A QUESTION OF ELIGIBILITY - THE VIDEO - PART 1

From NATURALBORNCITIZEN: THE LEFT IS SHREDDING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AT BREAKNECK SPEED!!!!!!!!!!

Obama Was A Natural Born Subject: the Founders’ Greatest Fear As To Commander In Chief.
Posted in Uncategorized on August 7, 2009 by naturalborncitizen


Our current US President was a Great British citizen at the time of his birth. He then became a Kenyan citizen followed by what appears to be citizenship in Indonesia. Perhaps he is currently a citizen or subject of a nation other than the US.

Obama’s own web site carried an admission that his birth status was governed by Great Britain. That admission was published by Obama’s Fight The Smears web site as quoted from a discussion of Obama’s UK citizenship written by Factcheck.org.

The Factcheck.org essay went even further than the admission quoted by Obama’s site. It further stated:

“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…Obama’s British citizenship was short-lived.”

Neither Obama nor Factcheck.org dispute that Obama was a British citizen at birth. As you can see, it has been admitted. All those who continue to dispute this fact are delusional. Obama was a British citizen at birth. Fact. Checked. Established. The only question that remains on the issue is whether he’s still a British citizen or subject.

Having been a British citizen at birth, Obama was therefore a natural born subject of Great Britain. Justice Gray – writing for the Supreme Court majority in Wong Kim Ark – quoted the following from a prior US District Court decision:

“In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: ‘All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural- born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. ”

Birth and allegiance go together. Obama’s father conveyed British citizenship upon his son at birth. His son, Obama Jr., was a natural born subject of the British monarchy. Even if Obama was born in Hawaii and was a US citizen at birth, nothing can change the fact that he was also a natural born subject of Great Britain as well as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

The fact that Obama is a natural born subject has – up until this article – gone largely unnoticed. According to Blackstone’s Commentaries:

“all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception;”

Obama’s allegiance was – at the time of his birth – divided. And the framers would never have considered him eligible to be President. The same can be said for the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark which also indicated that the native born son of an alien was not natural born.

Now we shall turn our attention to the fears expressed by our founding fathers as to the possibility that foreigners might gain political footholds in our federal government. The issue was discussed explicitly by Alexander Hamilton in Essay 68 of the Federalist Papers wherein he stated:

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? (Emphasis added.)

In George Washington’s farewell address in 1796, he stated these most important words which today would be soundly ridiculed by the propaganda of political correct sarcasm:

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism…

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another…

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. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield…

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government...

Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests…(Emphasis added.)

The main stream media would have you believe that a natural born subject – a citizen at birth of Great Britain – entangled closely with the nation of Kenya where he was a citizen until at least the age of 21 – and still may be according to Kenyan law – would be eligible to the office of President of the United States and to be its Commander In Chief. And they push this propaganda down your throat as if it weren’t even a serious issue.

They are lying to you and the depths of their lies betray their genuine recognition that a Constitutional crime has been committed against the Document and the judgment of the founders.

Your press, members of Congress, Senate and current Supreme Court have sold you out, America.

Something wicked this way comes.

And that wickedness comes in the form of a “citizen of the world” who declares our Constitution a flawed document out of one side of his mouth, while allegedly declaring an oath to protect it from the other. (Although the oath was taken in private, so who really knows.) When I recently said I wasn’t worried about Obama, what I meant was that I wasn’t worried about him anymore than the Bush cabal or the Clintons. They all perpetrated crimes against the Constitution.

So many of you are now so very very concerned about our Constitution. Your patriotic fervor has been stoked by Hamilton and Washington just now as you wipe those Constitutional tears away. Your heart burns for the Constitution and the nation, doesn’t it.

But let me take this chance to tell those of you who supported torture, unconstitutional wars and the murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians – children, mothers, grandmothers – by the last administration – you don’t deserve the protections of our Constitution.

The Iraq war isn’t Constitutional. There was no declaration of war by Congress. And the war on terror is a myth. “War” is only declared against a foreign state – not an ideology. Terrorism is a crime and 911 should have been handled as a crime scene. But the forensic evidence was shipped out to China. And the case was solved in 24 hours by the same people who allegedly failed to stop it.

I’m not saying 911 was an “inside job” because nobody really knows the whole story. But anyone who denies that elements of the crime have been covered up is lying or just ignorant of basic facts.

