Breaking News

Tuesday, September 2, 2014 - 10:01am

KTBB's Question of the Day: Is There Enough Proof President Obama is a U.S. citizen?

POSTED: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 - 8:12am

UPDATED: Monday, December 2, 2013 - 10:59am

UNDATED—The editor of the popular Web site, World Net Daily, Joseph Farah, is offering a $10,000 reward to anyone who can prove they were present at the birth of President Barack Obama.

KTBB news anchor Garth Maier, asks East Texans if they think there is a lack of proof that the President was born in Hawaii.

Comments News Comments

Hello. And Bye.

Hello. And Bye.

Hello. And Bye.

Hello. And Bye.

Hello. And Bye.

Hello. And Bye.

Hello. And Bye.

Hello. And Bye.

Hello. And Bye.

Hello. And Bye.

Back in 2010, the Aloha Reporter posted the real birth certificate and the article is still there. Look at the bottom of it where it says Obama was born in Kenya per the grandmother. There are some numbers there and if you put them into google, you get the law that gave Obama a birth certificate, EVEN THOUGH he was born out of the country!
http://alohareporter.com/2010/03/18/hawaii-considering-law-to-ignore-oba...
HRS 338-17.8
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol06_ch0321-0344/H

There's actually MORE proof that he's NOT a US citizen:

THE FACTS:
Obama literary agent claims Obama was Kenyan-born ~ Now DOZENS more articles confirm the same!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1grt5uehak

2012 Vetting Obama: 100% proof Obama is a USURPER ~ 100% sourced w/govt documents
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1DHZmeMXyE

2012 Vetting Obama ~ Kenyan Parliament ADMITS Obama is NOT a Native American
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_8PC3oKAvA

2012 Vetting Obama NEW EVIDENCE on Obama

If I had been accused of commiting an offense against my country and could prove my innocence by providing the documentation asked for, why wouldn't I? Barrack Obama is not above the laws of this country. The qualifications for the office of president of the United States clearly state that you MUST be a Natural Born citizen of the United States. If you are Mr. Obama then PROVE it and let's get on with getting this country back to where it needs to be. Those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing!

A friend share this with me before the election seem the subject still around

CAN OBAMA LEGALLY BE PRESIDENT?

I received the message below and have searched for something to dispute it. There is nothing on SNOPES to dispute this.

CAN OBAMA BE PRESIDENT?

It seems that Barack Obama is not qualified to be president, after all, for the following reason:

Barack Obama is not legally a U.S. natural-born citizen according to the law on the books at the time of his birth, which falls between 'December 24,1952 to November 13, 1986? .

Presidential office requires a natural-born citizen, if the child was not born to two U.S. citizen parents, which of course does not apply to John McCain though he was born in the Panama Canal.

US Law very clearly stipulates: "If only one parent was a U.S citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16."
Barack Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen and Obama's mother was only 18 when Obama was born, which means although she had been a U.S. citizen for 10 years, (or citizen perhaps because of Hawaii being a territory) the mother fails the test for being so, for at least 5 years **prior to** Barack Obama's birth, but *after* age 16. It doesn't matter *after*.
In essence, she was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. citizenship. At most, there were only 2 years elapsed since his mother turned 16 at the time of Barack Obama's birth when she was 18 in Hawaii.
His mother would have needed to have been 16+5= 21 years old, at the time of Barack Obama's birth for him to have been a natural-born citizen.
As aformentioned, she was a young college student at the time and was not 21 yrs of age. Barack Obama was already 3 years old at that time his mother would have needed to have waited to have him as the only U.S. Citizen parent.

Obama instead should have been naturalized, but even then, that would still disqualify him from holding the office.

*** Naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold the office of President***.
Though Barack Obama was sent back to Hawaii at age 10, all the other info does not matter because his mother is the one who needed to have been a U.S. citzen for 10 years prior to his birth on August 4, 1961, with 5 of those years being after age 16.
Further, Obama may have had to have remained in the country for some time to protect any citizenship he would have had, rather than living in Indonesia.
Now you can see why Obama's aides stopped his speech about how
we technically have more than 50 states, because it would have led to this discovery.
This is very clearcut and a blaring violation of U.S. election law. I think the Gov. of California would be very interested in knowing this if Obama were elected President without being a natural-born U.S. citizen as it would set a precedence. Stay tuned to your TV sets because I suspect some of this information will be leaking through over the next several days.

Interesting!! Now what? Who dropped the ball or are we all being dupped?? Who do you know whom you can forward this to who might
be able to help answer this question?

Personally I always wandered how much truth it this subject had Most of us should have a open mind to watching few movies available it in best in every one s world to take in conmon since an ask whom holding our goverment office an why they where for the jobs they hold i have to ask that some of be informed

The Obama Deception HQ Full

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw&feature=fv

Endgame:HQ Full Video- Blueprint For Global Enslavement

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jM6US0Qk5_8

7 7 ripple effect full

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=7+7+ripple+effect+full&searc...

