KTBB's Question of the Day: Is There Enough Proof President Obama is a U.S. citizen?
June 24, 2009 - 7:12am
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.
Nice try twitchy, but no cigar. Please see my comments posted above.
Mr. Barry Soetoro
4 months agoMasses of words do not substitute for facts.
Twitchy
5 months agoEvery 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.
Mr. Barry Soetoro
5 months agoBS. 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.
Twitchy
4 months agoChester 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.h...
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
Mr. Barry Soetoro
4 months agoYour 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.
Twitchy
5 months agoSee 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!
Mr. Barry Soetoro
5 months agoMore 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;-]
Twitchy
4 months agoTypo Correction. Previous comment should read: Careful reading and a bit of deductive reasoning of Article 2, Section 1, confirms this as well.
Mr. Barry Soetoro
4 months agoThe 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
4 months agoPost new comment