Thread: He is not a natural born Citizen – as defined by the Const

Forgery, Fraud and Ineligibility



OBAMA HAS SHOWN THE WORLD THAT HE WAS NOT BORN TO A U.S. CITIZEN FATHER, SO WHY IS HE IN THE WHITE HOUSE?

by Neil Turner



Swiss philosopher Emmerich de Vattel's "The Law of Nations" was published in 1758

(Apr. 30, 2011) — Obama has now personally and publicly acknowledged, albeit with the ‘silliness’ of an eight-year-old with a crayon and a piece of security paper*, that he is not a natural born Citizen – as defined by the Constitution:

1. Article II, Section 1:5 says that only a ‘natural born Citizen’ shall be eligible to the Office of President;
2. Article I, Section 8 says that Congress (under the authority granted by the People) shall have the power to… define and punish… Offenses against the Law of Nations;
3. The Law of Nations says that:

‘The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens’;
‘As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights’;
‘The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children’;
‘To be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.’

Now that Congress has been made fully (and publicly) aware that an ineligible non-natural born Citizen is occupying the Office of President and Commander in Chief (they could not be so stupid as to not know – see ‘Something Stupid This Way Comes’), it becomes incumbent upon them to begin impeachment proceedings immediately, lest their failure to act previously – or especially now that they and the whole world knows – makes them chargeable with Misprision of Treason.

An article written by JB Williams, Managing Editor of www.PatriotsUnion.org, discusses this public confirmation by Obama that he is NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. Check the links at the end (you can contact your Senators and Representative directly without going through their website), and take the appropriate actions to help right this foundering ship of State and restore our Constitution.




*1. See Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth here.

2. Left click to draw a box around the text part of the Certificate. Right click mouse. Choose “Copy Image.â€

How to Stop Obama in the Next Election
12Share
CAN THE FEDERAL ELECTIONS COMMISSION KEEP OBAMA OFF THE BALLOT FOR 2012?

by Jedi Pauly, ©2011

If the FEC allows Obama to run again, it is committing a crime against the Citizens?

(Apr. 30, 2011) — Dear Readers of the Post and Email News and fellow Patriots:

I have written up the legal proof of the Natural Law Theory that clearly shows all of the correct law regarding the true meaning and definition of Article II “natural born Citizenâ€

I cannot fathom why everyone keeps citing Vattel. Vattel, while historically signifcant, has not authoritative standing in American law. And in modern American law there is nothing special or pre-eminent about the status of the father vs. the mother. I am not defending the Obama presidency. To me there's enough other stuff to talk about.

Originally Posted by BetsyRoss

I cannot fathom why everyone keeps citing Vattel. Vattel, while historically signifcant, has not authoritative standing in American law. And in modern American law there is nothing special or pre-eminent about the status of the father vs. the mother. I am not defending the Obama presidency. To me there's enough other stuff to talk about.

Betsy, there are numerous references to the Law Of Nations and people much smarter than you or me are keenly aware of the history of Vattels Law of Nations and it's importance to our founder fathers and constitution.

I realize that you are one of those that think that we have much bigger problems to deal with such as fighting against Obama's destructive policies. But consider this, Obama's policies are a symptom of the disease. We can't ignore the fact that Obama was nominated and elected under illegal pretenses. This can't be allowed to happen again. Those involved knew what they were doing and need to be held accountable. The constitution is very clear on the meaning and application of "Natural Born Citizen". Our founding fathers very deliberately crafted this into our founding document to prevent anyone from occupying the office of POTUS that may have allegiances to another country. This is why ONLY the office of President, as spelled out in the constitution, requires this. Other offices do not.

Betsy, below is a link to a very clearly written article on how and why Vattels Law of Nations was used by our founding fathers. The first half of the article is very informative and directly addresses your comment.

---------------------
Was McCain Ineligible to Run for the Presidency? PDF Print E-mail
Written by John Murphy
Wednesday, 13 April 2011
Why Haven’t Republicans Challenged Obama?

First, let me state up front that this is a theory of mine. I'm not a Constitutional scholar and I have no inside information that someone told me.