Bilderberg Group
From Wikipedia,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group

No! He is not being truthful!!!!!

There has been no proof at all other than an odd photocopy of a Hawaiian birth document. No witnesses. There has been much evidence to the contrary from his own family's statements, early school records, and what appears to be dual citizenship. It would seem that those who can call this fraud to the forefront, are afraid of the political backlash and of the thought of emotionally based riots from his supporters who are not concerned as to whether he is legitimate or not.

The bigger question is not 'was he born in Hawaii?' , but does he have dual or even multiple citizenship (US, Britain, Kenya, Indonesia)?

Mr. Barry Soetoro, I tried to transfer your last article to "Lucianne.com by cut and paste. No problem except it could'nt be longer than 250 words. It is a website that has many members. Will you post to this website with your information about the Keynan usurper?

Paula, you are very kind. Thank you for your suggestion.

Presidents with Either Parent Being Foreign Born, Relative to Eligibility as a Natural born Citizen.

The Supreme Court has never had to consider a Constitutional dispute directly pertaining to a natural born citizen defined as those born in the county of citizen parents. Being of both 'soil and blood' is a Constitutional requirement for eligibility to serve as president. The Founding Fathers wisely established this to assure the loyalty of the President to only America, as best they could. Today this tradition has turned to treachery.

Obama simply decided the law didn't apply to him, and Congress capitulated. When Congress counted the electoral votes to certify the election, any single individual member or Congress could have and should have opposed Obama for not being a natural born citizen. None did. Those members of Congress apparently now feel they are also above the law. A recent example of this is evident by their having illegally voted themselves an increase in their cost of living allowance, in direct violation of the 28th amendment. [1]

Confirming the adage that the people get the government they deserve, today's Congress is truly the best money can buy. We the people are losing more and more of our freedoms and liberty to the abuses of government. The Founding Fathers would shudder in horror at the taxes taken from us, at the hands of Congressional robber barons who laugh all the way to the bank, while exempting themselves from the worst of the laws they dare pass for us.

Before 'Obama the usurper', the Constitution still seemed to matter. However illusory that delusion may have been, now Congress has unabashedly abandoned all pretext of honoring the Constitution. Having accepted the burden of their crushing yoke for so long without complaint, it's no surprise a complicit Congress let the worst of their ilk, usurp the presidency to allow even worse abuses to now go unabated, including unrecoverable generational debt and the unconstitutional nationalization of entire industries.

Clearly there is an inherent danger of not demanding that our elected public servants fully honor the Constitution. Should we allow even one part to be ignored, the entire Constitution is diminished. Then soon, another part is ignored, then another and another after that, until eventually the guarantor of our liberty is surrendered and our freedom is gone.

George Washington offered this sage advice on amendments while also warning us against any changes brought by usurpation of the Constitution.

"To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."
— George Washington, Founding Father and first President.

Beginning in 1789 when George Washington humbly accepted the honor of being our first president, a 220 year precedent has since been established for the president to either be a natural born citizen, unless having been exempt from this requirement as a citizen at the time of the adoption of our Constitution. Chester Arthur was recently discovered to have gone to great lengths to hide the fact that he was not eligible, and was the sole exception before Obama.

Obama assumes the Constitution does not apply to him, however he is not above the law. Obama's Kenyan father precludes him from being a natural born citizen. Obama, and those who aided and abetted him, must be held accountable for knowingly usurping or assisting in the usurpation of the office of the President of the United States of America. We must honor the Constitution.

The United States Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787. The Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788. Prior to this date citizenship was established by the state. As of June 21, 1788 each citizen of a state became a citizen of the United States. No formal naturalization was needed.

U.S. Presidents with either parent being foreign born are listed below in chronological order. Only Chester Arthur and Barack Hussein Obama failed to qualify for eligibility to serve as president by not being a natural born citizen.

1. Thomas Jefferson
2. Andrew Jackson
3. James Buchanan Jr.
4. Chester Alan Arthur
5. Woodrow Wilson
6. Herbert Hoover
7. Barack Hussein Obama II

Thomas Jefferson
The Third President, 1801 - 1809,
Native citizen born prior to September 17, 1787, Eligible
Birth: Goochland (Albemarle) County, Va., April 13, 1743
Father: Peter Jefferson, Birth: Chesterfield County, Va., February 29, 1708
Mother: Jane Randolph Jefferson, Birth: London, England, February 9, 1720

Andrew Jackson
The Seventh President, 1829 - 1837,
Native citizen born prior to September 17, 1787, Eligible
Birth: The Waxhaws, South Carolina , March 15, 1767
Father: Andrew Jackson, Birth: Carrickfergus, Antrim, Ireland
Mother: Elizabeth Hutchinson Jackson, Birth: Carrickfergus, Antrim, Ireland

