The Bottom Line on Natural Born Citizen

From canadafreepress.com

By JB Williams Wednesday, April 21, 2010
I write this follow up in response to reader mail regarding my column DC Knows that Obama is Ineligible for Office. Even many conservative columnists and pundits seem confused on the issue of natural born citizen, even though the matter is really quite clear.

History answers the question of what “natural born citizen” means, and leaves NO wiggle room for debate or wishful agenda-driven interpretations.

The term was first used by the British Royal family. The question at the time was how to keep the Royal bloodline intact when members of the Royal family traveled abroad extensively, often giving birth to offspring while abroad, therefore bringing the issue of “native born” into question.

Native is a term relative to geography, where a person is at the time of birth. This issue came up as a challenge to John McCain during his 2008 bid for the White House, as he was born “off base” at a local hospital in Panama while his father was stationed on a Navy base in Panama.

As a diversionary tactic to lead obvious questions away from Barack Hussein Obama, some challenged McCain’s “natural born” status as a presidential candidate on the basis that he was not “native born” on US soil, or on US territory, the US Naval Base in Panama. Congress, therefore, passed a resolution proclaiming McCain a “natural born citizen” on the basis that he was the “natural born” son of two US citizens, more specifically, the natural born son of a US Naval Commander.

However, no such resolution exists for Barack Hussein Obama, and here’s why;

The term “native” relates to the geographic location of birth. But the term “natural” relates to the “laws of natural,” ergo family lineage or the bloodline of the father.

The term “natural born citizen” next appears in the Law of Nations, a treaty between nations which established certain universal standards, one of which being the term “natural born citizen.”

The related passage from Vattel’s book on the Law of Nations reads as follows;
“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.”

Note the following text—“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.”

Further clarification—“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 the final blow to Barack Hussein Obama—“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.”

The subject of “natural law” found in the Law of Nations is entirely consistent with the Royal British purpose of the term “natural born citizen.” It keeps the family bloodline intact on the basis of the father’s blood, aka “natural law.” It is the source from which our nation’s Founding Fathers entered those words into the US Constitution, under Article II—Section I—Clause V;

“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;”

Not “native” or “naturalized” or “citizen,” but only “natural born” citizens can hold the office of president.

The matter is quite clear and it is on this basis that I have written that John Sidney McCain is indeed a “natural born citizen” of the United States, and the Barack Hussein Obama is not, no matter where in the world he might have been born.

A Hawaiian birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama solves nothing, other than curiosity. A “certification of live birth” means even less, as it only confirms that a child was indeed “born live”—with no reference as to where that birth took place, or who attended or witnessed that birth.

Some argue that the XIV Amendment altered the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States;” However, the XIV Amendment makes no mention of “natural born citizen” as it was written to address issues of “immigration” and “naturalization,”—which excludes any redress regarding “native” or “natural born” citizens of the Unites States. In short, “natural born” is the exact opposite of “naturalized.” They are two completely different subjects and as we know, “naturalized citizens” cannot hold the office of President, though they are indeed “citizens” with otherwise equal rights. As Barack Hussein Obama’s stated birth father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was at no time in his life a citizen of the United States, but rather a British subject and native citizen of Kenya, it is not possible for Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. to be a “natural born citizen” of the United States. It is therefore not possible for Barack Hussein Obama Jr. to be a constitutionally qualified resident of the people’s White House. Does it matter? Does the “will of the people” trump the US Constitution via the outcome of an election which happened as a result of fraud, in which the candidate concealed the fact that he is not a “natural born citizen?”

Only the people can decide…
But I submit to every American the idea that if Article II—Section I of the US Constitution is no longer worthy of protection and preservation, then nothing in that document matters anymore.

If we fail to uphold Article II—Section I of the US Constitution, then we have failed to uphold, protect, preserve or defend any part of the US Constitution or the American way of life.

If the US Constitution no longer stands, then the United States of America no longer stands.

Is there a more pressing issue on the table today?