Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

See Hawaii‘s Official Form Verifying They Have Obama’s Birth Certificate

Posted on June 8, 2012 at 6:06pm by Mytheos Holt
Comments (5

Well, that’s one bit of suspicion brought low. KYFI has reproduced Hawaii’s “Verification of birth certificate” form in full on their website, and we are able to bring you the following image of the much-dramatized document.

(Related: Hawaii: We‘ve Officially Verified Obama’s Birth Certificate for AZ Sec. of State)






Alvon T. Onaka is listed as the State Registrar for Hawaii. The date issued is May 22, 2012.

Hawaii‘s Form Verifying the Existence of Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate Now Viewable Online | TheBlaze.com

No doubt the Hawaii Dept. of Health does have something documenting Barack Obama II's birth occurring somewhere in the world outside a Hawaii hospital. That was issued on Aug. 8, 1961, generated on the basis of an application submitted on Aug. 7, 1961, probably by his grandmother Madelyn Dunham in the absence of Anna Dunham Obama and her newborn son.

That original "something" has never been released to the public, although the crude forgery released at whitehouse.gov on April 27, 2011, may well have been computer-fabricated from pieces of it and information on it.

[Pardon me... To the best of my knowledge and deduction, and I can't imagine any other way,] the original application fraudulently claimed the birth took place in Honolulu, Hawaii. It also included other erroneous information: notably, Obama Sr.'s birthplace and birth year. The forged LFBC and the forgery of a COLB (abstract) stamped "Jun 6 2007", published by Factcheck.org on June 12, 2008, are merely Photoshopped representations of some or all of the fraudulent information on the original application.

TeaParty.org is offering to make up to 1 million calls exposing Mr. Obama as a fraud, for 23¢ a call.

Originally Posted by TeaParty.org

Tea Party To Expose ‘America’s Fraud President’ To 1 Million Households!

The Problem: The Main Stream Media is corrosively silent on 'America's Fraud President' Barack Hussein Obama, many Patriots are asking, why?

Listen up, the Tea Party doesn't care what the Lame Stream Media's pathetic excuse may be, we don't answer to them! They should be answering to us!

Here's the kicker, the Tea Party is plowing forward with a bold and extreme plan to shake America and rattle the Washington cages! The Tea Party is preparing to send 1 Million dynamic telephone messages exposing 'America's Fraud President" to Grass-roots America. And we need your help to complete the mission.

Bottom line is, the Blame Stream Media has consistently protected 'America's Fraud President' and buried Obama Frauds such as:

• Forged Birth certificate issued by the White House!
• Multiple Social Security numbers!
• Sealed College records!
• Surrendered license to practice law!
• Missing birth records in Hawaii!
• Selective Service records sealed!
• Foreign Passports!
• Association with known Communists and subversives!
• Sworn testimonies by credible witnesses proving Obama was not born in America.
• America's top Sheriff threatened if he continues investigating the Obama Frauds!
• ...and the list goes on!

It's about time the Tea Party takes the bull by the [horns] and gives them a [wrench]! Sound dangerous? You bet it is! So was facing the British over 236 years ago with a rag-tag Patriot Army. Just like we won then, we will win now!

A word of caution: The smug media will attack the Tea Party, calling us birthers, racists, hayseeds, hillbillies and tea-baggers, which is nothing more than spewing liberal hate speech, trying to [vilify and marginalize] us. Liberal hatemongers are telling the Tea Party to think twice before stepping out of line again, but they're going to be sorely disappointed. WE WILL NOT SHUT UP. WE WILL NOT SIT DOWN!

We're mad... and we are not going to take it anymore!

Astonishing, isn't it? We witnessed how vile poison was spewed from the hateful mouths of the caustic biased media against Sarah Palin, trying to break her will. Just as she stood strong against those despicable attacks, so shall we! We will follow her example. The Maimed Stream media will ridicule and viciously attack anyone who defies their imperial power.

What this means is buckle your seat belts and be the heroes our Founding Fathers envisioned, or crawl under a rock like a yellow bellied coward. No more Mr. NiceGuy!

Time someone reported the truth about 'America's Fraud President'
. . .

Sample: outgoing telephone message.

HELLO, THIS IS THE TEA PARTY CALLING WITH A BRIEF SURVEY.

DO YOU BELIEVE BARACK OBAMA IS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN?

WOULD IT AFFECT YOUR CONFIDENCE IN OBAMA AND THOSE THAT SUPPORT HIM IF YOU KNEW HE WAS NOT AN AMERICAN CITIZEN?