I'm asked all the time by Obama supporters, "Isn't there one thing that Obama has done good in your view?" After thinking long and hard, I have to admit that there is one thing that Obama has done that is good. It's providing a reason for citizens to read or reread the Constitution of the United States and try to understand its meaning.

The last Presidential election exposed a difference of opinion with regards to the eligibility requirements of candidates to that position. How could that be? Hasn't it been settled as to who can and who can't run for President? After all, we've only had a Constitution for 220 years as of 2008.

The requirements seem pretty simple to me, that is, 35 years old, 14 years a resident and a natural born citizen. 35 years old and 14 years a resident doesn't seem to be a matter of dispute as much as the natural born citizen requirement. So, the question is, just what is meant by the term, natural born citizen?

First, let's look at the requirement to be a Congressman and a Senator. For Congressman (or woman, for the politically correct), the requirement is 25 years old, a resident for 7 years and be a citizen. For Senator, it's 30 years old, 9 years a resident and be a citizen. So far, so good. I'm sure that the founders didn't write the Constitution so that only geniuses (for example) could understand it. OK, Congressman--25 years old, Senator--30 years old, President--35 years old. See the progression? Now, Congressman--7 years residency, Senator--9 years residency, President--14 years residency.

Again, progression. Last and especially not least, Congressman--citizen, Senator--citizen and President--natural born citizen. Since we've already identified 2 out of the 3 requirements as being progressive (not to be confused with liberal ideology), wouldn't it be the case that natural born citizen is a higher state of citizen than just a citizen? You would think so, but this is where the disagreement is, apparently. The majority of people in America do not understand what a natural born citizen is.

So, (and this is where Obama comes in) many people, including myself have investigated this requirement to identify just what the founders meant by natural born citizen as it is not described within the Constitution. But then again, citizen is not described either in the original Constitution. It took the 14th amendment to describe what a citizen is (and even that is a source of controversy).

The founders, it seems, were great proponents of the philosophy of Natural Law. Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution contain words and ideas that come directly from a book titled: "Law of Nations" by Emmerich de Vattel. "Law of Nations" was written in 1758 and there is evidence that the founders were thoroughly familiar with it as evidenced by a letter from Benjamin Franklin to Charles Dumas of the Netherlands in 1775, thanking him for 3 copies of the book in which he would distribute to the other founders. The book title was actually included in our Constitution in Art.1, Sec. 8. The term natural born citizen can be found in this book with its description. The exact description of natural born citizen is as follows: born in-country of citizen parents.

So.... this description would seem to escalate or progress the requirement versus the description of just a citizen as noted in the 14th amendment which is to be just born or naturalized within the U.S.

Let me point out also that in the discussions leading to the designation of natural born citizen, the founders were aware of the problems of government in Europe in what they called "intrigues." They sought to reduce those "intrigues" by following the natural law philosophy so that whoever was appointed as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces would not have dual loyalties. The description of natural born citizen as per the book, "Law of Nations," fits perfectly with those intentions. The future Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Jay, wrote a note to George Washington during the Constitutional Convention, to consider natural born citizen as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.

This leads to another proscription within the Constitution in Art. 1, Sec. 8 (yes, same article---it's a long one). Congress is charged with producing a law on naturalization. This they did in 1790. The 1st Congress passed the "Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1790" in which they describe (among other things), children born to citizens overseas as natural born citizens. This was primarily to be used for Ambassadors and Diplomats serving the country. As of yet (1790), America had no military bases overseas. But, in 1795, Congress passed another law called the "Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1795" in which they changed the description of children born overseas from natural born citizen to just citizen. You see, Congress realized their mistake from 5 years earlier. Natural law is natural law. You either are something or you're not. Simply put, to be a natural born citizen, you must be born in the country (whatever country) of citizen parents (plural) of the same country. To be born otherwise would be ----- unnatural.

So Congress rescinded the 1790 law in favor of the 1795 law because it more reflected the principles to which our founders ascribed. Remember also that many of the founders were still present during this time as it was only 7 years since the Constitution was adopted. So far, so good. Everything fits like a glove (as opposed to O.J.). Now here's where we come to some apparent "intrigue."

