Debate Over – NOT Natural Born – Period

BIRTH ON U.S. SOIL DOES NOT EQUATE TO “NATURAL BORN”

by JB Williams, ©2011

Editor's Note: Re-posted with permission of The Post & Email.

Emerich de Vattel published "The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law" in 1758. President George Washington had borrowed the book from a local library and was found in May of this year to never have returned it.

(Oct. 2, 2011) — Team Obama has done a magnificent job of dividing the opposition and distracting attention away from the greatest Constitutional Crisis in American history by keeping his opponents arguing over the correct definition of Natural Born Citizen as the fraud continues in the people’s White House.

But the debate is long over, for two reasons…

1) There are only three potential definitions for Natural Born Citizen of the United States and Obama cannot meet any of the three.

2) The actual definition is easily found and proven beyond any reasonable doubt

Ninety-nine members of the US Senate got it exactly right regarding John McCain during the 2008 challenge of McCain’s presidential campaign. McCain being the only non-voting member of the Senate on Resolution 511, every other member of the Senate agreed on the definition of Natural Born Citizen, including Sen. Barack Hussein Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton.

So there is no avoiding the fact that ALL members of the US Senate know what Natural Born Citizen means, that John McCain is one, and that Barack Hussein Obama isn’t.

The McCain Resolution was based upon the official legal opinion of Tribe & Olson, posted here in pdf form. The Tribe & Olson opinion states clearly –

“We conclude that Senator McCain is a “natural born Citizen” by virtue of his birth in 1936 to U.S. citizen parents who were serving their country on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone. The circumstances of Senator McCain’s birth satisfy the original meaning and intent of the Natural Born Citizen Clause, as confirmed by subsequent legal precedent and historical practice.”

The Tribe & Olson opinion further states –

“These sources all confirm that the phrase “natural born” includes both birth abroad to parents who were citizens, and birth within a nation’s territory and allegiance. Thus, regardless of the sovereign status of the Panama Canal Zone at the time of Senator McCain’s birth, he is a “natural born” citizen because he was born to parents who were U.S. citizens.”

In short, Natural Born Citizenship is based upon the blood of the parents, without regard to “native born” status, or the birthplace, or soil, according to Tribe & Olson and the historical legal documents Tribe & Olson relied upon in their review.

The Tribe & Olson opinion was based upon an in-depth legal review of all related historical legal decisions since the formation of our country. But it all begins with a statement made on March 26, 1790 in 104 FIRST CONGRESS. SESS. II. Cn. 4. 1790 –

“the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens:”

Once again, no matter the birthplace of John McCain or any other child born of U.S. parents, whether born beyond sea, in or out of the limits of the United States territory – the natural born child of U.S. parents “shall be considered as natural born citizens.”

Natural Born is based in Natural Law, on blood, not soil, borrowed from Vattel’s book on Natural Law recognized the world over in the 1700s, The Law of Nations. In this book, Vattel defined Natural Born Citizen as follows;

“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 [which defines Barack Hussein Obama II], it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

Although Vattel states very clearly three different ways that “the country of the fathers is therefore that of the children” – the following line at the opening of the section has caused some confusion over whether or not both parents must be citizens in order for the child to be a Natural Born Citizen.

“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.”

Proper interpretation of this section requires recognition of the time it was written, and the clear intent of the statement. Written in the 1700s, it was a true statement that both “native born” and “natural born” citizens would have been “of parents who were citizens” and “born in the country.” Travel in the 1700s was very different from travel in the 21st century.

However, our founding fathers in the First Congress only three years after the ratification of the Constitution made it very clear what they meant by Natural Born Citizen when they enacted 104 FIRST CONGRESS. SESS. II. Cn. 4. 1790 – which states – “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens:”

Having set the facts before you, if people want to require that a president and vice president be both Natural Born (of bloodline) and Native Born (of soil), we can do that. But currently, the US Constitution only requires that one be Natural Born in order to hold the office of president or vice president. As a result, McCain passes the test, but Barack Obama does not…

Every member of the US Supreme Court and every half-intelligent member of the US Congress knows what Natural Born Citizen is, what the US Constitution requires for the offices of president and vice president, and that Barack Hussein Obama II is not eligible or otherwise qualified for the office he currently holds by way of the most massive fraud ever perpetrated on the American people.

The fraud continues because the debate over the term Natural Born Citizen continues, even though Obama does not qualify no matter what definition you choose. The debate is long over… or at least it should be.

The Constitution does not include any definitions of any words that appear in the document. We have dictionaries for those who cannot decipher plain and simple English on their own.

We do not need any court to tell us what Natural Born Citizen means because history, logic and legal documents are quite clear on the subject.

All we need to know is the answer to this question – Now what?

Every member of the federal government knows or should know by now, that Barack Hussein Obama II is not a Natural Born Citizen and that on that basis — he is an illegal president and commander of the US Military. Everything he has done since the moment he fraudulently seized control of the people’s government is null and void as it was all done under the pretense of fraud, creating the greatest Constitutional Crisis in American history.

The only legitimate question left today is, what now? Now that we all know the truth, what do we do about it?

Congress has thus far refused to address the matter. The courts have thus far been running interference for Obama, not allowing the mountain of hard evidence against Obama to be presented in any court in America, because the evidence can only be ignored so long as it remains unknown.

All federal law enforcement agencies serve at the command of the White House, not the people. Since we have the fox guarding the hen house, all law enforcement has been ordered to stand down on the matter.

A pact between all federal officials is in place. They will not allow anyone to hold Obama & Co. accountable for this massive fraud against the entire nation and their reasoning is “national security.”

Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat Party refused to certify Barack Obama as “constitutionally eligible for office” at the 2008 DNC Convention, because they knew they would be committing perjury if they signed a sworn certification of a known fraud.

Obama changed his mind at the last minute, deciding not to accept federal matching funds for his campaign because he learned that federal matching funds were not available for ineligible candidates. Based upon a recent FEC (Federal Elections Commission) decision, had Obama sought federal funding, he would have been denied on the basis of being an ineligible candidate, just like 2012 ineligible candidate and naturalized citizen Abdul Karim Hassan.

Obama cannot even pass a basic E-Verify employment check due to his fraudulent Social Security number. “SEATTLE – After Linda Jordan, a Seattle resident, entered Obama’s name, birth date and Social Security number into the E-Verify system, a system set up to determine employment eligibility, she received a “Notice of Mismatch with the Social Security Administration Records.”

Okay, enough! If there had been this much evidence against Al Capone, they would not have had to put him in prison for simple tax evasion. If there had been this much evidence against Richard Nixon, deep throat would have been inconsequential and nobody would know who Woodward and Bernstein were.

Yet Congress, the courts and the press remain complicit in an obvious fraud and why, might be the most interesting part of the story.

What would make the entire nation stand down in the face of the greatest Constitutional Crisis in American history, especially to protect a dimwit executive who is sinking faster than Snooki in public opinion polls?

I will discuss the WHY in Part II of this expose’ – stay tuned!