Skip to comments.Obama Canít Prove Heís American
Posted on 01/02/2011 1:00:02 PM PST by opentalk
Notwithstanding Obamas lack of constitutional eligibility for the office he occupies as a direct result of his fathers citizenship, Obama cant even prove he is an American. In fact the only thing we can confirm about Obama is that he is a foreignerforeign to America, foreign to the english language, and ignorant of our history. At this late date, after millions of dollars spent, people mysteriously dying, and the jailing of a decorated Army officerall of whom questioned Obamas legalityany so called birth certificate produced now is nothing more than suspect, and it is more than likely another faked document a worthless piece of paper just like all of Obamas so called credentials.
We know Obama was born British, is likely a Kenyan citizen, and is Indonesian; we know he was never naturalized as an American citizen; we know there is no record of his name change from Barry Soetoro to Barack Hussein Obama, II; we know he lied on his Illinois bar form about his previous names; we know he is using a stolen social security number, and that he has multiple social security numbers, and we know that Obama has a forged selective service registration.
Who does this kind of stuff except an illegal alien?
One of the things Obama cannot prove is that he is an American. He wont release anything and asks us to believe him
as he robs our savings, our livelihood and our America.
(Excerpt) Read more at drkatesview.wordpress.com ...
I said I would come back today with a new idea.
But now, with the deaths of John Wheeler, Judge Roll and the many in AZ, and Asley Turton and the vitriolic response shown by MSM towards conservatives I am seriously concerned about any action any normal person would take that could be twisted to mean aggression. We are truly in dark times.
I am not ready to give up, but I am not at a final place of proactive POSITIVE solution, either. I am very aware that there is an evil undercurrent seeking to incite good Americans to the point of chaotic reaction which they will use to overcome our nation and turn it to their vision.
It feels to me as if there is a battle, and I am not speaking metaphorically, that is going on right under our noses, but not involving the average American. But since I am not any kind of in the know person, I really don’t even know who is battling who! It’s odd.
So the battle rages, and I keep thinking, “I need to jump in and help the good guy!” But then I realize, I can see some bad guys, but I really can’t figure out who the “good guy” is, except for us—the average folks!
But I do know that the little 9 year old girl who lost her life this weekend deserved better. And her face needs to live on brightly in our conscious as we strive to figure this out, and save our republic—for her, for the many patriots who have fought for this soil in days past, and for our children.
That would be a great argument if there was a concrete definition of "natural born citizen" in Article 2, expressly requiring jus sanguinas citizenship to be considered a "natural born citizen". But there isn't. So what you're left with is the common-sense reading of the 14th Amendment that offers citizenship at birth. And in addition to that, you've got reams of legislation and even Supreme Court precedent hold the exact same thing.
The Supreme Court already addressed this issue in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, which dates all the way back to 1898. Feel free to read up on it, but essentially, the Supreme Court said that a man of Chinese descent, born of two Chinese citizens in the U.S., was a "native-born citizen".
Now there are plenty of reasons why you could disagree with that decision, and argue that it should be overturned or changed by Amendment. I do myself. But that has been the law in this country, as defined by the Supreme Court, since 1898, and you can't go simply back and revoke the citizenship status of any person granted citizenship under that precedent, which is really what you're advocating.
Native Born does not Natural Born make...
Hi again, daisy. I meant to write back sooner but I got distracted by a couple of new eligibility threads. I’m getting excited afresh by some of these developments; it looks like 2012 will be Obama’s political Waterloo, if he doesn’t trip over the eligibility issue even before then. It has got to be worrying him. With Chris Matthews and Abercrombie discussing it, and now new legislation being prepared in Montana, the net is tightening. I wouldn’t want to be in Obama’s fraudulent shoes tonight.
Anyway, I read your post twice, and I was so glad you were back. You always write such interesting and uplifting comments. Yes, the Tucson tragedy is almost more than one can comprehend, isn’t it? And talk about vitriol. It’s been just unbelievable, how the MSM and the Dems have exploited this against conservatives. So very shameful! As you said, it’s up to us to remember that little girl and the others. How could anyone shoot an innocent little 9 yo??? Prayers for the families of all who suffered loss.
Daisy, I think perhaps one of the single most important things we can do is contact our elected officials. We need to praise the ones who are doing the right thing, and encourage those who aren’t to get started. Fortunately I think the pols are nervous after what the TEA party did in Nov. They may be in more of a mood to listen to us now than before. We just need to keep the calls and emails coming. Perhaps the group you were trying to organize could commit to making x-number of contacts per week. We could encourage each other, and keep each other motivated. Just a thought.