And we’re not supposed to do torture. But Scalia would have you believe that torture isn’t a form of punishment. He might just consider it punishment if he were subjected to it. Scalia knows with absolute certainty that torture is punishment. But the Constitution protects against cruel and unusual punishment, so Scalia has to play word games to get the desired ruling he seeks. This makes him an enemy of the Constitution too.

There are many enemies of the Constitution in high places. But you only care about Obama? None of the above bothered so many of you. But now you want to preserve the Constitution?

You’re too late.

This nation will not exist as a Constitutional republic for much longer. Nothing can be done to stop the utter dismantling of the Constitution. It will continue in name only. But the protections it once granted will be ancient relics of a failed experiment in liberty: not failed because our founding fathers didn’t prepare us – failed because we prostituted our ethics for revenge.

I’ve made the legal case that Obama is not a natural born citizen and should not be President. But he is President and Commander In Chief. NOTHING WILL CHANGE THAT [???? IS IT TOO LATE????]

This country does not have the will power to change it. The country sold its soul to Bush, Clinton, Bush… You didn’t care about the Constitution then and you’re gonna get what you got coming to you now.

CHANGE HAS COME TO AMERICA.

THE RELEVANT OBAMA ADMISSION

THE RELEVANT OBAMA ADMISSION

At Barack Obama’s web site, the following admission:
“FactCheck.org Clarifies Barack’s Citizenship

‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s 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…’ “

Read that last line again.

“That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…”

That’s an admission that Great Britain “governed the status” of Barack Obama, Jr. Brack Obama has chosen to highlight this on his own volition.

And this leads to the relevant question:

HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’S STATUS BE “GOVERNED” BY GREAT BRITAIN?

A natural born citizen’s status should only be governed by the United States. This is the core issue before the Supreme Court of the United States.

NATURAL BORN CITIZEN Defined

PLEASE ALSO VISIT THIS LINK: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
Thank you George.

There has been much debate as to whether the term "Natural Born Citizen" has ever been legally defined or will some court have to finally define it, such asthe Supreme Court of the United States. The term "Natural Born Citizen" is a requirement for only two positions within our government, President and Vice-President. What did the Founding Father's and Framers of the United States Constitution mean to do or accomplish by placing this requirement for the
highest office?

First off, let us look at what the Framer's used as a guide.

The Founding Fathers of the United States, used Vattel's Laws of Nations as their guide and reference to meanings and definitions within our Constitution.

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.

Benjamin Franklin's (a signer of our Constitution) letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775
"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 (after depositing one in our own public library here, and send the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author"?

I am sure most reading this will know who Benjamin Franklin was. However one reference will not squell the unbelief that Vattel's Laws of Nations, is not clear enough. So do a search on Laws of Nations and you will get HUNDREDS of responses. http://rs6.loc.gov/amme/hlawquery.html This from the Library of Congress. Another excellent post is the following; The concept of judicial review, which Hamilton had championed in Rutgers v. Waddington, was included in
the U.S. Constitution. In {The Federalist Papers,} No. 78, "The Judges as Guardians of the Constitution," circulated as part of the debate over the new Constitution, Hamilton developed a conception of constitutional law which wascoherent with Vattel's conception. Hamilton stated that it is a "fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness." However, the Constitution can only be changed by the nation as a whole, and not by the temporary passions of the majority or by the legislature. Both to protect the Constitution, but also to ensure just enforcement of the law, the independence of the judiciary from the legislature and the executive branch is essential. The judiciary must be the guardians of the Constitution, to ensure that all legislative decisions are coherent with it. This idea championed by Hamilton, that the courts ensured that the Executive and Legislative branches followed the Constitution, was later established as a principle of American jurisprudence by Chief Justice John Marshall.

Again proving the Constitution, it's meaning, it's wording , and it's definitions were clearly a result of being referenced to Vattel's Laws of Nations. So what does the Laws of Nations say about a "Natural Born Citizen"?

Vattel in Bk 1 Sec 212, states the following:
§ 212. Citizens and natives.

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.

As I have stated before and will state here again. Barack Obama, he has admitted being a British citizen at birth. From his own web-site, "When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom's 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. Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of
allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982."

How can a British subject at birth, be free from any foreign influence as described by John Jay in the following;

The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand's Records, Volume 3] LXVIII. John Jay to George Washington.3 [Note 3: 3 Documentary History of the Constitution, IV, 237.] New York 25 July 1787

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.

Again Alexander Hamilton (a signer of our Constitution) in the Gazette of the United States, published in Philadelphia, on June 29, 1793 "The second article of the Constitution of the United States, section first, establishes this general proposition, that "the EXECUTIVE POWER shall be vested in a President of the United States of America…The executive is charged with the execution of all laws, the law of nations, as well as the municipal law, by which the former are
recognized and adopted."