James Buchanan Jr.
The Fifteenth President, 1857 - 1861
Natural Born, Eligible
Born: April 23, 1791 Mercersburg, PA.
(He just missed grandfather clause cut off date of September 17, 1787)
Father: James Buchanan Sr., Born: 1761 in Deroran, Tyrone, Donegal, Ireland
Emigrated 1783, U.S. Citizenship June 21, 1788
Mother: Elizabeth Speer Buchanan, Birth: March 17, 1767 in South Mountain, Franklin Co., Pennsylvania

The Buchanans were Pennsylvania citizens. James Buchanan Sr. became a citizen of the United States when the Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788. President James Buchanan Jr. was born April 23, 1791 in Pennsylvania. Therefore James Buchanan Jr. was a natural born citizen, born in the U.S. of two U.S. citizen parents.

Chester Alan Arthur
The Twenty-First President, 1881 - 1885
Native born, not Natural Born, Not Eligible
Birth: Fairfield, Vermont, October 5, 1829
Father: William Arthur, Birth: County Antrim, Ireland, 1796, Naturalized August 1843
Mother: Malvina Stone Arthur, Birth: Berkshire, Vermont, April 24, 1802

Well ahead of eventually realizing his greatest political ambition by assuming the presidency on September 19, 1881, Arthur purposefully perpetrated an elaborate fraud to hide the fact that his emigrated Irish father had not become a naturalized US citizen until August 1843, fourteen years after our 21st president was born in 1829 at Fairfield, Vermont. [2]

Woodrow Wilson
The Twenty-Eighth President, 1913 - 1921
Natural Born, Eligible
Birth: Staunton, Virginia, December 28, 1856
Father: Joseph Ruggles Wilson, Birth: Steubenville, Ohio, February 28, 1822
Mother: Jessie Woodrow Wilson, Birth: Carlisle, England, 1830
Emigrated 1834, Married 1849.
Derivative citizenship enabled her to automatically become a U.S. citizen after her marriage to Joseph Wilson.
Therefore Woodrow Wilson was a natural born citizen, born in the U.S. of two U.S. citizen parents.

A congressional Act of February 1855, stated that “any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under existing laws, married, or shall be married to a citizen of the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen.” [Act of February 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604, section 2] This was a form of derivative citizenship.

Herbert Hoover
The Thirty-First President, 1929 - 1933
Natural Born, Eligible
Birth: West Branch, Iowa, August 10, 1874
Father: Jesse Clark Hoover. Birth: Miami County, Ohio, September 2, 1846
Mother: Hulda Randall Minthorn Hoover, Birth: Norwich, Oxford County, Canada, May 4, 1849,
Married to Jesse Hoover1870.
Derivative citizenship enabled her to automatically become a U.S. citizen after her marriage to Jesse Hoover.
Therefore Herbert Hoover was a natural born citizen, born in the U.S. of two U.S. citizen parents.

Barack Hussein Obama II
De Facto Forty-Fourth President, 2009 - present
Not Natural Born, Not Eligible, Usurper
Birth Disputed: Mombassa, Kenya or Honolulu, Hawaii, August 4, 1961
Father: Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., Birth: Kanyadhiang village, Rachuonyo District, Kenya, 1936
Mother: Ann Dunham Soetoro, Birth: Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas, November 29, 1942

Like Chester Arthur, he has only one U.S. citizen parent. Therefore Barack Hussein Obama II is not a natural born citizen.
Additional eligibility disqualification due to British citizenship pursuant to British Nationality Act of 1948.
Refuses to release birth certificate, medical, adoption, school or passport records.
Possibly also holds Indonesian Citizenship.

1. Violation: http://www.claremont.org/projects/pageID.1828/default.asp

2. Document: http://www.scribd.com/doc/11067180/William-Arthur-father-of-President-Ch...

Wednesday June 25, 2008
An anonymous email circulating for the past few weeks purports to prove that by virtue of the circumstances of his birth, Barack Obama isn't a natural-born citizen and is therefore ineligible to hold the office of president. When you strip away all the obfuscations, however, the simple fact remains that Obama was born on U.S. soil, which by virtue of the 14th Amendment makes him a natural-born citizen.

The law is clear.....Born in American you are a United States Citizen!
Illegals walk across the border everyday to have children and leave with a Birth Certificate in hand!

Born in the U.S. you are a citizen...plain and simple!

"The Supreme Court has never had to consider a Constitutional dispute directly pertaining to a natural born citizen defined as those born in the county of citizen parents."

That's largely because your definition is a fraud.

"Being of both 'soil and blood' is a Constitutional requirement for eligibility to serve as president."

There is no such requirement in the Constitution. There is no historical or legal basis for your definition of "natural born citizen".