TEA PARTY LEADER JERRY CORSI, AUTHOR OF UNFIT FOR COMMAND, THE BOOK THAT EXPOSED SENATOR JOHN KERRY AS A FAKE WAR HERO IN 2004, IS ABOUT TO GO PUBLIC WITH NEW UNDISCLOSED INFORMATION AND HIS BOOK OBAMA NATION TO EXPOSE BARACK OBAMA AS SOMEONE WHO HID THE FACT HE WAS NOT BORN IN AMERICA. THE TEA PARTY IS SUPPORTING DOCTOR CORSI IN THE PUBLISHING OF THIS IMPORTANT INFORMATION. WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO HELP THE TEA PARTY AND DR. CORSI MAKE PUBLIC NEW INFORMATION ABOUT OBAMA NOW?

MAY WE HAVE YOUR PERMISSION TO CALL YOU BACK TO PROVIDE YOU WITH OPTIONS ON HOW YOU CAN HELP THE TEA PARTY TODAY?

I don't fault the Tea Party for being late to the party, or for financial opportunism, or for the "15 Non-negotiable Core Beliefs" not including the U.S. Constitution with all its articles and sections, or for failing to mention Mr. Obama's Kenyan British Protected Citizen and never a U.S. citizen father, or for leaving out the central Constitutional requirement that no person except a "natural born Citizen" is eligible for the Office of President, or for failing to explain that:

a "natural born Citizen" is

one born in the country
of parents who were citizens. *

If the Tea Party makes known that Mr. Obama is ineligible to be the President and why, that is enough.

The Tea Party message doesn't mention that, either? Maybe the Tea Party will accept correction. Unfortunately for Tea, <contact@teaparty.org> user is over quota.

Contact us

Email addresses

General: contact@teaparty.org

Media: media@teaparty.org

* The U.S. Supreme Court interpretation is from Minor v. Happersett (1875) 88 US 167 (p. 167), repeated verbatim in Wong Kim Ark (1898 ) 169 US 655, 679-680, 708 ff., and stated similarly in The Venus (1814) and Shanks v. DuPont (1830).

Relating a personal experience in attempting to educate a liberal on Obama's ineligibility to hold the office of POTUS. It has been very educational, if not a numbingly frustrating journey to say the least. The most profound revelation was of the absolute unwillingness of this individual to accept ANY evidence that Obama is indeed a usurper. The evidence presented was met with derision at every turn and the common answer was "all birthers are clowns and are wasting their time", or "there are no facts to prove that Obama is ineligible, only innuendo". "Arpaio is a clown and an criminal and should be thrown in jail, etc". Here is an exerpt from a recent email from this person...

"I am no longer interested in studying the birther issue. I did so at your request, and quickly determined that there is nothing to it. I recognize that you have a different opinion -- but that's all it is -- an opinion -- and it flies in the way of what is rational. I pity your dedication to this -- and even if you are right -- which will never be proven -- it will come to nothing. Your reliance on Arpaio makes me feel sorry for you. He's a crackpot and your defense of him calls into question your own common sense."

Does this sound familiar? The only part I tend to believe is his comment "...and even if you are right -- which will never be proven -- it will come to nothing."

Regardless, we all know well what we are up against. Alinsky tactics at their best.

I agree, the Tea Party is walking in a mine field on this topic. They need to ensure that their means to an end is intelligently thought through.

Obama fraud 'biggest potential crime' in U.S. history

Citizenry urged not to abandon 'irradiated' eligibility issue

Published: 1 hour ago


An award-winning journalist and author is describing the question over Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president the “biggest potential crime in all of American history.”

The comments come from Diana West, a columnist known for her boldness and penchant for eliciting dropped jaws. Her writings appear on Fridays on WND’s commentary page.

She was being interviewed by Frank Gaffney, founder of the Center for Security Policy, on his Secure Freedom Radio program recently.

According to the show’s promotion, “Despite the results of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Unit, which found that both Obama’s birth certificate and Selective Service Registration card had been forged, Obama’s behavior in the ’08 elections and the very words of the Constitution itself, the government has not allowed for a thorough and fair investigation into the issue of Obama’s eligibility.”

West’s reaction is that Americans should be questioning exactly what is going on.

The nation is “looking at a great unsolved mystery, the greatest potential crime of all of American history,” she told Gaffney. “What we’re looking at is a president of the United States whose documentation has not been presented, vetted, corroborated,” she said.