Well it’s late and I have to write an email before I can head to bed. I meant to post back to you sooner, though, so I took this opportunity. Thanks again for the lovely post. Blessings to you.
|How can a USURPER command our armed forces?
How can a USURPER make appointments to the Supreme Court?
How can a USURPER sign any treaties with foreign governments?
How can a USURPER sign anything into law, let alone the health care monstrosity?
When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdoms dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.s children.http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html
Factcheck.org goes on to say this about Obama Sr., Jr. and the British Nationality Act of 1948:
In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii)* and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html
* Assumes yet to be proven HI birth
Even the modern day State Department rules discusses the problems associated with dual citizenship:
7 FAM 081: U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality:http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86563.pdf
So, back to the question: "HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?"
Bottom line: Even IF (big IF) he was born in HI, he was born a subject to the crown of her majesty the Queen of England by birthright. He could not be considered a Natural Born Citizen as known by and as intended by the framers.
What follows, is a bit of information with regards to the Constitutional term "Natural Born Citizen" (specifically) and NOT about the entire makeup, functions, origins and influences that made/make up our form of government, a Constitutional Republic. Clearly, the framers relied upon many different sources to create our new form of government.
Who, or "what" constituted a natural born citizen was well known to the framers. Jay would not have made such a suggestion to the others (Washington & the rest of those in attendance at the Constitutional Convention) unless there was a clear understanding of what that term meant. The definition comes from a source that not only were the framers familiar with, but the founders (many who were both) as well. And yes, even though many could not speak French, most read French (except, notably, Washington who would defer to Jefferson when such interpretation was needed).
June 18th, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States." Works of Alexander Hamilton (page 407).
July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) - John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." [the word born is underlined in Jay's letter which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.]
September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: "I thank you for the hints contained in your letter"
September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay's letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) - The "Natural Born Citizen" requirement is now found in their drafts. Madison's notes of the Convention
There, we can see crystal clear evidence that the framers wanted the citizenship requirement for the Commander in Chief to be MORE than simply a "citizen." As much as possible, they wanted someone born with alligience owed soley the the United States. If they didn't, they would have accepted Hamilton's suggestion earlier in the debates. Furthermore, Hamilton clearly knew the difference between a "citizen" and a "natural born" citizen as he was eminently familiar with Vattel. See Rutgers v. Waddington below for but one example of how much Hamilton, a prominent lawyer in N.Y.C., relied upon Vattel.
Original French version of Vattel's Law of Nations:
Emer de Vattel, Le droit des gens, ou Principes de la loi naturelle, vol. 1 (of 2) 
A fairly detailed, historical, etymology of the term "Natural Born Citizen" can be found here: http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn/index.htm
"This 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel is of special importance to scholars of constitutional history and law, for it was read by many of the Founders of the United States of America, and informed their understanding of the principles of law which became established in the Constitution of 1787. Chitty's notes and the appended commentaries by Edward D. Ingraham, used in lectures at William and Mary College, provide a valuable perspective on Vattel's exposition from the viewpoint of American jurists who had adapted those principles to the American legal experience."
From "Two centuries' growth of American law, 1701-1901, Volume 1" by Yale Law School:
When our government took its place among nations, its statesmen were guided by the treatises of Grotius, Barbeyrac, The literary Puffendorf, Bynkershoek, above all, Vattel. [Madison's letters] Vattel was used, 1792-1795, by President Stiles at Yale for instruction.(pg. 516) At Harvard in 1828-29, Honorable Joseph Story, appointed Dane Professor of Law, gave lectures on the Law of Nature and of Nations. One of the books he used was Vattels. (pg. 519)
Vattel's Law of Nations, built upon "natural law - which has it's roots in ancient Greece, was influenced by Leibniz.
Why natural law, Vattel vs English common law, Blackstone: "The English common law provided that an alien naturalized is to all intents and purposes a natural born subject. Co. Litt. 129 (quoted and cited in Rhodes, 27 F.Cass. at 790). With such recognition, a naturalized citizen would have been eligible to be President of the new Republic."