"Chester Arthur was recently discovered to have gone to great lengths to hide the fact that he was not eligible, and was the sole exception before Obama."

More BS. One wacko has made that claim. No legitimate historian agrees with him. The lawyer who was hired by the Democrats to discredit Arthur was fully aware of his father's naturalization date. He mentioned it in the book he wrote about Arthur. It was never an issue, because "natural born" simply means "born in the U.S.".

You're trying to create a third class of citizen, when, historically and legally, there are only two: natural-born and naturalized.

"Additional eligibility disqualification due to British citizenship pursuant to British Nationality Act of 1948."

British law does not override U.S. law.

"Refuses to release birth certificate, medical, adoption, school or passport records."

He's released his birth certificate, the legal form that is all that Hawaii issues these days. He was never adopted. Why do you want to hold him to a higher standard than any previous U.S. Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidate, when you have no facts or evidence that he is any different than they were?

"Possibly also holds Indonesian Citizenship."

Not possible, according to Indonesian law.

You're pursuing a witch hunt, based on lies and frauds.

Typo corrections:

1. "violation of the 28th amendment."
This should be: violation of the 27th amendment.

2. "...a 220 year precedent has since been established for the president to either be a natural born citizen..."
This should be: ...a 220 year precedent has since been established for the president to be a natural born citizen...

Enjoy your post's very much Mr. Barry Soetoro.

Article 2, Section 1, US Constitution.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

So what is a 'natural born' citizen?

Natural-born citizens, are "those born in the country, of parents who are citizens", as defined in Vattel's masterpiece of political philosophy 'The Law of Nations' (1758) § 212, and instrumental to the Founding Fathers, who deemed it unnecessary to define in the Constitution, as it was already understood and clearly self evident.

Recently it has been erroneously suggested that Vattel's meaning was not apparent to the Founding Fathers, either in his original work written in French, or subsequent translations published shortly after the original volume. They falsely claim that Vattel's intended meaning was not apparent, until much later translations, made many years after the Constitution was written.

To such persons, so desperate to defend the eligibility of a usurper posing as president, I would simply remind them that the word "translation" is defined as: the rendering of something into another language or into one's own from another language.

Vattel's meaning was certainly evident in his own writing. This was then carried over into subsequent translations, as accurately as possible by the translator, in order to faithfully preserve Vattel's original meaning. To alter the original meaning would not be a translation, but a revision.

Therefore the fact that the original work was later translated to so clearly state that Vattel's original meaning was to define natural born citizens as those born in the country, of parents who are citizens, clearly serves to reinforce the tremendous impact Vattel's theories of natural law, had on the thinking of the Founding Fathers as they created our Constitution in 1787.

It is the height of presumptuous arrogance to presume to dismiss Vattel by saying the French term "indigenes" translates to "native-born". It actually translates to indigenous, which is a requirement of being a native citizen. However indigenous also implies original and generational. In fact, one can not be a natural born citizen without being native born and also having parents (plural) who are citizens.

If the Founding Fathers had meant native born, they would have written that. Instead they uniquely required one be a natural born citizen, to be eligible to serve as president.

They didn't say native citizenship, which means born in the country, irrespective of the citizenship of one's parents.

They didn't say naturalized citizenship, which means being born outside the country and later being made a citizen by emigration, marriage, adoption or special decree of congress.

They required the highest most exclusive form of citizenship possible, a natural born citizen, which means born in the country of parents (plural) who are citizens. They purposefully did this to assure the loyalty of the president to only the United States of America, as best they could.

Vattel, was truly held in the highest regard for his invaluable magnum opus 'The Law of Nations', which is still used as an invaluable reference for modern scholars studying our Constitution.

"I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept, has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting."
—Benjamin Franklin, letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775

"This [previous work on the law of nations], says a writer, is evidently rather an introduction than a system; and it served only to excite a desire to see it continued with equal perspicuity and elegance. The honor of this task was reserved for the great Vattel, whose work is entitled to the highest admiration!"
—James Duane, Mayor and Chief Judge of New York City, August 1784

"Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."
—John Jay, letter to George Washington, an attendee of the Constitutional Convention, July 25, 1787

As for the repetitious posts claiming that the Founding Fathers embraced English common law rather than the natural law espoused by Vattel, please accept that just as we differ in our loyalties to the truth and the Constitution, I see no value in attempting to reinforce the veracity of one's posts with redundancy, rather than facts. Therefore, in the spirit of both consistency and brevity, I shall simply leave the repeat offenders with this short reminder of the facts, by means of a definitive quote on the matter.

“The common law of England is not the common law of these States.”
---George Mason, Virginia delegate to the U.S. Constitutional Convention and the Founding Father primarily responsible for the addition of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution of the United States.