Gaffney noted that the subject has become “irradiated.”

The issue has been raised in dozens of lawsuits and other legal challenges to Obama’s occupancy of the Oval Office, and his pursuit of a second term in office. Yet the courts and media and combined to make sure “this is a subject that does make it into America’s living rooms and parlors,” West said.

“It’s not considered polite conversation.

But according to documentation in some of the legal challenges that have been filed, the potential danger simply is unquantifiable. The questions that would arise should Obama’s ineligibility be verified: What about the laws he’s signed? What about international positions he has had America adopt. And what would happen to the actions of a president who really wasn’t.

West said the problem isn’t complicated; it’s only the definition of “natural born citizen,” which is what the Constitution requires for presidents.

“This was a specific designation that was much discussed among the Founders in order to eliminate any possibility of divided loyalties in the commander of the American armed forces,” she said.

She cited an 1800s U.S. Supreme Court case that said a “natural born citizen” is the offspring of two citizen parents. Obama’s father, Barack Obama Sr., was in the United States only as a student and never was even a citizen.

West discussed a currently pending court case in Florida that raises the specific issue of the parentage of natural born citizens.

She explained that the judge in that case already has noted that while those criticizing Obama have cited a legal definition for natural born citizen, those who support the president have failed to cite a single instance that supports their position.

“The mystery must be solved,” she said.

Listen to the interview:

Audio at the page link

While serving as an editorial writer for the Washington Times, West began writing a regular column in 1999. It went to syndication shortly following Sept. 11, 2001.

West won second place for editorial writing in the Maryland-Delaware-D.C. Press Association Contest in 2001. She left the Times in 2002 to write her first book, “The Death of the Grown-Up: How America’s Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization” (St. Martin’s Press).

Not one to shy away from controversial commentary, West explores such topics as Islam’s claim to be “a religion of peace,” society’s efforts to “protect” children from Mother’s Day and Obama’s eligibility questions.

Obama fraud ‘biggest potential crime’ in U.S. history

http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/obama-fraud-biggest-potential-crime-in-u-s-history-2/

AirborneSapper7, unfortunately, even Frank Gaffney and Diana West failed to define "natural born Citizen" correctly (call in line: 800-332-7131). As determined by the U.S. Supreme Court, the definition is this:

a "natural born Citizen" is
one born in the country
of parents who were citizens.

The definitive and authoritative U.S. Supreme Court interpretation is from
Minor v. Happersett (1875) 100 U.S. 1; 88 U.S. 167 (at p. 167), repeated
verbatim in Wong Kim Ark (1898 ) 169 U.S. 655, 679-680, 708 ff., and
though not repeated verbatim, stated harmoniously in Perkins v. Elg (1939)
307 U.S. 349-350, The Venus (1814), and Shanks v.DuPont (1830).

But, of course, everyone here already knows that . . .
_________________________________________________

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

Does this sound familiar? The only part I tend to believe is his comment "...and even if you are right -- which will never be proven -- it will come to nothing."

Regardless, we all know well what we are up against. Alinsky tactics at their best.

Or their worst.

"...and even if you are right -- which will never be proven -- it will come to nothing." Satan's main tool: discouragement. But Satan is the original loser, always has been, always will be. Ultimately, good always triumphs. Even if he has a temporary lead, even if he wins the game, he always loses the series. The odds against his legion are:
∞-to-stupid.

Jesus said to Peter, "But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren.” - Luke 22:33
"Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. Resist him, steadfast in the faith, knowing that the same sufferings are experienced by your brotherhood in the world. But may the God of all grace, who called us to His eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after you have suffered a while, perfect, establish, strengthen, and settle you. To Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen." - 1 Peter 5:8-11

Originally Posted by Steven Kreis

Stalin's idea of "socialism in one country" gave inner strength to those communists who had doubts about the prospects of a world revolution. And while Trotsky continued to argue a western Marxist version of the future revolution, Stalin convinced everyone that the revolution in socialism that he himself had helped to create was a Russian idea, thereby bolstering his overtly nationalist posture.

By the end of the Civil War, Stalin was Commissar of Nationalities. In this post he dealt with the affairs of 65 million (out of 140) inhabitants of the new Russian Soviet Republic. In 1922, Stalin proposed the new Union of Socialist Soviet Republics as a substitute for the existing federation of republics. In the USSR, Moscow would control war, foreign policy and trade and would coordinate finance, the economy, food and labor.

