from English common law, but rather from natural law and even mention Vattel's book by name, "Law of Nations."

After the Constitution is penned

Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789.
David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period.

Ramsay REAFFIRMS the definition a Natural Born Citizen (born in country, to citizen parents (plural)) in 1789 A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789)

The Naturalization Act of 1790, which states (in relevant part) "that the children of citizens [plural] of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens"

Of course, the Act of 1790 was repealed by the Act of 1795 (which did NOT attempt to define or extend the definition for NBC). What the 1st Congress had tried to do in 1790 was to EXTEND the known definition (of born in country to citizen parentS) to those born outside of sovereign territory, to citizen parentS. Of course, they can't do that. Congress (by itself) doesn't have the Constitutional authority to define (or EXTEND) the Constitutional term "Natural Born Citizen." Only a SCOTUS decision on the intent of the framers, or an amendment to the Constitution can do that.

The same definition was referenced in the dicta of many early SCOTUS cases as well...some examples:

"THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen)
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel)
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel)
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17519578/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-34-Plaintiffs-Brief-Opposing-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss

The New Englander, Volume 3 (1845) states: "The expression ‘citizen of the United States occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states."
Note: the "New Englander" was NOT a student law review. The first student law review appeared 30 years later, in 1875/76 at the Albany Law School..

Vattel's definition for "natural born citizen" was read into the Congressional Record after the Civil War.
John Bingham, "father" of the 14th Amendment, the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, REAFFIRMED the definition known to the framers by saying this:

commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))"

SCOTUS, in an 1887 case cites Vattel a number of times and reitterates that his work was translated into English in 1760:
"Vattel in his Law of Nations, which was first printed at Neuchatel in 1758, and was translated into English and published in England in 1760" U S v. ARJONA, 120 U.S. 479 (1887)

It's interesting to note that (non binding) Senate Resolution 511, which attempted to proclaim that Sen. John McCain was a "Natural Born Citizen" because he was born to citizen parentS, even they referenced the (repealed) Naturalization Act of 1790: "Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen'".
Obama, himself, was a signatory of that resolution knowing full well (no doubt) the requirement has always been about 2 citizen parents.

The point is, with the exception of the repealed Act of 1790 which tried to EXTEND the definition, the meaning of the term "Natural Born Citizen" has ALWAYS been about being born within the sovereign territory or jurisdiction of the U.S. to 2 citizen parents (& therefore parents who do NOT owe allegiance to another, foreign, country).