It seems to me that you completely misunderstand how our legal documents are interpreted. The United States Supreme Court decides "what the law is." They long ago rejected your interpretation. You can claim that this was wrong of them -- but they've made many decisions that could be argued were wrong. That's why we have dissents, because there is almost always a reasonable argument on the other side. If there weren't, the issue would never have been appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. Your argument lost in this case, and it will almost certainly not be revived. Therefore, under ACTUAL United States law, Obama is a natural born U.S. citizen (unless you seriously believe he faked being born in Hawaii).

Noting that you've chosen "LovesLiberty" as a moniker, I would also remind you that the Constitution was written to keep government at bay. It is your sole claim to the Liberty you say you love. Therefore, you might wish to support and defend it with all your heart, mind and might.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic if you can keep it" responded Franklin." [1]

Regarding your assertion of an "argument lost" please be advised that neither the Supreme Court nor any lower court, has ever directly addressed the issue of 'a natural born citizen', even while addressing the two remaining types of citizenship, both native and naturalized.

There are two very good reasons for them to never have done so.

First, a careful reading of Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution reveals the meaning to be self evident. The reasoning of the Founding Fathers is perfectly clear in the way they crafted the article, which can only mean that 'a natural born citizen' is one born in the US of citizen parents. The Founding Fathers wisely required both 'soil and blood' for presidential eligibility to assure loyalty of the highest office in the land to only the United States, as best they could.

Second, before 'Obama the usurper', the issue had never come up. Every prior US President was a natural born citizen, which establishes a very strong historical precedent, with the sole exception discovered long after the fact, of Chester Arthur.

Well ahead of eventually realizing his greatest political ambition by assuming the presidency on September 19, 1881, Arthur purposefully perpetrated an elaborate fraud to hide the fact that his emigrated Irish father had not become a naturalized US citizen until August 1843, fourteen years after our 21st president was born in 1829 at Fairfield, Vermont. [2]

Obama's Kenyan father precludes him from being a natural born citizen. Therefore he is not eligible to serve as president and is in fact, a usurper posing as our de facto president. Every military command, executive order, law or political appointment he has authorized as a usurper is null and void. This creates the potential for a very grave Constitutional crisis.

Every member of the US military is both legally and honor bound to refuse to obey illegal orders, especially those issued by an illegal president. In fact, it is a severe violation of the UCMJ to obey an illegal order. Any command issued by 'Obama the usurper' is an illegal order, which if obeyed, particularly during time of war, subjects members of our brave military to forfeiture of all Geneva Convention protections afforded to legal combatants.

Furthermore, obeying illegal orders potentially subjects members of our valiant military to charges of committing illegal war crimes and international prosecution. As demonstrated by the Nuremberg trials following W.W.II, history teaches us that just following orders, is no defense for illegal acts. Therefore having compromised our military as a Constitutionally unauthorized Commander in Chief, 'Obama the usurper', is a clear and present danger to our national security, as well as the freedom and liberty of each American.

Every major branch of government, and particularly the US Military, is sworn to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Having been duly entrusted and legally empowered by the citizens of the United States of America, they are now faced with a solemn Constitutional duty to immediately remove 'Obama the usurper" from the office of the Presidency.

To all good Americans serving our nation in support and defense of the US Constitution, truly I humbly pray you stay well and succeed with God speed.

Duty, Honor, Country.

1. Excerpt: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr020200.htm

2. Document: http://www.scribd.com/doc/11067180/William-Arthur-father-of-President-Ch...

"First, a careful reading of Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution reveals the meaning to be self evident. The reasoning of the Founding Fathers is perfectly clear in the way they crafted the article, which can only mean that 'a natural born citizen' is one born in the US of citizen parents."

Complete and utter BS. You're simply a wacko, with no ability to accept facts that don't fit into your wacko world.

Even the dissent, in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, which is the only place I've ever heard of the Supreme Court even mentioning Vattel, did not try to create a third class of citizen, as you are trying to do.

Actually the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Congress, with the consent of the President, provided they can not reach a sufficient majority among themselves to override a presidential veto, decides what new federal laws shall be enacted.

The Supreme Court decides if such laws, when Constitutional challenges survive lower court decisions, or when disputes arise that merit being presented directly to the high court, comport to the full wight and measure of the United States Constitution.

A very wordy, repetitious and redundant attempt to support a theory with no relevant evidence, facts or reason.

Where did the authors of the Constitution define the term "natural-born"? It was a term that did not appear in Vattel. It is a term that had extensive use in English common law. That is why the meaning "was already understood and clearly self evident." That was the language, and the meaning, that the Founding Fathers were familiar with.

Twitchy, that issue has been more than adequately addressed in prior posts. While I appreciate your invitation to revisit old ground, unless you provide fresh, factual, and well reasoned criticism, I believe the stated facts speak well for themselves and need not be repeated.

Please consider that the repetition of failed behavior with no reasonable expectation of achieving different results, is a sure sign of insanity.