Stalin was also Commissar of the Workers' and Peasants' Inspectorate. His duties here included the elimination of inefficiency and corruption from every branch of the civil service and to train a loyal cadre of civil servants. Although the Inspectorate never did what it was supposed to do, it did give Stalin control over thousands of bureaucrats and thus, over the entire machinery of government. Lenin attacked Stalin's work in the Inspectorate in late 1923, but by then it was too late. Stalin had managed to secure an ever-widening circle of loyal officials while he himself controlled the affairs of state.

Stalin was also a member of the Politburo, the five man group of party bosses elected by the Central Committee. Here his job was the day-to-day management of the party. He was the permanent liaison officer between the Politburo and the Orgburo, which assigned party personnel to their duties in factory, office or army units. Besides these important posts, Stalin also became General Secretary of the party's Central Committee in 1922. He prepared agenda for the Politburo and passed decisions down to lower levels. He controlled, in essence, all party appointments, promotions and demotions. He made sure that local trade unions, cooperatives and army units were led by loyal communists, responsible in all cases to Stalin himself. He also kept detailed files on all managers of industry and all party members. I hope that by now you have a better idea of how it was that this simple Georgian could have captured so much power for himself in the two years before Lenin's death. I would also suggest, without reservation, that Stalin knew EXACTLY what he was doing.

Lecture 7: The Aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution

Sound like anyone we know? Even when my faith in the resurrection of the dead faltered, I have always denied reincarnation. But this may be the best example yet.

Waiting to see what exactly comes forth from the CCP in July as announced. According to Corsi, it is pretty damning. Will ANY of the MSM be at this press conference? Have any of them gathered the courage to do what's right? We need to make sure that the results don't fall silent but ring from every corner of the U.S.!

Sam Vaknin, author of Malignant Self-love: Narcissism Revisited,
has written about Barack Obama's psychological make-up.

Barack Obama - Narcissist or Merely Narcissistic?

Do You Recognize Barack Obama in These Texts? - First Series

Obama's Nobel Prize will Exacerbate His Narcissistic Tendencies

More here:

Global Politician- Newsletter

http://www.analyst-network.com/profile.php?user_id=79

http://www.losangeleschronicle.com/authors/view/941

DISCLAIMER

I am not a mental health professional. Still, I have dedicated the last 12
years to the study of personality disorders in general and the Narcissistic
Personality Disorder (NPD) in particular. I have authored nine (9) books
about these topics, one of which is a Barnes and Noble best-seller
("Malignant Self-love: Narcissism Revisited"). My work is widely cited in
scholarly tomes and publications and in the media. My books and the content
of my Web site are based on correspondence since 1996 with hundreds of
people suffering from the Narcissistic Personality Disorder (narcissists) and
with thousands of their family members, friends, therapists, and colleagues.

More about my credentials here:

Sam Vaknin: Setting the Record Straight

Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited, a work of reference about the
Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is available from Barnes and Noble and Amazon:

BARNES & NOBLE | Malignant Self Love: Narcissism Revisited by Sam Vaknin, Narcissus Publications | Paperback

"Pride goes before destruction,
And a haughty spirit before a fall." - Proverbs 16:18

The Ghostfighters

June 11, 2012

ROMNEY, RUBIO, McCAIN AND NATURAL BORN CITIZEN

Filed under: McCAIN AND NATURAL BORN CITIZEN — prowlland @ 8:00 pm

ROMNEY, RUBIO, McCAIN AND NATURAL BORN CITIZEN

By J.B. Williams
June 11, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

The recent release of my previous column titled Rubio Can Lock the Election for Obama resulted in numerous reader emails that demonstrate a continuing confusion over the indisputable definition and application of the term Natural Born Citizen. This follow up column is written to remove all confusion from the topic, once and for all.

Sadly, most of the people concerned with this topic believe they each know the truth, even though they do not agree on what the truth is. Most opinions are based upon second source or third hand information, most of it motivated by political agenda.

My objective is to establish through first source evidence the true meaning of the term Natural Born Citizen as used by our Founders in Article II of the Constitution, and spread the truth, no matter who it helps or harms in the political arena. I have written on this subject extensively and my only loyalty here is to the truth, no matter who it serves.

The true definition of Natural Born Citizen

Simply stated, a Natural Born Citizen is a second (or more) generation citizen by birth right. None of the Founding Fathers were Natural Born Citizen as they all became first generation citizens the moment they created our nation. As a result, they had to exclude themselves from the NBC requirement, even though most of them were born on soil (aka Native Citizen), or none of them could have held the office of President.