During the last election in 2008,from Jan.2008 to June 2008, John McCain was accused of not being a natural born citizen because he had been born in Panama (where his Navy father was stationed). In Feb.2008, Democrats sponsored a law, S 2678, that would declare children born overseas of military personnel as natural born citizens. Now the 1st question you have to ask is why Democrats would sponsor anything in order to help their opponents? The bill was originally sponsored by Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri (who just the month before in January declared her support for Obama). It was quickly co-sponsored by Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. This bill was specifically crafted as a means to declare McCain eligible for President. The bill failed and was never passed.

In April 2008, McCaskill sponsored another entity within the Senate, only this time, it was a Senate Resolution ( S.R. 511 ). Again, Clinton and Obama co-sponsored it. And again, I have to ask why these people would want to help their opponent? For sure, this was not how Obama had run ALL his previous political campaigns. Normally, Obama would work to get his opponents kicked off the ballot by exposing some qualification they failed to meet or some dalliance that they committed.

So, on April 30, 2008, S.R. 511 passed with no opposition. John McCain was deemed a natural born citizen and thus eligible to run for President of the United States.

Except for one problem. They lied in the Senate Resolution. In one instance, they refer to the 1790 Immigration Bill without noting that it was rescinded. In another instance, they refer to the founders as not indicating the plight of children born overseas of military personnel when in fact, that's exactly what the Immigration Laws of 1790 and 1795 did and yet, in another instance, the Senate Resolution states that McCain was born on a base in Panama. He wasn’t, he was born in a civilian hospital in Colon, Panama, as his long form birth certificate indicates. (Oh, yes, McCain did indeed present his long form birth certificate to this august body).

So.... why was it passed with so many inaccuracies in it? With the benefit of hindsight that only a Monday morning quarterback can have, lets attempt to answer this.

It seems that early in 2008, McCaskill was on the short list as Obama's Vice President. That would explain her support for Obama so early. At the same time, McCain was the front runner for Republicans and would continue to be the front runner into April 2008. April 2008 found Hillary in the lead for Democrats. Now all Democrats probably looked at McCain as the easiest to beat of all the Republican candidates so it would behoove them to prop him up to stay in the race. This they did with the ill-fated S 2678 and ultimately S.R. 511.

But they misrepresented the founders and McCain in the resolution. Why? As I said before, Hillary and the Democrats figured that McCain was the weakest candidate and obviously NOT what was purported in the resolution. Obama had other reasons though. He knew (as did others) that he himself was not eligible so if a lie could be voted on favorably by both Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, he knew that he would acquire a "get out of jail free" card. Hillary probably knew that Obama was illegal too, but she was in the lead and felt that she "had it in the bag," so she was not concerned with him. Republicans, at the time, were concerned about McCain being the front runner for them. They did not want him dropped at this late date. It would also reflect badly on the Republican party, that they did not vet their candidate better during the campaign. So, when S.R. 511 passed with no opposition, everyone was happy.

A month after the Resolution passed, Obama took the lead (for good as it turned out). Now, Hillary became worried and mad too. How could they do this to her? The Reverend Jeremiah Wright's good best buddy, Father Phleger, portrays how Hillary felt in a sermon at Reverend Wright's church. You might have seen it on you tube, it's pretty funny. Here's the problem. Hillary knew that she couldn't bring up Obama's ineligibility because she lied (along with everybody else) in S.R.511. For years, the Clintons and their people played dirty politics but they found someone who was dirtier-- Obama and his Chicago people. It was checkmate and Hillary had lost but she wasn't done yet. While she herself never brought up Obama's bona-fides, one of the first if not the first lawsuits on Obama's ineligibility, in Aug.2008, came from one Phillip Berg, assistant Attorney General of Pennsylvania and a Hillary supporter. Hmmmm...what a coincidence!