Therefore I enthusiastically await your continued criticism.

So, where is your "fresh, factual, and well reasoned criticism"? You keep repeating the same thing over and over, despite the fact that there is no historical or legal support for your odd theories.

"Please consider that the repetition of failed behavior with no reasonable expectation of achieving different results, is a sure sign of insanity."

Are you saying that you're insane? Or that there is no chance of you ever changing your mind? Isn't that also a sign of insanity?

An interesting point that I've just become aware of:

Apparently there were several translations of Vattel's "Droit des gens" (English: "The Law of Nations"). The first to use the actual phrase "natural-born citizens" wasn't published until 1797, 10 years after the Constitution was ratified. Previous translations used the French term "indigenes" instead, which means "native-born". So, it would appear that the only source for the authors of the Constitution for the meaning of the term "natural-born" is English common law.

Nice try twitchy, but no cigar. Please see my comments posted above.

Masses of words do not substitute for facts.

Every President has been a natural born citizen except Chester Arthur, who knowingly and purposefully perpetrated an intentional fraud, just like Obama!

CHESTER ARTHUR CONCEALED HE WAS A BRITISH SUBJECT AT BIRTH
December 6, 2008

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=5862

[I have collaborated on this with my sister and historian Greg Dehler, author of "Chester Allan Arthur", Published by Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2006 ISBN 1600210791, 9781600210792 192 pages. ]

I’ve been forwarded the actual naturalization record for William Arthur on microfiche, obtained from the Library of Congress. He was naturalized in New York State and became a United States citizen in August 1843.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/11067180/William-Arthur-father-of-President-Ch...

Chester Arthur perpetrated a fraud as to his eligibility to be Vice President by spreading various lies about his parents’ heritage. President Arthur’s father, William Arthur, became a United States citizen in August 1843. But Chester Arthur was born in 1829. Therefore, he was a British Citizen by descent, and a dual citizen at birth, if not his whole life.

He wasn’t a “natural born citizen” and he knew it.

We’ve also uncovered many lies told by Chester Arthur to the press which kept this fact from public view when he ran for Vice President in 1880. Garfield won the election, became President in 1881, and was assassinated by a fanatical Chester Arthur supporter that same year

Excerpted from campaignforliberty.com

Every President has been a natural born citizen except Chester Arthur, who knowingly and purposefully perpetrated an intentional fraud, just like Obama!

Natural-born citizens, are "those born in the country, of parents who are citizens", as defined in Vattel's masterpiece of political philosophy 'The Law of Nations' (1758) § 212, and instrumental to the Founding Fathers, who deemed it unnecessary to define in the Constitution, as it was already understood.

"I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept, has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting."
—Benjamin Franklin, letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775

"Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."
—John Jay, Founding Father and first Supreme Court Chief Justice, letter to George Washington, an attendee of the Constitutional Convention, July 25, 1787

Bottom line: Obama's father is Kenyan, therefore Obama is an illegal usurper.

BS. Arthur's father's naturalization records were a matter of public record (after all, your source got them from the Library of Congress), and known to Hinman, the lawyer the Democrats hired to discredit Arthur.

As previously pointed out, Vattel's 'The Law of nations' is not binding as U.S. law. According to the Supreme Court, in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the language of the Constitution is the language of English common law. The majority opinion contains a long discussion of the meaning of 'natural-born' in English common law, concluding that it basically depends on where you are born. That's why Hinman's attack focused on the false accusation that Arthur was born in either Canada of Ireland.

Chester Arthur was born in 1829. President Arthur’s father, William Arthur, became a naturalized United States citizen 14 years later in August 1843. Therefore Chester Arthur was a British Citizen by descent, and a dual citizen at birth, if not his whole life.

"Chester Arthur perpetrated a fraud as to his eligibility to be Vice President by spreading various lies about his parents’ heritage. He was not a “natural born citizen” and he knew it."[1]

With the exception of Jefferson and Jackson, who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and therefore eligible, every President has been a natural born citizen except Chester Arthur, who knowingly and purposefully perpetrated an intentional fraud, just like Obama!

Regarding your reference to 'U.S. v Wong Kim Ark', 'English common law', obviously in full force in the colonies until the American Revolution, was only partly, but not fully, retained out of necessity by borrowing the more reasonable tenets to help establish our own system of law. English common law basically takes the meaning of a 'natural born' citizen to be: born within the dominions of the crown of England with a tie of permanent natural allegiance binding the subject to the king.[2]

The Founding Fathers rejected that meaning of a 'natural born' citizen, including the ties that bind, with the same fervor that enabled them to win the Revolutionary War and free themselves from English rule.

“The common law of England is not the common law of these States.”
---George Mason, Virginia delegate to the U.S. Constitutional Convention and the primary Founding Father responsible for the addition of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution of the United States.