The term Natural Born Citizen was borrowed from Vattel’s treaties The Law of Nations, based upon the unalienable rules of Natural Law. Most people understand and agree on this. Then, they begin cherry-picking their facts from there, in all cases, based upon their individual political agendas rather than a careful and complete study of the facts.

I direct you to four sections in particular…

The Law of Nations – Book 1 – Chapter 19 – Sections 212, 213, 214 and 215 – The true definition of NBC is given in these sections.

§ 212. Citizens and natives (the section most people are familiar with) READ IN ENTIRETY PAYING CLOSE ATTENTION TO SECTIONS I HAVE HIGHLIGHTED.

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. 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 society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order 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.”

212 – Defines Natural Born Citizen as the natural offspring of a Citizen Father. Vattel explains this three times in this section. Just as all birthrights follow the blood of the father, so does natural rights of citizenship. This debunks the theory that “both parents” must be legal citizens at the time of birth of any offspring. Only the Father confers Natural Born Citizenship.

§ 213. Inhabitants (Refers to situations like Rubio’s)

“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside in it;

and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers; and, as the state has given to these the right of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity.”

213 addresses “citizen” and “inhabitants” – not Natural Born Citizens defined in 212. Rubio falls into this category as he was born in the U.S. – however, his parents (specifically his father) were legal citizens of Cuba at the time of Marco’s birth. Due to our 14th Amendment based upon this section from Vattel, Marco became an inhabitant at birth, and an “anchor baby citizen” via our current immigration and naturalization laws. But because his Father was a legal citizen of Cuba, his father conferred natural citizenship rights to Cuba upon Marco’s birth. It is on this basis that Marco Rubio is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the United States.

§ 214. Naturalization (5 (confirms everything I just told you about Rubio)
“A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called naturalization. There are some states in which the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, — for example, that of holding public offices — and where, consequently, he has the power of granting only an imperfect naturalization. It is here a regulation of the fundamental law, which limits the power of the prince. In other states, as in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalize a single person, without the concurrence of the nation, represented by its deputies. Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.”

215 answers the question of soil, or Native Born versus Natural Born
§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country (NO born on soil requirement)

“It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed. (59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say “of itself,” for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.”

This pertains to John McCain, who was born in Panama due to his father’s military deployment. As Vattel explains in section 215, where a person is born cannot take away the Natural Born Birthright that passes via Natural Law from Father to Son. Because John McCain’s Father was indeed a well-known legal citizen of the United States at the time of John’s birth, no matter where the birth took place, Natural Born Citizenship passed from John’s Father to John at birth. John McCain is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, no matter what else people think about John McCain.

In this regard, the United States Senate got it exactly right in their 99-0 Sen. Res. 511 clearing John McCain to pursue the office of President in 2008. Using the exact same definition used to clear John McCain, Barack Hussein Obama and Marco Rubio would fail the test. The fact that the U.S. Senate is on record getting it right demonstrates that the entire U.S. Senate is complicit in the fraudulent seating of Barack Hussein Obama in the people’s White House. It also proves it was a premeditated crime…

NOTE: This also relates to Mitt Romney – “I say “of itself,” for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.” – Mitt Romney’s Father may have held dual citizenship as a result of being born in Mexico, the natural son of a U.S. Citizen Father. This could disqualify Mitt’s Father from holding the offices of President and Vice President. However, Mitt was born in the USA the natural son of the legal citizen Father, with no direct divided loyalties. While Mitt’s Father may have been disqualified, Mitt does not appear to be.

Just in case there is any doubt concerning McCain, Vattel goes further on the subject of the McCain circumstance in section 217
§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state (John McCain)

“For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.”

One does not quit citizenship rights when deployed abroad by our government. In fact, even if a soldier deployed abroad sires a child, with a foreign mother, that child is still a Natural Born Citizen of the USA as those rights pass from Father to child at birth.

Are you with me so far? Rubio is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the USA, John McCain is…..right? Barack Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen no matter whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya…. right?

Now for Romney….

According to all available records on Romney, his Grandfather was a legal citizen of the United States who became an “inhabitant” of Mexico long before Mitt’s birth. Mitt’s father was born in Mexico, the natural offspring of a legal US citizen living in Mexico. Remember from above that soil changes nothing. According to all evidence available at present, Mitt’s father was born a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, even though his parents were “inhabitants” of Mexico at the time.