Starting in June 2008 when Obama overtook Hillary, rumors of Obama's ineligibility began to surface. This is when the sycophant major media began using the term "birther" as a pejorative in order to deflect criticism of Obama that they suddenly started backing. Lost in all this is the fact that for the previous 6 months, the press had hounded McCain on his eligibility. This ultimately led to the Senate Resolution we talked about earlier. So in fact, the original "birthers" were Democrats but you would never know that today (thank God for the internet).

Obama would eventually display a short form "certification of live birth" of dubious quality and identification and that would be all he gives. Other information would come out from the "blogosphere" to include a vague newspaper announcement of his birth in Hawaii. Anything else is relegated to the new "birther" movement and thus marginalized by a majority of the press.

The official election season kicks off around the end of August and not one candidate, Republican or Democrat, would make reference to Obama's eligibility. It should come as no surprise that Obama's campaign used the race card every time they could. I wondered why McCain did not bring it up.

I thought he was just scared of being called a racist. I wasn't aware of S.R. 511 in detail yet. As it turns out, McCain didn't say anything about Obama's eligibility (along with any other Republican) because he himself was ineligible. All McCain and Republicans could do was hope for the best and hope they win. They didn't. The Republicans in the Senate had become accomplices to allowing an unqualified individual to be elected President of the United States.

As bad as this sounds, there would be one more chance to get this right. On January 8, 2009, both houses of Congress would come together to certify the Electoral College vote that took place in December, 2008. As per the 20th Amendment of the Constitution, Congress is charged with qualifying a President elect before the inauguration. What can I say? Did you hear of any challenges made during the certification? No, neither did I, so now the House became accomplices to the crime of allowing an unqualified individual into the Presidency.

Now you would think that that's a pretty bad thing to do.....challenge the electoral college vote. But in January, 2005 following the 2004 election in which George Bush won his 2nd term, an Ohio Democrat Congresswoman along with a California Democrat Senator did just that. The Congresswoman challenged the Ohio vote count of the electors and the proceedings stopped immediately. Both houses of Congress repaired to their separate buildings to debate the issue. They concluded that the count was right and got back together to formally certify the Electoral College vote and Bush was inaugurated.

No such thing happened in 2009. Not a peep from either the House or the Senate, and on the 20th of January, 2009, a usurper was sworn in as President of the United States.

Officially, no one would say anything. Two months later, in March,2009, the Congressional Research Service would send every Senator and Congressman a letter stating that there is no Federal or State law which requires a candidate for President of the United States to prove their eligibility for office. This is what Senators and Congressmen and women would take to town hall meetings, along with the short form, "certification of live birth" and Bill O'Reilly's favorite, the newspaper announcement.

Drip by drip, we find out more about Obama and his presumptive mother and father, but to this day, no Senator or Representative has challenged Obama.

What do I think? Well, just that the entire 110th and 111th Congress to include the principles of the election, Republican and Democrat, are dirty and that's why they can't and won't say anything. Shame on conservative politicians and media for allowing this to take place. It's criminal what they did. And don't think that wrapping yourself in the blanket of the tea party since then will absolve you of your culpability. The only lawmakers that can say anything are the newest members sworn in on January, 2011. If they do say anything, the previous two congresses will have to be implicated. Will someone have the courage to put the Constitution above mob rule? Who knows, but we're not armchair quarterbacks anymore, we're living it. You know what? I think I just answered all the why questions.

Postscript:

Army Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, a decorated Flight Surgeon to the Army Chief of Staff is now in Leavenworth prison as a result of a sham of a court martial in which he questioned Obama's eligibility before being deployed to Afghanistan. His court martial consisted of no discovery presented to him because the Judge, Army Col. Denise R. Lind, said that any discovery presented to Lakin about Obama might prove embarrassing to Obama and not one Senator or Congressman came to his defense.

What might prove embarrassing, though, is Congress's conduct and culpability in allowing a usurper into the White House and the fact that we are now in a Constitutional Crisis as bills, laws, appointments and treaties have been signed since his inauguration.

And here's another observation. If not for the vanity of one man, John McCain, we might not have Obama, the usurper, in the White House.

God Help America!


http://www.timesexaminer.com/political/ ... presidency

Very interesting reading.