Instead our Founding Fathers fully embraced the widely preferred meaning that 'natural born' citizens are "those born in the country, of parents who are citizens", as defined in Vattel's masterpiece of political philosophy 'The Law of Nations' (1758) § 212, and instrumental to the Founding Fathers. The conclusive proof is clear in their decisive well reasoned writing of Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution.[3]

Vattel's theories of natural law and human rights also greatly influenced Thomas Jefferson when he wrote about unalienable rights in our Declaration of Independence.

"The myth that the founding of American Republic was based on the philosophy of John Locke could only have been maintained, because the history of Leibniz's influence was suppressed. The American Revolution was, in fact, a battle against the philosophy of Locke and the English utilitarians. Key to this struggle, was the work of the Eighteenth-century jurist, Emmerich de Vattel, whose widely read text, The Law of Nations, guided the framing of the United States as the world's first constitutional republic. Vattel had challenged the most basic axioms of the Venetian party, which had taken over England before the time of the American Revolution, and it was from Vattel's The Law of Nations, more than anywhere else, that America's founders learned the Leibnizian natural law, which became the basis for the American System."[4]
---Robert Trout

"The holding in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark states that Wong Kim Ark is a native born citizen. If you look at the fact of Wong Kim Ark being born in San Francisco, CA, of Chinese parents, that holding is correct."[5]

Wong Kim Ark is a "native-born" citizen (those born in the U.S. mainland). However he is not a "natural-born" citizen: "those born in the country, of parents (plural) who are citizens".

Obama may be "native-born" if he was born in the US, but since his father is Kenyan, he is not "natural-born" as required by the Constitution to be eligible to serve as president.

Barack Hussein Obama II is an illegal usurper, who presents a clear and present danger to our national security and must be removed from office immediately by the the full weight and measure of the U.S. Constitution.

Cites:

1. Excerpt: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=5862

2. The University of Chicago
The Founders' Constitution
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 (Citizenship)
William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:354, 357--58, 361--62
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships1.html

3. THE LAW OF NATIONS OR PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS FROM THE FRENCH OF MONSIEUR DE VATTEL.
http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel.htm

4. Robert Trout, from his book: Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness. How the Natural Law Concept of Gottfreid Wilhelm Leibniz Inspired America's Founding Fathers.
http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_97-01/971_vattel.html

5. Excerpt: http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm

Your whole concept of "natural-born citizen" is a fabrication. There is nothing in U.S. law or precedent that distinguishes between "native-born" and "natural-born" citizens. The only distinction is between "native-born"/"natural-born" citizens and "naturalized" citizens.

Your allegations about Arthur are just another wacko conspiracy theory. Hinman, the lawyer hired by the Democrats to discredit Arthur, was well aware of the naturalization of Arthur's father. It simply wasn't an issue, so he concentrated on promoting allegations that Arthur was born in Canada or Ireland.

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark specifically states "The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law." [http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html] That does not mean that “The common law of England is...the common law of these States.” It means that they use the same language, with the same definitions.

Vattel is only mentioned in the dissent, as part of an attempt to prove that Wong Kim Ark was not any kind of citizen. That argument didn't distinguish between "native-born" and "natural-born" citizens either. [http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZD.html]

And, again, Robert Trout's 'book' is actually a magazine article, published by a fringe political organization, as your own link demonstrates.

Your fear and hatred of Obama is blinding you to both facts and logic.

See the facts for yourself.

Compare genuine 'long-form' Hawaiian birth certificate with Obama's on-line form.
Here is the difference.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=101483

Obama actually doesn't have a birth certificate, (at least not an American one) he has a CoLB, which he refuses to grant Hawaii permission to release despite claiming to have released it on the Internet. Wonder why? Could he be hiding something, and where are his school, medical and passport recored hmmm?

CoLB Proves nothing. Besides, we already know he is not natural born irrespective of where he was born. The birth certificate is only making headlines because Obama refused to show it.

Obama expects us to accept a computer graphic of his worthless CoLB, to be president? The next time someone at the DMV window asks to see your birth certificate, try showing them a picture of it on your lap top computer screen, and see what happens!

U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 1

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

So what is a 'natural born' citizen?

Natural-born citizens, are "those born in the country, of parents who are citizens", as defined in Vattel's masterpiece of political philosophy 'The Law of Nations' (1758) § 212, and instrumental to the Founding Fathers, who deemed it unnecessary to define in the Constitution, as it was already understood. Careful reading and a bit of deductive reasoning of Article 2, Section 5 confirms this as well.

This is supported by the personal writings of the Founding Fathers, the 1st & 3rd Congressional record, and case law. The Founding Fathers wanted to insure the undivided allegiance and absolute loyalty of the president to only the United States of America, as best they could.