American writers quoted The Law of Nations on constitutional law, almost immediately after the book's publication (In original French in 1758, and English in 1760). In 1764, James Otis of Massachusetts argued, in one of the leading pamphlets of the day, "The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved," that the colonial charters were constitutional arrangements. He then quoted Vattel, that the right to establish a constitution lies with the nation as a whole, and the Parliament lacked the right to change the fundamental principles of the British Constitution. Boston revolutionary leader Samuel Adams wrote in 1772, "Vattel tells us plainly and without hesitation, that 'the supreme legislative cannot change the constitution,' 'that their authority does not extend so far,' and 'that they ought to consider the fundamental laws as sacred, if the nation has not, in very express terms, given them power to change them.' " In a debate with the Colonial Governor of Massachusetts, in 1773, John Adams quoted Vattel that the parliament does not have the power to change the constitution.
Thomas Jefferson (for one example) had the 1758 version as well as a 1775 version in his own library:
"One division [Of the library in Jay's "Bedford House"] contains the favorite authors of the Chief Justice, weighty folios of Grotius, Puffendorf, Vattel and other masters of the science of international law, standard theological and miscellaneous works and the classic authors of antiquity. Pg. 108. "
In AUTOBIOGRAPHY by Thomas Jefferson, he states: "On the 1st of June 1779. I was appointed Governor of the Commonwealth and retired from the legislature. Being elected also one of the Visitors of Wm. & Mary college, a self-electing body, I effected, during my residence in Williamsburg that year, a change in the organization of that institution by abolishing the Grammar school, and the two professorships of Divinity & Oriental languages, and substituting a professorship of Law & Police, one of Anatomy Medicine and Chemistry, and one of Modern languages; and the charter confining us to six professorships, we added the law of Nature & Nations..." This was 8 years prior the the writing of the Constitution! [See the "Law of Nature & Nations" section of his personal library to get an idea of what he included in this curriculum in America's 1st law school].
Vattel was the most popular of all writers on the law of nations in America before, but especially after, the American Revolution. Vattel's The Law of Nations arrived, shortly after its publication, in an America, which had already been greatly influenced by Leibniz. No later than 1770, it was used as a textbook in colleges. It was often quoted in speeches before judicial tribunals and legislatures, and used in formulating policy. Following the Revolution, Vattel's influence grew. Vattel was cited far more often than Grotius and Puffendorf, in court proceedings, from 1789 to 1820.
Among those citing Vattel in legal cases and government documents, were Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, James Wilson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, and John Marshall. John Adams, the future delegate to the Continental Congress, second President of the U.S., and father of President John Quincy Adams, recorded in his Diary on Feb. 1, 1763, that after spending the day frivolously, instead of reading and thinking, "The Idea of M. de Vattel indeed, scowling and frowning, haunted me." In 1765, Adams copied into his Diary three statements by Vattel, "of great use to Judges," that laws should be interpreted according to the intent of the author, and every interpretation which leads to absurdity should be rejected. In a letter to the Foreign Minister of Denmark, in 1779, Benjamin Franklin quoted Vattel, and "his excellent Treatise entitled Le Droit des Gens." James Madison, as a member of the Continental Congress in 1780, drafted the instructions sent to John Jay, for negotiating a treaty with Spain, which quotes at length from The Law of Nations. Jay complained that this letter, which was probably read by the Spanish government, was not in code, and "Vattel's Law of Nations, which I found quoted in a letter from Congress, is prohibited here." Later, John Marshall, during his thirty-four years as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, quoted Vattel by far the most among all authors on the law of nations.
The concepts of "natural law" and the phrase "Laws of Nature" (of which Law of Nations is built upon) are found within the language of the Declaration of Independence itself:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governedThose (& others) are clearly NOT derived from English law, but rather from natural law concepts (which can be found in Vattel's Law of Nations).
Alexander Hamiliton uses Vattel as the standard.
The adoption of a constitution, by the Constitutional Congress in 1787, based on Leibnizian principles rather than British legal doctrine, was certainly not inevitable. However, British legal experts such as Blackstone, who argued that the Parliament and King could change the constitution, were increasingly recognized by the Americans as proponents of arbitrary power. The early revolutionary leaders' emphasis on Vattel as the authority on constitutional law, with his conception that a nation must choose the best constitution to ensure its perfection and happiness, had very fortunate consequences for the United States and the world, when the U.S. Constitution was later written...
The concepts of "natural law" continued in the Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect UnionAgain, those phrases are not from England's common law, but rather from natural law and even specifically mentions "Law of Nations."