"The Law of Nations" provides the Constitutional definition of a "natural born citizen, historical records reveal that Vattel's work was quoted at the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787, various State Constitutional Conventions, and was also referenced in a 1785 letter by John Jay regarding a diplomatic matter.

Should any court finally decide that there IS ample evidence that Barack Obama is not qualified to hold the Office of the President of the United States, they will have to rely on Vattel as the defining definition and argument, and stare reality in the face that not only is Barack Obama unqualified, but that he is not even a US Citizen.

As a final note concerning the Supreme Court and Laws of Nations, I direct you to the following;

The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 3] Saturday, June 21, 1788.

Page 564

There is to be one Supreme Court–for chancery, admiralty, common pleas, and exchequer, (which great eases are left in England to four great, courts,) to which are added criminal jurisdiction, and all cases depending on the law of nations–a most extensive jurisdiction. This court has more power than any court under heaven. One set of judges ought not to have this power–and judges, particular, who have temptation always before their eyes. The court thus
organized are to execute laws made by thirteen nations, dissimilar in their customs, manners, laws, and interests. If we advert to the customs of these different sovereignties, we shall find them repugnant and dissimilar. Yet they are all forced to unite and concur in making these laws. They are to form them on one principle, and on one idea, whether the civil law, common law, or law of nations.

The gentleman was driven, the other day, to the expedient of acknowledging the necessity of having thirteen different tax laws. This destroys the principle, that he who lays a tax should feel it and bear his proportion of it. This has not been answered: it will involve consequences so absurd, that, I presume, they will not attempt to make thirteen different codes. They will be
obliged to make one code. How will they make one code, without being contradictory to some of the laws of the different states?

Allow me to make one more reference:

The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 4] Seamen's Bill.–For the Regulation of Seamen on Board the Public Vessels, and in the Merchant Service of the United States. House of Representatives, February, 1813.

Mr. SEYBERT. The Constitution of the United States declares, Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies, throughout the United States." Sir, the rule only relates to the mode; it is only operative during the nascent state of the political conversion, and it ceases to have effect the moment after the process has been completed. Your Constitution only recognizes the highest grade of citizenship that can be conferred. The alien is thus made a native, as it were, and is fully vested with every eight and privilege attached to the native, with the exception impressed on the Constitution Your statutes cannot deprive any particular species of citizens of the right of personal liberty, or the locomotive faculty, because the Constitution does not characterize the citizens of the United States as native and naturalized. Our great family is composed of a class of men forming a single genus, who, to all intents and purposes, are equal, except in the instance specified–that of not being eligible to the presidency of the United States. The only exception to the rule is expressed in the Constitution.

If other exceptions had been contemplated by the framers of that instrument, they would also have been expressed. None other having been expressed, he said, it followed that your legislative acts could not make individual exceptions touching the occupation of a citizen. All freemen, citizens of the United States, may pursue their happiness in any manner and in any situation they please, provided they do not violate the rights of others. You cannot deny to any portion of your citizens, who desire to plough the deep, the right to do so, whilst you permit another portion of them the enjoyment of that right.



Mr. ARCHER. The framers of our Constitution did not intend to confine Congress to the technical meaning of the word naturalization, in the exercise of that power–the more especially when the comprehensive word rule was made use of. The principle upon which the power was to be exercised was left to the judicious exercise of Congress; all that was required was, that the rule should be uniform throughout the states. In the grant there is no other specification, as to the exercise of it, than that of its uniformity. The term naturalization was borrowed from England. It must be understood here in the sense and meaning which was, there attached to it. Whether it was absolute or qualified, it was still a naturalization. But the grant of a power in general terms necessarily implied the right to exercise that power in all its gradations. It Was in the political as it was in the natural world: the genus included the species. Besides, the power to naturalize was an attribute to sovereignty. It was either absolute or qualified; and if the grant to Congress only implied a power of unlimited naturalization, the power to qualify existed in the states or in the people, for what was not specifically granted was reserved.

In treating of the executive power, the Constitution defines the qualifications of the President. It declares that he should be a natural-born citizen, or a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution. This article is unquestionably no limitation of the power of Congress upon the subject of naturalization. It was impossible to abridge a specific grant of power without a specific limitation,
and the article alluded to could not be tortured, by the most ingenious mind, to diminish, even by implication, the authority of Congress upon a subject to which it was totally irrelevant.