See the detailed history and facts here.
http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm

If that doesn't do it for you try this:

"Here is proof from the current Senate, including Obama and Clinton who submitted a Resolution on April 10, 2008, that they understand that parents (plural) of a candidate must be U.S. Citizens in order for the candidate to be eligible for President of the United States." (Excerpted from TimeTtoTellTheTruth.net.)
http://timetotellthetruth.net/sitemap.aspx

Click here if you want to see this Resolution for yourself on Senator Leahy's Web-site.
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html

Obama's Kenyan father precludes Obama from being natural born. Therefore Obama is not constitutionally eligible to serve a president but in fact, is an illegal usurper!

Begone, foul Obots Twitchy & Suze. Your very name screams treason and ignorance.

Repeated spamming of your previously refuted bogus claims does not make them true. As a vet, I defended your Constitutional Right to spout all the propaganda you wish comrade, and lacking any evidence, reveal your true intent. Do svidaniya!

More ignorant rambling.

Hawaii doesn't issue copies of the Certificate of Live Birth any more. If they did, there would be dozens of images of them all over the web. How many have you seen that were issued in the last two years? Zero. Last five years? Zero. And the CoLB is not a source document. It is not a copy of anything. What it is is what it says it is, a certification that the State of Hawaii has an official record of the information on the CoLB.

And, again, Vattel's 'The Law of Nations' is NOT U.S. law.

And that resolution is only stated the way it is because McCain was NOT born in the U.S..

You're not the only vet in the world, and being a vet doesn't make your juvenile psychedelic wet dreams any more true. Try real facts, real evidence, not your bozo made-up fantasy land. Horosho! 7;-]

Typo Correction. Previous comment should read: Careful reading and a bit of deductive reasoning of Article 2, Section 1, confirms this as well.

The question is still why Obama won't show his vault BIRTH CERTIFICATE. More and more people including federal, state, local and military are questioning whether Barack Hussein Obama is a “natural born citizen”. A requirement to serve as the United States President. He has spent almost a million dollars to keep his records secret.

Doesn't that alone, put a question in everyone's mind of what he is hiding? He should be more than willing to release all relevant documents including his vault BIRTH CERTIFICATE. To do otherwise presents him as a FRAUD.

Paula, there is no such thing as a vault birth certificate. All Hawaii will give you now is the CoLB that Obama has already shown the world.

So you really don't know what you are talking about.

Are you, then, implying that in 1961, the state of Hawaii did NOT record the delivering Dr. (or midwife, etc), other birth witnesses, the baby's height and weight as well as the hospital the baby was born in?

Of course they did.

That's the form the public needs to see. Not a digital pic of a shortened form.

Furthermore, how can someone who was born with British Citizenship AT BIRTH (admitted to by Barry himself b.t.w.), be considered a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S.? Are you implying that the framers of our Constitution intended for the term NBC to apply to those born with British citizenship?

Yes, the original birth certificate does contain those stats; the state--NO state-releases that original birth certificate. What Obama has released IS what the state of Hawaii issues as a legal, valid birth certificate. That's ALL you get! Try to get your original copy--you can't.
Obama is the 6th president to be born of only one US citizen parent; and, neither of Andrew Jackson's parents were Americans. So by your (false) criteria, Obama is the 7th "ineligible" person to hold the office of president. (The others are Jackson, Arthur, Wilson, Hoover, Jefferson and Buchanan).
And please, once again, explain the birth announcements, placed by the hospitals back in 1961. You don't have to take anyone else's word for it or rely on internet copies--you can go to the papers' archives and see for yourself.

No, I'm saying that the State of Hawaii no longer issues copies of any Certificate of Live Birth. The only thing you can get now is the Certification of Live Birth, which is Hawaii's official birth certificate, as it is for several other states, probably due to privacy laws. It's not clear whether the original physical Certificate even exists anymore. The State of Hawaii computerized all those records in 2001. The form is no longer used, at least for hospital births. It's all recorded by computer now.

He lost his UK citizenship in 1963, when Kenya became independent. And he lost all claim to Kenyan citizenship in 1982, since he had neither renounced his US citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya by his 21st birthday, and Kenya does prohibit dual citizenship for adults. So he's been a citizen of the US, and only the US, for his entire adult life.

Read the majority opinion in US v. Wong Kim Ark. There's an extensive discussion of what the term "natural-born" meant in English common law, which is, as the decision notes, the language of the Constitution. And, basically, it means born here.

The question is still why Obama won't show his vault BIRTH CERTIFICATE. More and more people including federal, state, local and military are questioning whether Barack Hussein Obama is a “natural born citizen”. A requirement to serve as the United States President. He has spent almost a million dollars to keep his records secret.

Doesn't that alone, put a question in everyone's mind of what he is hiding? He should be more than willing to release all relevant documents including his vault BIRTH CERTIFICATE. To do otherwise presents him as a FRAUD.

Post new Comment