Emerich de Vattel kept Cicero's teachings at the forefront of the political and philosophical debates leading to the creation of the United States and its Constitution.195 In correspondence with the publisher of the English edition of Vattel, Benjamin Franklin reported, "[Vattel] has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress now sitting...(see [Franlin/Dumas connection])"196 Modern scholars have noted further that Vattel significantly influenced the Constitution.197 It is in this light that we should regard Article I, which grants Congress the power to "define and punish . . . Offences against the Law of Nations,"198 and Article VI, which declares that "Treaties . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land."199
"Since the Revolution every State has made great inroads & with great propriety in many instances on this monarchical code.[Edit: Englands "Common Law"] The "revisal of the laws" by a Committe of wch. Col. Mason was a member, though not an acting one, abounds with such innovations. The abolition of the right of primogeniture, which I am sure Col. Mason does not disapprove, falls under this head.. What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & anti-republican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law."
George Mason, In Convention, Richmond (Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution), Wednesday, June 18, 1788:
On October 5, 1789, President George Washington checked out two books from the New York Society Library, one of which was Emmerich de Vattels "Law of Nations."
Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789.
Ramsay reaffirms the definition a Natural Born Citizen (born in country, to citizen parents (plural)) in 1789 A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789)
The Naturalization Act of 1790, which states (in relevant part) "that the children of citizens [plural] of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens"
Of course, the Act of 1790 was repealed by the Act of 1795 (which did NOT attempt to define or extend the definition for NBC). What the 1st Congress had tried to do in 1790 was to EXTEND the known definition (of born in country to citizen parentS) to those born outside of sovereign territory, to citizen parentS. Of course, they can't do that. Congress (by itself) doesn't have the Constitutional authority to define (or EXTEND) the Constitutional term "Natural Born Citizen." Only a SCOTUS decision on the intent of the framers, or an amendment to the Constitution can do that.
Chief Justice Marshall in, The Nereide, 9 Cranch 388, 423 (1815), "the Court is bound by the law of nations which is a part of the law of the land"
The New Englander, Volume 3 (1845) states: "The expression citizen of the United States occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term natural born citizen is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states."
More recently, Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and both Bush's referenced "law of nations." In all, at least 30 of the 44 (a number that includes the 2 Usurpers Arthur and Obama/Soetoro) spoke of the "law of nations" in a message or speech.
A few of the more notable POTUS references to "law of nations" are:
SCOTUS, in an 1887 case cites Vattel a number of times and reitterates that his work was translated into English in 1760:
SCOTUS, in 2003, stated "For two centuries we have affirmed that the domestic law of the United States recognizes the law of nations." [Note: the link is to a PDF]
It's interesting to note that (non binding) Senate Resolution 511, which attempted to proclaim that Sen. John McCain was a "Natural Born Citizen" because he was born to citizen parentS, even they referenced the (repealed) Naturalization Act of 1790: "Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen'".
The point is that up until relatively recently, the SCOTUS, the Congress, Presidents and the country were well acquainted with the law of nations and Vattel's edition in particular. It is also that, with the exception of the repealed Act of 1790 which tried to EXTEND the definition, the meaning of the term "Natural Born Citizen" (of the U.S.) has ALWAYS been about being born within the sovereign territory or jurisdiction of the U.S. to 2 citizen parents (& therefore parents who do NOT owe allegiance to another, foreign, country and who often then pass that foreign citizenship & allegiance owed on to their child - by birthright).
How do you know that? The Constitution never defines the term "Natural Born". That's the entire problem.
Ignorance is not a defense...the Senate even put itself on record in 2008 with their special commission on which Obama and Hillary were both serving. As a matter of fact, Obama tried but failed to get himself included in the non-binding resolution.
The Senate defined natural born Citizen in 2008, and Obama didnt qualify
DEMOCRAT SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY AND OTHERS RESOLVED THAT IT TOOK TWO CITIZEN PARENTS TO BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
So if “Obama” qualifies because he has 2 citizen parents, then his biological daddy is not BHO Sr. and thusly has deceived the American public as well as people who purchased his books and provided him with campaign donations for running for public office based on a false life narrative. I would suspect many people (perhaps even a large classaction group) would be filing lawsuits for false impersonation. As a matter of fact, California has a new law criminalizing false impersonation on the iternet...just sayin’!
Would you please enlighten us and describe what exactly is required, in your opinion, to be a natural-born citizen and eligible for the Presidency?
There must be SOME requirement, right? Otherwise, Schwarzenegger could run...and the Senate would not have investigated McCain...and there wouldn’t have been questions raised about Goldwater, Arthur, Obama, etc...
I think the admin moderator banned TNTNT . He was an agitator on many threads.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.