Mitt’s Father later returned to the United States and became Governor of Michigan, something a non-citizen could not do. Mitt was born in Michigan, the natural offspring of a legal citizen Father, making Mitt a Natural Born Citizen of the United States at birth.

So, McCain and Romney both pass the NBC test according to Vattel and The Law of Nations. Rubio, Obama and others like Jindal DO NOT pass the test. Every member of the U.S. Supreme Court knows the truth presented in this column, as do every member of the U.S. Senate, most members of the House and almost every judge in the country.

This is why there is a concentrated effort to redefine the term to mean any citizen, protecting all who remain involved in the greatest electoral fraud ever perpetrated on any democratic society.

The reason the Natural Born requirement must be eliminated is it is not possible to stand up a Global Government in the United States so long as only Natural Born Citizens can lead our government.

That’s why our Founders placed the requirement there – and that’s why people are hell-bent to remove it.

The Ghostfighters

Originally Posted by J. B. Williams

Simply stated, a Natural Born Citizen is a second (or more) generation citizen by birth right.

The term Natural Born Citizen was borrowed from Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations, based upon the unalienable rules of Natural Law.

The Law of Nations – Book 1 – Chapter 19 – Sections 212, 213, 214 and 215 – The true definition of NBC is given in these sections.

§ 212. Citizens and natives (the section most people are familiar with) READ IN ENTIRETY PAYING CLOSE ATTENTION TO SECTIONS I HAVE HIGHLIGHTED.

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. 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 society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order 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.”

212 – Defines Natural Born Citizen as the natural offspring of a Citizen Father. Vattel explains this three times in this section. Just as all birthrights follow the blood of the father, so does natural rights of citizenship. This debunks the theory that “both parents” must be legal citizens at the time of birth of any offspring. Only the Father confers Natural Born Citizenship.
. . .

So, McCain and Romney both pass the NBC test according to Vattel and The Law of Nations. Rubio, Obama and others like Jindal DO NOT pass the test. Every member of the U.S. Supreme Court knows the truth presented in this column, as do every member of the U.S. Senate, most members of the House and almost every judge in the country.

This is why there is a concentrated effort to redefine the term to mean any citizen, protecting all who remain involved in the greatest electoral fraud ever perpetrated on any democratic society.

The reason the Natural Born requirement must be eliminated is it is not possible to stand up a Global Government in the United States so long as only Natural Born Citizens can lead our government.

That’s why our Founders placed the requirement there – and that’s why people are []-bent to remove it.

As has been discussed here before, Emerich de Vattel's The Law of Nations
is not the law of this nation.

De Vattel did not create the then-existing international law; he merely codified it. The concept of "natural born" had existed perhaps as long as the idea of a "citizen", back to Plato and Herodotus in the 4th and 5th c. B.C., and they undoubtedly wrote down what they had received in the oral tradition from antiquity. The Greeks may also have drawn from the legal documents of the Medes and the Persians before them, perhaps from the Law of Moses in the mid-15th c. B.C., perhaps from the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi over three hundred years before that, and perhaps even from the papyri of ancient Egypt.

The Common Law and the writings of William Blackstone and John Locke served as the basis for most of the U.S. Constitution. However, on matters of nationality, citizenship, naturalization - wherever the notion of "Crown and subjects" would come into play - the Framers looked to The Law of Nations for de Vattel's understanding of a nation governed by the people, and the free citizens of such a nation.

The Framers and their peers and contemporaries understood the legal term of art, "natural born Citizen," without it being defined explicitly. They saw no need to spell out a legal idiom well known to 18th century Americans who were well-educated in the knowledge of Europe. But 88 years after the ratification of the Constitution, people were not as well agreed upon the meaning of this legal term of art.

As established in 1875 by the U.S. Supreme Court, this is the authorized definition:

A "natural born Citizen" is

one born in the country
of parents who were citizens.

The definitive and authoritative U.S. Supreme Court interpretation is from
Minor v. Happersett (1875) 100 U.S. 1; 88 U.S. 167 (at p. 167), repeated
verbatim in Wong Kim Ark (1898 ) 169 U.S. 655, 679-680, 708 ff., and
though not repeated verbatim, stated harmoniously in Perkins v. Elg (1939)
307 U.S. 349-350, The Venus (1814), and Shanks v.DuPont (1830) . . .

Emerich de Vattel and J. B. Williams notwithstanding.